SITREP — Diamond Edge TMS Website Review

Review of the practice's live site at www.diamondedgetms.com. Covers regulatory obligations, accessibility, and search visibility. Each item was checked against the live site. Where a rule is cited, it is cited against the regulation.

Subject: www.diamondedgetms.com
Findings: 10 — 1 red, 2 amber, 7 routine
Legal weight: 3 items carry regulatory weight — marked Regulation at 3.1, 5.3 and 5.4
Action owner: 4 yours alone · 3 require a request to Treatspace · 3 need both
Assessed clear: 7 items examined, no defect found

1. BLUF

The site is in better condition than expected. One item requires action. Three carry legal weight. The rest is craft.

One document is missing. The privacy notice published on the site is the website vendor's, not the practice's. Federal rule requires the practice to post its own. Item 3.1.
Three items carry legal weight — 3.1, 5.3, 5.4. Take those to counsel. Everything else is discretionary.
Nothing found is urgent apart from 3.1. No item on this list poses immediate risk to the practice or to patients.
Six of the ten need Treatspace to action or implement. Only four are yours alone. Each item names its owner.
Seven items were checked and cleared, including several that commonly fail on medical practice sites. The site is fast, the reviews are handled correctly, and the page titles are well written.
The highest-value change is not a defect. Dr. Block's military service is stored as images and is invisible to search engines. Item 5.1.

2. Status summary

Qty	Status	Assessment
1	Red	Action required. A patient-facing document required by federal rule is not published on the site.
2	Amber	Correct when able. Accessibility of the primary contact control, and how the practice appears in Google results.
7	Routine	Improvements and one preventive note. None urgent.
7	Clear	Examined, no defect found. Includes several things that commonly go wrong.

3. Reading this report

Each finding is broken into fixed fields — Overview, Description, Impact, Solution, Action owner. Read the Overview lines alone and you have the report. Read Action owner to see what you can fix yourself and what needs a request to your website vendor.

Two further signals, kept separate. The colour band down the left of each item shows how soon it needs attention. The tag shows what authority sits behind it. Something can be legally required and still not urgent.

Anything tagged in red carries legal weight. Three items do. Those go to counsel. The rest is craft.

Regulation: Binding law. Marked red throughout. Linked to the regulation so you or your advisor can read the text directly.
Standard: A published technical standard. Whether it binds you depends on circumstances stated in the item.
Platform policy: A private company's rules. Google's, in every case here. Not law. No legal consequence. The only cost is how you appear in their results.
Recommendation: Professional opinion. Nothing is wrong. Something could be better.

4. Red — action required

3.1

Privacy notice on the site is the vendor's, not the practice's

Regulation

Overview: The practice must publish its own Notice of Privacy Practices. It currently publishes the website vendor's.
Description: Four policy links in the footer resolve to treatspace.com. All four were read. The one presented as a HIPAA statement describes Treatspace's practices as a business associate: its own staff, its own audit process, its Pittsburgh address and support email. It does not mention Diamond Edge TMS or Dr. Block. It contains no privacy contact, no complaint procedure, no right to complain to the Secretary of HHS, and no effective date.
Impact: 45 CFR 164.520(c)(3)(i) requires a covered entity maintaining a services website to prominently post its own notice. The vendor document cannot satisfy this and cannot be adopted by editing, because it describes the opposite side of the business-associate relationship. Separately, notices had to be updated by 16 February 2026 to address 42 CFR Part 2 substance use disorder records, which reaches practices that merely receive such records.
Solution: Adopt an HHS model notice, complete the entity-specific fields, host it on the practice domain. HHS publishes them free, built to be filled in. Do it before any domain change so it moves with you.
Action owner: Diamond Edge TMSAction requiredThe obligation is the covered entity'sTreatspace (vendor)Not affectedNot the platform's duty
References: 45 CFR 164.520 — law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/164.520
HHS model notices — hhs.gov/hipaa/…/model-notices-privacy-practices

5. Amber — correct when able

4.1

Click-to-call button fails the readable contrast threshold

Standard

Overview

Your phone button is below the contrast level required for readability. It is the primary way a patient reaches you.

Description

Automated accessibility testing flags four failures.

