Make the starting point visible.
Review the site, agree the audience and service priorities, establish measurement, and prepare the first two content pieces.
Output: baseline, prioritised work plan, and two drafts for approval.
A sample visibility review
Before we make a plan,
we find the gaps.
A practical starting point for an independent Canadian physiatrist offering medico-legal assessments.
An example of our thinking.Illustrative work, not a client result. No practice has been audited; there are no measured rankings, traffic figures, or promised outcomes.
01 /
Establish what is true today.
What we need from the practice
- The physician’s approved credentials, current scope, and assessment services.
- Locations served, referral eligibility, booking route, and current availability wording.
- Read-only access to existing Search Console and analytics, where available, plus publishing access to the existing website for approved implementation.
- An agreed process for reviewing and approving clinical descriptions.
What we establish
- Which service pages are indexed and what searches already reach them.
- Whether public profiles agree on the physician’s name, credentials, and scope.
- Where a professional referrer can find suitability and referral information.
- Which enquiries are relevant to the practice, without collecting patient or case details.
02 /
Start with the referrer’s question.
These are example query themes to validate, not measured search-volume opportunities.
“Physiatrist medico-legal assessment in [province]”Service + location · A clear assessment page with genuine geographic scope.
“Concussion independent medical assessment physiatrist”Expertise + assessment · Relevant only where this is within the physician’s approved practice.
“How to refer for a physiatry medico-legal opinion”Process + suitability · A referral guide that explains the route without exposing confidential information.
Final wording, priorities, and geographic coverage follow real search evidence and the physician’s scope. AI answers vary by platform, wording, date, and location; these examples imply no current inclusion.
03 /
A short list of useful changes.
Hypotheses for an opening review. We confirm each gap before recommending the work.
| Priority | If we find this gap | The proposed work | How we check it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service clarity | Assessment work is buried inside a general clinical services page. | Prepare a dedicated, physician-approved medico-legal assessment page with scope and referral route. | Referrers can identify the service and appropriate next step. |
| Credential consistency | The website, professional profiles, and public listings describe the practice differently. | Reconcile factual differences with the practice and update up to two eligible, controllable profiles per month. | Approved name, credentials, and scope agree across the reviewed sources. |
| Referral path | A professional referrer cannot tell what information is needed or whom to contact. | Publish a short referral process and a clear contact route that discourages case-file uploads. | Test the route on desktop and mobile; confirm enquiries reach the right recipient. |
| Technical access | Important service pages cannot be discovered or indexed reliably. | Investigate crawl controls, internal links, metadata, and factual structured data. | Inspect accessibility to crawlers and request indexing where appropriate; indexing remains the platform’s decision. |
04 /
A 90-day opening programme.
Three months of defined work, not a deadline for rankings or referrals.
Build a more useful route.
Prepare two further pieces, implement approved improvements within scope, and check how public sources describe the practice.
Output: two drafts, a change log, and a monthly review.
Use the evidence we have.
Prepare two pieces, review search and enquiry signals, and agree what to continue, change, or stop.
Output: two drafts, a 90-day review, and next priorities.
Content may be a new page, an approved guide, or a substantial page improvement. Publication depends on the practice’s approval and access. Each monthly content allowance covers two pieces of up to 750 words each, with one consolidated revision round per piece. Technical implementation is capped at two hours per month; public-profile updates at two per month. Website rebuilds and major development are separate. Unused monthly work does not roll over, and additional work requires a separate agreed quote.
05 /
Measure progress without inventing certainty.
Search discovery
Review impressions, clicks, queries, and indexed pages in Search Console. A new or small site may have too little data to draw a useful trend.
Relevant enquiries
Track aggregate enquiries and the practice’s own assessment of fit. Attribution is imperfect; no patient records or case files are needed.
AI visibility checks
Check ten agreed prompts across ChatGPT and Perplexity once per month, recording the date, platform, wording, mentions, and linked sources. This is a sample, not a complete measure of AI reach.
Work delivered
Keep an approval and change log. Distinguish drafts, published changes, observed signals, and results that cannot yet be established.
The review provides marketing and website observations. It is not clinical or legal advice and does not assess a physician’s competence. Search inclusion, AI citations, rankings, and referral volume cannot be guaranteed.
One practice. A defined programme.
Clearer expertise.
A more useful first impression.
The subscription is CAD $1,450 per month, plus applicable tax, with no setup fee, a three-month opening programme, then month to month. After the opening three months, cancel before your next renewal. One physician, one existing website, one agreed market. A monthly report and 30-minute review call are included. We check fit before any commitment.
Explore your practice’s fit