Healthcare and life sciences
Digital health
Technology delivering or supporting care.
Digital health has to explain itself before it can sell. The first question is never which vendor. A patient asks whether a video consult counts as proper medicine. A hospital CIO asks what a records system must cover for accreditation. A daughter asks whether a monitor would have caught her father's decline. Those answers are still largely unclaimed, and they decide the shortlist.
Where the answer is being lost
Buyers research the model of care, not the company providing it.
Every one of these four sells something the buyer has to be convinced is safe or legitimate before they will consider a supplier. A patient in a district town types "When is a teleconsultation appropriate instead of a physical visit". A hospital CIO writing a tender types "What should a hospital information system include for NABH accreditation". Back comes a careful answer stitched out of ministry explainers, vendor brochures and news write-ups. None of it names you. So the consult is skipped and the clinic stays out of reach, and the tender is drafted around a competitor's feature list.
How we win this
The programme for digital health
Argue the model, then the product
What a buyer has to settle first is whether the whole model holds: whether a video call counts as proper medicine, whether a monitor changes anything a clinician would act on, whether ordering medicines online is lawful this month. Vendor choice comes second and comes quickly once that is decided. blogs and answer-pages take the category question head on, in the order it is actually asked, so the explanation carries your name rather than following it.
Name who is answerable
Software has no signature, which is the structural weakness here. So we publish the clinical governance instead: the doctor who reviews the protocol and carries the prescribing responsibility, the registered pharmacist who verifies an order, the clinical lead who owns an escalation, the licences and registrations the platform holds and under which authority. schema defines each of those as an entity, and that is what separates a licensed clinical operation from an app sitting in front of one.
Cite the study or drop the claim
Remote monitoring is sold on outcome claims, telemedicine on convenience claims, and both come apart the moment a clinician reads them properly. Every clinical statement we publish is tied to a named, dated study, with the patient group it applied to and the places the evidence is thin stated in the same paragraph. The regulatory position on online pharmacy gets the same treatment: written as it stands, dated, because it moves. Pages built that way get quoted rather than paraphrased.
One page, two clocks
A patient decides in a minute, on a phone, usually at night. A hospital committee decides across months and several meetings, with a consultant reading the same document twice. One artefact cannot serve both, so we write the short decisive answer and the long substantiating one as separate linked pages instead of a compromise between them. digital-pr and linkedin carry the long version to where the committee is already reading.
The mix that carries it
Content
Answer and comparison pages
Cost, process, eligibility and comparison pages built for direct extraction, not for a reader who scrolls.
Content
GEO blogs and authority content
The definitive written answer to the questions your buyers put to an engine, structured so it can be lifted and attributed.
Foundation
Entity and schema engineering
Structured data and entity definition so engines know exactly what you are, where you operate, and what you are credible in.
Distribution
Practitioner and executive content where B2B buyers and the models watching them both look.
Authority
Digital public outreach
Earned mentions, trade coverage and third-party citations — the corroboration a model checks before it names you.
Authority
Directories and profile consistency
Every listing, registry and profile saying the same thing, so the entity resolves to one business instead of three.
The constraint we work inside
The advertising rules decide the channel list here, so we state them plainly. NMC ethics regulations, including the August 2023 social media guidance, prohibit soliciting patients directly or indirectly through any channel. Patient testimonials and success stories are out even with written consent, soliciting reviews or ratings is out, and so is paying for higher visibility. The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 goes further: advertising treatment to the public for a listed condition is a criminal offence, and it binds anyone who publishes, not only registered practitioners. That is why no testimonial, star rating or symptom answer appears in the clinical plans above. Hospital IT sits outside that regime, because a vendor selling records software to a CIO is neither a practitioner nor advertising a treatment, and the exclusions there are commercial ones. Two narrower limits sit on top: the telemedicine practice guidelines govern what a remote consultation may offer and prescribe, and the legal position on online pharmacy is still contested, so we write it as it stands and date it. Clinical claims stay tied to published studies. We write to these limits rather than around them, which is what makes the pages worth citing.