CONTROL                 COLOURS              MEASURED    REQUIRED
click-to-call button    white on #5e96ea      2.98 : 1     4.5 : 1
service page heading    white on #5e96ea      2.98 : 1       3 : 1
body links              #007bff on white      3.97 : 1     4.5 : 1

Impact

Patients include veterans and older adults. A phone number that is hard to read costs calls, independent of any standard. On whether it binds you: web accessibility is not settled under the ADA for private businesses, whatever accessibility vendors claim. But 45 CFR 84.84 makes WCAG 2.1 AA binding on practices receiving federal financial assistance, and HHS now treats Medicare Part B participation as qualifying. If you bill Part B, the date is 11 May 2027 at 15+ employees, or 10 May 2028 below that.

Solution

Darken the button background. A few shades clears the threshold. Confirm Part B participation with your billing side to establish whether the deadline applies.

Action owner

Diamond Edge TMSAction requiredYour brand colour, your lost callsTreatspace (vendor)Action requiredChange is made in the platform theme

References

45 CFR 84.84 — law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/84.84
DOJ web guidance — ada.gov/resources/web-guidance

4.2

Star ratings in the site's code will not appear in Google results

Platform policy

Overview: Hidden rating data on all twelve pages will never display. Nothing is lost, but two side effects are worth correcting.
Description: Every page carries a 5.0 average from 26 reviews, intended to produce stars in search results. Google does not show star ratings for a business publishing ratings about itself. That holds even though the reviews genuinely come from your Google Business Profile. The location page additionally publishes two different ratings at once, 5.0 from 26 reviews and 4.56 from 27, and one links to a page that no longer exists.
Impact: The stars do not appear. Google states this does not affect ranking, so there is no ranking risk. Your real rating already shows in map results, drawn from your Business Profile. Separately, a flat 5.0 reads as implausible to patients; a 4.56 with visible detail reads as more trustworthy.
Solution: Raise with Treatspace. Low priority given nothing is actually lost.
Action owner: Diamond Edge TMSNot affectedNothing you didTreatspace (vendor)Action requiredPlatform-generated markup
References: Google review snippets — developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/review-snippet

6. Routine

5.1

Military service is stored as images and is invisible to search

Recommendation

Overview: Your strongest differentiator cannot be read by search engines. Highest-value change on this list.
Description: The Military Service section of the biography page is a photo slideshow. A search engine or screen reader reads it as "Slide 1, Slide 2, Slide 3." The substance exists only inside the pictures.
Impact: The site targets veterans, service members, first responders and TRICARE families. A psychiatrist's own Army service is why that focus is credible. The credential is currently invisible to exactly the people searching for it.
Solution: Publish the same content as text, photographs alongside. Likely the largest single gain available for new patient enquiries.
Action owner: Diamond Edge TMSAction requiredOnly you can supply the textTreatspace (vendor)Action requiredPage must render it as text

5.2

Stronger evidence exists for the TMS results you cite

Recommendation

Overview: Both cited studies are quoted accurately. One is for a different manufacturer's device. A larger NeuroStar study exists.
Description: Both studies on the TMS page were checked against the published papers; the figures are correct. The "about 4 out of 5 … around half" figures come from a study of Brainsway Deep TMS: different device from the NeuroStar you use, funded by that manufacturer, 111 patients.
Impact: No accuracy problem. Sackeim et al. (2020) reports 5,010 NeuroStar patients across 103 sites, response 58–83%, remission 28–62%. Your current figures sit inside that range. The swap puts your strongest claim on your own device's largest dataset.
Solution: Swap the citation. Same claim, better evidence, and it becomes about the machine in your office.
Action owner: Diamond Edge TMSAction requiredYour copyTreatspace (vendor)Not affected
References: Sackeim et al. 2020 — pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32799106

