Account audit template for Healthcare

The account audit with the checks a provider needs: whether every live claim is covered by a current clinical review, whether targeting has drifted into what platforms do not permit, whether spend still matches capacity, and what proportion of enquiries became attended appointments.

Everything else is the general audit, unchanged. One row per finding, evidence attached, honest severity, one action, one owner, one date.

Run it quarterly, and again whenever a practitioner joins or leaves or a service changes what it offers. Those events make live creative wrong without anybody editing it, and the audit is how the affected ads are found.

Run it also when a service's enquiries are up and its appointments are not, because that gap is almost always in the account rather than in the advertising.

A practice account degrades differently from other accounts. Performance is rarely the first thing to go; accuracy is.

A practitioner leaves, and the ads naming them are wrong from that day. A service changes what it offers, and the claims describing it are stale. A platform narrows what may be said or targeted, and a campaign that was compliant becomes non-compliant without anybody editing it.

None of the three produces a signal in the account. The audit is the routine that catches them, which is why it should be run on a schedule and immediately after any of those events rather than only when results are poor.

The first check is a list: every live ad, the claim it makes, and the clinical review reference behind it, checked against the review record and its date.

Expect two findings. Ads carrying claims cleared for a version of a service that has since changed. And ads naming people — practitioners, specialists — who have moved on, which is both a claim problem and a practical one, because the patients they attract cannot see them.

Replace rather than edit. An ad whose creative was swapped but whose name and reference were not is a record that says something untrue, which is worse than no record.

Check the audience settings of every live campaign against what the platform permits, and read the ad copy at the same time.

The copy half is the part audits usually skip. An ad that addresses the reader as though it knows about their health is making the inference that the targeting restrictions exist to prevent, and platforms increasingly read it that way too. So the check is both: nothing in the audience infers a condition, and nothing in the words does either.

Duplicated campaigns are the usual source of drift, because a duplicate inherits settings nobody re-reads.

Compare spend by service with availability by service over the same period.

The finding in most multi-service practices is a mismatch: a service with a long wait receiving substantial spend, and a service with empty appointments receiving none. Both halves are expensive. The first spends money creating a queue and disappointing people; the second leaves capacity unsold.

This is usually the highest-value row in the audit, and the recommendation is a reallocation rule rather than a one-off change — a weekly check of the book against the split, so the mismatch cannot rebuild itself over a quarter.

Measure the enquiry-to-attendance rate per service, from the practice management system, over a window long enough to be meaningful.

The spread is usually wide, and it usually does not match the spread in cost per enquiry. A service producing many cheap enquiries with poor attendance can look like the best performer in every report the platform produces while contributing the least to the practice.

Where attendance is poor and the advertising is fine, the finding belongs in the audit anyway, with the cause named: a slow reply, a wait that was not expected, a booking step that fails, a reminder that is not sent. Those are not advertising problems and they are the reason the advertising is not working.

Check every live landing page and every ad that states a waiting time against what the appointment book actually shows.

Stated waits are the most checkable promise a practice makes and the most likely to have drifted, because pages are written once and books change weekly. A page promising a shorter wait than the practice can honour produces bookings that are cancelled and complaints that are public.

The fix is usually a page edit and a creative refresh, and it is worth a recurring calendar entry rather than only an audit row.

Send an enquiry through each live campaign and follow it: where it lands, who answers, how long it takes, whether the record identifies the campaign.

Routing in a practice tends to be informal, which means it breaks informally. An inbox that was monitored by somebody who has changed roles, a form that stopped sending, a booking system that silently rejects one appointment type. None of it is visible from the account.

Where a practice runs more than one site, split every check by location as well as by service.

Availability, catchment, practitioners and demand all differ between sites, and an aggregate view hides the case that matters: one location full and one quiet, both being advertised at the same weight. A blended cost per appointment across the group will look acceptable while half the money is doing nothing.

The finding is the per-location comparison. The recommendation is usually that the split is managed per site rather than centrally, which is a structural change and should be marked as one.

Seven checks. Every finding separates what was found from what should be done, with evidence and a window. Every live claim has been checked against a current clinical review, and every practitioner named is still here. Targeting and copy have been read together against what the platform permits. Spend by service has been compared with capacity by service. Enquiry-to-attendance has been measured per service from the practice system. Stated waits have been checked against the book. And a real enquiry has been sent through each live campaign and followed.