This is a sample. A real audit of a real practice, shown with identifying details removed.

The audit is the scorecard itself. The review is the thirty minutes we spend going through it together.

FAx

VISIBILITY
SCORECARD

Specimen IV, a Chicago multi-location surgical group
specimen-iv.example.com · July 28, 2026 · Tier 1 audit · Rubric v1.1
17
signals measured
Sample scorecard
More once we complete the manual review together.
Executive summary

Patients searching for a Chicago surgical group find you, then hit a mobile site that loads slowly and never machine-identifies you as a medical provider. Your visibility, which leaves clear room for improvement. The biggest issue: your listings carry two different names, addresses, and phone numbers, so patients cannot confirm they have the right practice.

What the audit found

Strengths

+You already show up in AI searchContent and discoverability

When patients ask ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, or Perplexity about Chicago procedures, your site was cited with a link in 47% of answers. That is genuine visibility where more patients now start their search.

+Deep treatment page coverageWebsite and booking

You have 50 plus dedicated procedure pages built out by location across your Chicago-area offices. Patients searching a specific treatment near a specific office are more likely to land on a page that matches.

+Google categories are well setLocal presence and Google

Your Google Business Profile carries six relevant categories covering skin care, medical clinic, and surgery. This helps you surface for a wider range of patient searches on Google.

+Verified double board certificationReputation and proof

Your surgeon holds verified certification from two boards, shown on the About page and Instagram. This is the trust signal most patients look for before booking a surgical consultation.

Costliest gaps

Two different practice identities are liveIdentity and listings

Your Google listing shows one name and address; your directory presence shows "Chicago Institute of Cosmetic & Plastic Surgery" at a different address and phone. Patients who cannot confirm they found the right practice tend to move on.

Mobile site loads very slowlyWebsite and booking

Your mobile speed score is 16 out of 100. Most patients search on their phones, and a page this slow means many leave before it finishes loading, so consultations go to faster competitors.

Search engines cannot tell you are a medical providerContent and discoverability

Your site carries no code labels that identify you as a medical business or physician (scored 0 of 3). Search engines and AI answers read you as a generic website, so you are easier to overlook.

No patient proof beyond star countsReputation and proof

The homepage cites 90 plus five-star reviews but shows no written or video testimonials and nothing procedure-specific (scored 0 of 3). Patients comparing surgeons want real stories, and without them tend to pick a practice that shows them.

No clear way to book onlineWebsite and booking

Booking depends on a phone call or a contact page (scored 1 of 4); no scheduler or prominent booking button was found. Patients ready to book who cannot do it in the moment often do not call back.

The path forward

Discuss the findings

Let's sit down and walk through what patients see when they look for you. An hour together turns this diagnosis into a clear picture of what is holding consultations back.

Lazar preps before the call: two different practice identities are live, and mobile site loads very slowly, both mapped in advance, plus every item marked In your review, ready to walk through together.

Book your 30-minute review →

Lazar LaLone · lazar@fractionalaesthetics.com · (412) 944-5506

Methodology

The goal: a diagnostic read of what a patient, or a referring doctor, sees from the outside, working only from what is openly on display and never from the practice's own dashboards or private analytics. It intentionally does not prescribe fixes, because effective solutions need further conversation and analysis to get right.

