Bangkok Hospital Pattaya, Pattaya
check pending
63index /100
M1 · Clinic licence 4 · 13%
UNVERIFIED Bangkok Hospital Pattaya is a licensed hospital; hospital-grade licensing sits above a typical clinic. But the licence is so far only claimed: the number is not publicly disclosed and has not been matched by us in the MoPH facility registry (สถานพยาบาล).
M2 · Doctor traceability 2 · 13%
UNVERIFIED No aesthetic dermatologist is publicly named — the patient goes through the hospital's institutional pathway. A Medical Council (checkmd) trace is impossible without a name; this is untraceability, not an accusation.
M3 · Service specificity 4 · 6%
UNVERIFIED The dermatology and aesthetics service range is described in detail, with department-level procedure specificity — one of the fullest scopes in the register.
M4 · Product disclosure 4 · 8%
UNVERIFIED Injectable products are disclosed more fully than at most clinics in the register — above-average product transparency.
M5 · Device traceability 4 · 8%
UNVERIFIED Device procedures are disclosed more broadly than a typical clinic and at hospital grade; specific device models are not stated everywhere.
M6 · Price transparency 3 · 10%
UNVERIFIED Some pricing is disclosed, but there is no published full aesthetics price list — characteristic of the hospital model.
M7 · Russian-language path 4 · 6%
UNVERIFIED The only clinic in the register with a real Russian patient path: an official Russian-language section and coordination are confirmed. The strongest RU signal across the whole roster.
M8 · Source readability 4 · 5%
SECONDARY The hospital site is indexed, machine-legible and reproducible for re-audit; multilingual content raises legibility.
M9 · Safety disclosure 2 · 7%
UNVERIFIED General procedure information is present, but procedure-specific consent and contraindications for aesthetics are disclosed only in a limited way — despite hospital status, this axis stays thin.
E1 · Cleanliness of promises 4 · 12%
UNVERIFIED editorial — Public claims are restrained for a medical institution; no bright-line overclaim ("100% safe", guaranteed result) was found — the marketing tone matches an institutional voice.
E2 · Consistency of facts 4 · 7%
UNVERIFIED editorial — The public record is consistent and coherent across sections; no internal contradictions found.
E3 · Reputation hygiene 4 · 5%
UNVERIFIED editorial — The hospital's institutional reputation is stable; reviews are not counted as a quality proxy, but feedback channels are present.
The register's documentation leader: a detailed service range (M3), disclosed products and devices (M4/M5) and — uniquely across the roster — a real Russian patient path (M7=4). Weaker where even a hospital struggles: no named aesthetic physician is public (M2, institutional pathway), and procedure-specific safety is disclosed only in a limited way (M9). The JCI accreditation claim is a self-claim, unverified by us; the licence is claimed, with the registry check pending.
Clinic licensed: caveat
Doctor traceable: caveat
In register scope: yes
Clinic operating: yes
What this register does NOT measure We do not rate procedure outcomes, a doctor's skill, complications or "who's better". We verify structural facts: the licence, the doctor, the products, the prices, the Russian-language path, safety disclosure — and where something is unconfirmed, we say so.