Creative brief template for Healthcare

The creative brief with three columns a provider needs: which service line the asset is for, which cleared claim it carries, and the sensitivities that govern how the subject may be depicted.

Everything else is the general creative brief, unchanged. One row per asset, a hook written as what happens, one message with a proof beside it, the specs up front and an honest must-avoid.

Write it after the claims have been cleared and before anybody books a shoot or writes a script. In this category a claim that fails review takes the asset built around it with it, and that is the most avoidable cost in the whole process.

Use it again whenever a service changes or a practitioner leaves, because assets naming either are then wrong.

Creative in health advertising starts with a cleared sentence. That is not a bureaucratic preference; it is the only order that does not waste production money.

A claim that fails review takes the asset built around it with it. A video scripted around an outcome promise, shot, edited and then narrowed to nothing is a production day spent on footage that cannot be used. The claim carried column exists to stop that: the exact cleared wording, with its reference and its reviewer, written into the row before anybody books anything.

The rule that follows is that paraphrase is not permitted. What was reviewed is a sentence, not an idea, and a smoother version of it may claim something the reviewer did not clear. Where the cleared wording will not fit the format, the answer is a different format or a second review.

The sensitivity notes column is the one this category cannot do without, and it is filled in on every row rather than only the ones that look risky.

It records how the subject may be depicted. Whether patients appear at all. Whether consent is on file, in what form, covering paid advertising, and for how long. Whether before-and-after imagery is permitted for this service. Whether a condition may be named or shown. And, always, that distress is not available as a hook.

Writing it per row matters because the answer differs by service. A physiotherapy clinic and a mental health service have very different rules about what may be shown, and a single house rule at the top of a brief will be either too loose for one or too restrictive for the other.

The safest and usually the best answer is that patients do not appear.

Where somebody does, the consent has to be written, specific to paid advertising, time-limited, and withdrawable. That is a higher bar than a signature on a form at reception, and it should be recorded in the row rather than assumed. An asset running with consent that has lapsed is a problem that pulling the ad does not fully undo.

Practitioners are a different case and generally a better one. They can speak to process with authority, their consent is straightforward, and they are the most credible thing a clinic has. Brief them to explain rather than to sell, and the asset usually improves.

The strongest creative in this category shows what happens rather than promising what results.

The clinic itself. The steps of a first appointment, in order. The equipment. The practitioner explaining, in plain language, what the assessment involves and how long it takes. All of that is checkable, it clears review with little friction, and it answers the question that is actually stopping somebody from booking — which is almost never whether the service works and almost always whether it will be uncomfortable, slow or expensive.

Outcome claims are what most briefs reach for and what most reviews reduce to nothing. A brief that concentrates on process will get more assets into market and will move attendance more often.

A specific line worth briefing more often: how long the wait actually is.

It is checkable, it clears easily, and it is the single most decision-relevant fact for somebody choosing between providers. It also has a maintenance cost, which belongs in the row: an asset stating a waiting time has to be pulled or updated when the wait changes, and the brief should say who checks it and how often.

That is a reasonable trade. A concrete number is worth far more than an adjective, and the maintenance is a calendar entry rather than a production round.

The recurring list: no before-and-after imagery unless the service's review explicitly permits it; no identifiable patients without written consent on file; no implied diagnosis, including imagery that suggests the viewer has a condition; no distress as a hook; no comparison to another provider; no claim about outcomes, timeframes or success rates that is not in the review.

Each has a reason, and the reasons belong in the cell, because a rule with a because attached can be applied to a case nobody anticipated.

A provider usually has four possible readers, and the brief should name which one each asset is for.

A patient wants to know whether it will be difficult. A carer wants to know what the process will be like for somebody else, and responds to different reassurance entirely. A referring practitioner wants to know what happens to a patient they send and how quickly they will hear back, which is a professional communication rather than an advertisement. An employer wants to know about cohorts, logistics and cost.

An asset written for a patient and pointed at referrers is the most common waste in this category, because the referrer channel is often the cheapest source of the right appointments and it is served by almost nobody. Writing the reader into the row is what makes somebody notice that.

Seven checks. One row per asset, each naming one service line. Every claim carried is the cleared wording with its reference and reviewer, not a paraphrase. Sensitivity notes are filled in on every row. No identifiable patient appears without written consent covering paid advertising. No asset uses distress as a hook. Must avoid names the imagery, comparisons and implied outcomes that are out. And every due date leaves room for a review and a re-edit before the day the asset is needed.