The challenge
Lotus did good work. Its histopathology in particular had a local reputation among consultants. But its reports were dense, cramped and visually dated, and Meera Krishnan suspected they were undermining the impression the lab's actual work deserved.
Referral growth had flattened. The lab was not losing doctors so much as failing to gain new ones, and had no way of telling which consultants sent what, or whether anyone's referrals were declining.
The lab had a Google listing with eleven reviews, all of them years old and averaging 4.2. New patients searching locally found a lab that looked small and inactive.
What we did
Report formats were rebuilt from scratch rather than reproduced. Clear typography, sensible grouping by department, abnormal values that actually stand out, and the interpretation section given room to breathe.
Referring doctor capture at billing turned on the referral analysis report, which for the first time showed who was sending patients and how that was trending month to month.
The review builder was enabled to invite patients to leave a Google review after their report was delivered — at the point where the experience was complete and positive.
The outcome
Referrals from consulting doctors grew about thirty-one percent over the following year, with twelve clinics referring for the first time. Meera attributes a good part of that to consultants simply finding the reports easier to read.
The Google rating moved from 4.2 to 4.7 across eight months, on the back of around a hundred and ninety new reviews — from patients who had always been satisfied but had never been asked.
The referral report also identified three clinics whose referrals had quietly declined, two of which resumed after a visit.
Referral doctors started commenting on how clean our reports look. That is the kind of thing that quietly brings more work in.