Doctor Performance measures consultations, procedures, follow-ups, revenue contribution and patient satisfaction — so clinical reviews are based on the same numbers everyone can see.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When the numbers are shared and consistent, the conversation is about the work rather than about whose recollection is right.
Weighting satisfaction into the ranking means throughput alone does not win, which protects the care your reputation depends on.
Contribution and growth trends make it obvious who is carrying the department — useful at review time and at retention time.
A declining trend surfaces while it can still be discussed and addressed, rather than at the end of the year.
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.
Real patient feedback collected through the system, rather than anecdote or occasional survey.
Yes. Definitions are consistent group-wide, so comparison is direct.
No. Role-based access controls who can see what, so clinical performance is not open to the whole organisation by default.