Performance conversations that run on evidence.
Doctor Performance measures consultations, procedures, follow-ups, revenue contribution and patient satisfaction — so clinical reviews are based on the same numbers everyone can see.
The screen
28
₹38,40,000
₹29,10,000
₹1,80,000
4Share paid on billed, not on collectedrecompute
₹1.8LProcedure in the notes, absent from the billadd
7Sessions worked, not on the rosterconfirm
3Split percentage differs from the contractcheck
14Reconciled and agreedclosed
A visiting consultant can see whether the month’s share matches what was billed and what was actually collected.
and follow-ups
by department
patient feedback
over any period
Nobody argues with a number they can see.
Performance discussions go badly when they rely on impressions. They go well when both sides are reading the same figures, gathered the same way, over the same period.
Activity and contribution, measured consistently
Consultations, procedures and follow-ups are counted per doctor, alongside revenue contribution and department ranking — so contribution is understood in context rather than as a raw number.
- Consultations, procedures and follow-ups per doctor
- Revenue contribution with department ranking
- Growth trends per doctor over any period
- Consistent definitions across every branch
Satisfaction weighted in, so volume is not the only story
A leaderboard built on revenue alone rewards throughput and quietly punishes care. Drapto weights the ranking with real patient satisfaction, which is what makes clinicians willing to look at it.
- Patient satisfaction drawn from real feedback
- A satisfaction-weighted leaderboard, not a revenue race
- Department-level context for every ranking
- Period comparison to separate a bad month from a trend
Monthly coaching notes, not a public league table.
The Performance Coach reviews each clinician individually — activity, contribution and patient satisfaction — and writes what improved, what slipped and what would help. It is deliberately framed as coaching, because ranking doctors on revenue is the fastest way to lose their engagement.
- Individual notes rather than a public ranking
- Runs on activity and satisfaction data you already hold
- Monthly cadence keeps running cost negligible
- Directors review before anything is shared
What changes for your team.
Reviews stop being personal
When the numbers are shared and consistent, the conversation is about the work rather than about whose recollection is right.
Quality is not sacrificed to volume
Weighting satisfaction into the ranking means throughput alone does not win, which protects the care your reputation depends on.
Strong performers are visible
Contribution and growth trends make it obvious who is carrying the department — useful at review time and at retention time.
Support arrives earlier
A declining trend surfaces while it can still be discussed and addressed, rather than at the end of the year.
Straight answers.
Will doctors accept being ranked?
More readily when the ranking is not purely financial. Weighting patient satisfaction into the leaderboard is the difference between a tool clinicians check and one they resent.
Where does satisfaction data come from?
Real patient feedback collected through the system, rather than anecdote or occasional survey.
Can performance be compared across branches?
Yes. Definitions are consistent group-wide, so comparison is direct.
Is individual data visible to everyone?
No. Role-based access controls who can see what, so clinical performance is not open to the whole organisation by default.
Base clinical reviews on shared numbers.
Built to standards, not to a demo
Corporate contracts, without changing your system.
We find the companies and run the outreach. Your existing software stays where it is.