Rubric
Aesthetic Practice Visibility Scorecard v1.1, 100-point composite
Two kinds of number
Scores of 0 to 3 are ours, applied from this rubric. Figures such as Google's PageSpeed result, your star rating, review counts and follower counts are third-party measurements we read and report, not numbers we assign
This audit
Tier 1, the complimentary read. Every one of the 34 signals is drawn from patient-facing data. Tier 2 adds paid-media spend analysis, and only when you choose to share your ad data.
Signals
17 measured from patient-facing data so far; the rest walked through together in your review
Review items
Excluded from both earned and maximum points; they never count against the practice, and we look at them together in your review
Generated
July 28, 2026
Category breakdown
IN YOUR REVIEW = these signals need a closer look than patient-facing data alone allows, so we walk through them together in your review. They are excluded from the score entirely and never count against the practice.
1Local Search Visibility
78%
Your Google presence is your strongest area. The profile is claimed, hours and categories are set, and a recent post is live. What I could not see from public data: your photo volume, your service menu, and whether you appear in the map results on Google for your main procedures. We walk through those together in the review.
1.1 GBP Claim & Completeness 2 / 3
1.2 GBP Categories 3 / 3
1.3 Service Menu on GBP In your review
1.4 GBP Photo Volume & Recency In your review
1.5 GBP Posts Frequency 2 / 3
1.6 Local Pack Presence (Primary Terms) In your review
1.7 Q&A Section Activation In your review
2Website & Infrastructure
41%
You have deep, location-specific treatment pages, which is real strength. The trouble sits underneath: your mobile site scores 16 out of 100 for speed, and the booking button sits below the first screen with no scheduler. Patients on phones are more likely to leave before they reach it.
2.1 Mobile Speed Score 0 / 3
2.2 Above-the-Fold Booking CTA 1 / 3
2.3 Online Scheduling Integration 1 / 3
2.4 Branded Treatment Page Coverage 3 / 3
2.5 Financing Surfacing In your review
3Reputation, Trust & Innovation
23%
Your surgeon's double board certification is verified and is a strong trust signal. But the homepage shows only star counts, no written or video patient stories, and no first-mover or innovation claims. Patients comparing surgeons want proof of results, and right now they cannot find it here.
3.1 Google Review Volume (Market-Relative) In your review
3.2 Review Response Discipline In your review
3.3 Before/After Gallery Depth & Consent In your review
3.4 Board Certification & Society Visibility 2 / 3
3.5 Patient Evidence Beyond Stars 0 / 3
3.6 Innovation Leadership & First-Mover Evidence 0 / 3
4Content & Discoverability (incl. AEO)
50%
You are cited with a link in 47% of AI search answers, which is where more patients now begin. The gap: search engines carry no code labels identifying you as a medical provider, so you read as a generic site. Your video content also sits un-indexed and untranscribed.
4.1 Blog Recency & Topical Depth In your review
4.2 Visibility in AI search 3 / 3
4.3 Schema Markup Completeness 0 / 3
4.4 Podcast/Video Content Indexing 1 / 3
5Paid Media Presence
67%
Your Meta ads are active across several procedures with mixed formats, a solid base. Whether you show up on Google's paid results for competitive terms, and how well your ad landing pages match, are things I would review with your paste-in data.
5.1 Meta Ad Activity & Creative Variety 2 / 3
5.2 Google Ads Presence (Competitive Terms) In your review
5.3 Landing Page Alignment In your review
6Social & Community
34%
You have an Instagram audience of roughly 2,200 and story highlights in place. Your bio link points only to the homepage rather than a booking or specials page, so high-intent visitors land somewhere general. Posting cadence and engagement need a closer look than public data allowed.
6.1 Instagram Posting Cadence In your review
6.2 Engagement Rate In your review
6.3 Content Mix Diversity In your review
6.4 Link-in-Bio Strategy 1 / 3
6.5 Story Highlights Organization In your review
7Identity & Citation Consistency
27%
This is the costliest area. Your listings carry two different names, addresses, and phone numbers, which scored 0 of 3. Your RealSelf profile is active and well managed. Whether older brand names still linger elsewhere is something we confirm together in the review.
7.1 NAP Consistency Across Directories 0 / 3
7.2 Aesthetic-Directory Presence 2 / 3
7.3 One consistent identity online In your review
7.4 Cross-Channel Brand Consistency In your review
Fractional Aesthetics

That is the whole read: 17 signals measured from what a patient can see. The rest we go through together.

Prepared for Specimen IV, a Chicago multi-location surgical group · July 28, 2026 · Rubric v1.1

Download this scorecard (PDF) ↓ All sixteen samples →

Want one for your practice?

Complimentary, no call required, and every scorecard is prepared and personally reviewed before it goes out. Leave your practice's website and yours is on its way.

Run my audit →