5.3

Replying to online reviews with patient detail

Regulation

Overview: Not found on your site. Included because it sits beside something you do and is the clearest documented risk of its kind.
Description: Two of the penalties issued in this area went to dental practices that replied to negative reviews with details about the patient: confirming someone was a patient, correcting their account of a visit, naming a treatment. Both settled, at $10,000 and $23,000. In each case the disclosure was the trigger; a deficient privacy notice was found afterwards during the investigation.
Impact: The instinct to correct an unfair review is natural, and it is the instinct that produced both penalties. A patient may disclose their own care publicly. The practice replying in the same thread is a different act under different rules.
Solution: Never confirm someone is a patient, or reference any detail of their care, even to correct something false. A neutral reply inviting the person to call the office handles every case safely. Brief anyone with access to the Google Business Profile.
Action owner: Diamond Edge TMSAction requiredStaff practice, not a site defectTreatspace (vendor)Not affected
References: New Vision Dental agreement — hhs.gov/hipaa/…/new-vision-ra-cap

5.4

Website tracking may fall under Washington's health data law

Regulation

Overview: Flagged, not concluded. A question for your counsel rather than a finding.
Description: The site runs Google Tag Manager with an advertising conversion tag. On a psychiatry practice's website, who visited and what they viewed can itself indicate mental health status.
Impact: Washington's My Health My Data Act is misread in both directions. Its HIPAA exemption operates at the data level, not the entity level: patient records are exempt, marketing analytics and advertising data about site visitors generally are not. The Act expressly reaches mental health status and location data indicating access to health services. Establishing what is actually transmitted needs more than a review of the pages supports.
Solution: Ask your compliance advisor whether the site's advertising and analytics tags are in scope. Live area; similar tracking on healthcare sites has drawn attention elsewhere.
Action owner: Diamond Edge TMSAction requiredYou own the advertising decisionTreatspace (vendor)Action requiredImplements the tags
References: RCW 19.373 — app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.373

5.5

Heading levels skip on six pages

Standard

Overview: Screen reader navigation is degraded on six pages. No ranking effect.
Description: Six pages jump from a first-level heading straight to a third, and from second to fourth. Automated testing flags it.
Impact: People using screen readers navigate by moving between headings. Gaps in the sequence make a page harder to move through. Google has stated multiple headings do not affect ranking, so this is an accessibility point only.
Solution: Template change on the website platform. Not a per-page edit.
Action owner: Diamond Edge TMSNot affectedTreatspace (vendor)Action requiredTemplate defect

5.6

The insurance page has no main heading

Recommendation

Overview: A page patients search for by carrier name is nearly empty.
Description: The insurance page carries no top-level heading and very little text.
Impact: Coverage, TRICARE especially, is something patients search by name before they call. This page does more work than its length suggests.
Solution: Add a heading. Name the carriers and plans accepted.
Action owner: Diamond Edge TMSAction requiredSupply the carrier listTreatspace (vendor)Action requiredAdd the heading

5.7

The logo is stretched on every page

Recommendation

Overview: The platform generates a distorted copy of your logo. The correct file is smaller.
Description: The website platform generates a smaller copy at wrong proportions, about 8% narrower than the original. It appears that way on every page.
Impact: Minor, but it is your mark rendered incorrectly sitewide. The original file is correct and is in fact a smaller file than the distorted one.
Solution: Use the original file. Nothing needs redrawing.
Action owner: Diamond Edge TMSNot affectedTreatspace (vendor)Action requiredThumbnail generator

7. Assessed clear

Examined, no defect found. Several of these commonly fail on medical practice sites. A few looked like problems until examined properly. Recorded so the list above is read in proportion.

✓Site speed. NSTR. Measured, not assumed. 97 of 100 on mobile. Passes all three of Google's page experience thresholds. The site is fast.

✓Patient reviews. NSTR. Displayed reviews come from your Google Business Profile with source attributed. Patients published those words themselves.

✓How TMS is described. NSTR. The site correctly says NeuroStar is FDA cleared. Calling a cleared device "approved" is a recognised problem. The site avoids it.

✓Treatment effectiveness figures. NSTR. Both cited studies check out against the published papers, including the comparison against medication.

✓Duplicate About and Providers pages. NSTR. Identical text, but the code already tells Google which one counts. Correctly handled.

✓Page titles and descriptions. NSTR. Well written, correctly sized, properly targeted throughout. Genuinely good work.

✓Software currency. NSTR. The libraries the site loads carry no known vulnerabilities.