Specialisations
4 total
The pitch is different for each one, because the buyer, the trigger and the rules on what may be published are different for each one. Open the one that is yours.
Access is the trigger here. Someone with a follow-up due and no realistic way to reach the clinic is deciding whether a video consult counts as proper care, and deciding it without you.
The question deciding this today
“When is a teleconsultation appropriate instead of a physical visit”
- Who they sell to
- Patients consulting clinicians remotely
- Who signs
- The patient, or the platform's growth lead
- What starts it
- Access constraint, follow-up, minor illness, second opinion, chronic care
- Cost of staying invisible
- Care skipped because the clinic was too far to reach
Ask an engine "When is a teleconsultation appropriate instead of a physical visit" and it returns a tidy list drawn from health portals and a couple of national explainers. Sound advice, no provider in it. The follow-up question, where to actually do this, then goes to whichever aggregator already owns the booking listing. Your clinicians settle this question a dozen times a day on calls, and not one of those answers has ever been written down where a model could find it.
What we would run
- 01Answer and comparison pages
A suitability set: which presentations are safe to handle remotely, which need an in-person examination, what a remote prescription may and may not include under the practice guidelines, and how a first consult differs from a follow-up.
This is the exact question standing between a hesitant patient and a booking, and it is the one the guidelines make it safe to answer.
- 02GEO blogs and authority content
Condition-led pieces written by the consultants who take the calls: managing hypertension between visits, when a paediatric fever needs to be seen, what a second opinion consult can realistically settle.
Patients arrive with a symptom, not with the word teleconsultation, and these are the pages that meet them at the point they are still describing it.
- 03Entity and schema engineering
Each consulting doctor defined as an entity: registration, speciality, languages, the hospital they also practise at, and the platform's own registration, mapped so a page and its author are linked rather than merely adjacent.
An engine deciding which telemedicine service to name checks who is behind it, and unattributed medical content loses to attributed medical content.
- 04Video and YouTube
One consultation filmed end to end with a consenting volunteer, published with the text timestamped by stage: how the history is taken, what the doctor asks the patient to do with the phone camera, the moment he stops and says this needs hands on it, and how the prescription reaches a chemist.
The doubt is about the medium, not about your doctors. A recorded consult that ends in a referral to a physical clinic settles that doubt faster than any assurance, and it demonstrates the practice guidelines working instead of reciting them.
- 05Directories and profile consistency
Consistent presence and identical clinical detail across the health directories, app stores and registries an engine cross-checks, including speciality lists, consultation hours and languages per doctor.
Aggregators hold the booking layer for remote consults, and a service whose details differ between sources gets dropped from the recommendation.
What we would not recommend
- Reviews and testimonials. A star average beside a named doctor turns a clinical choice into shopping, and the conduct exposure lands on that doctor's registration rather than on the platform. Nobody sensible asks a consultant to carry that.
- Quora. A symptom described by a stranger cannot be answered by a company account without someone practising medicine on a patient nobody has seen. Clinical answers stay on pages a named doctor has reviewed.
- Instagram. Restricted for medical promotion and impossible to caveat properly. A consultation is not something to sell in a fifteen second clip.
What a lead looks like
The call used to open with "is this even allowed". It opens instead with "my father's cardiology follow-up is due, he cannot sit in a car for two hours, will your consultant read his last ECG over video". The daughter asking has been through the suitability page and already knows a medication review is something a doctor can do remotely and a chest examination is not. Your desk books her rather than explaining the category to her.
What we measure
- Inclusion in teleconsult suitability answers
- Named doctors surfacing by speciality
- Consistent detail across health directories
- Bookings from patients who arrive informed
What changes
Enquiries arrive further along than they used to. A patient books a teleconsult already knowing what it can and cannot cover, so the doctor's time is not spent on that. A hospital CIO writes asking whether your system meets a specific NABH requirement, with the tender still in draft. A care coordinator asks about a monitoring programme for post-discharge cardiac patients. In each case the contact came after the explanation rather than instead of it.
Start here
See who gets named in digital health today
We put your buyers' real questions to the live models and come back with the businesses they name, the sources behind those answers, and the gap between that list and yours.