Skip to content

General practice

A Newcastle general practice, established 1938

Eighty-eight years of reputation and 522 Google reviews, none of it readable by a machine. The practice is now named in half of tracked AI answers, and its own website is cited in a third.

The numbers

51%
Of tracked AI answers name the practice 791 recorded answer checks, June to September 2026
35%
Of tracked answers cite the practice's own site 791 recorded answer checks
53%
Citation rate on Gemini and Perplexity, its strongest engines 60-query panel across four engines

What we did

  • Published the practice, its practitioners and its services as structured entities
  • Made an existing 522-review reputation readable to engines rather than trapped in a profile
  • Added answer-format content for the practice's highest-intent patient questions
  • Published recruitment structure, which matters in a district with workforce shortages

The interesting number in this engagement is not the average. It is the spread.

Gemini and Perplexity both cite this practice in 53% of tracked answers. ChatGPT cites it in 7%. Same practice, same structured data, same reviews, wildly different outcomes, because the engines weight sources differently and ChatGPT leans harder on its own index of established third parties.

That gap is the work programme. An agency reporting a single blended visibility score would have shown a respectable 35% and missed the entire point.

Find out what AI says about your practice

We run your practice against every major AI engine and show you exactly where you stand, and who is being named instead of you. No charge, no lock-in.

Free AI visibility audit