Patient Trust Diagnostic

Example pages

Fictional example Larkmoor Private Clinic

Two pages from the board pack and three from the report: the board summary, the key decisions, the verdict, the questions a patient still cannot answer, and how one finding is built.

Not a clinical or medical diagnosis, and not a judgement of clinical quality.

Fictional exampleLarkmoor Private Clinic

Sheet 1 of 5 Board pack

Patient Trust Diagnostic · Board pack

Board summary

Trust position, on independently verifiable evidence: Materially unevidenced

The evidence a patient can independently verify does not yet support the trust Larkmoor Private Clinic invites. The priority is to build verifiable proof on the weakest domains before amplifying the claim.

One of the principal exposures: The captured website gives a patient no route to verify either clinician’s registration: no registration number, no register named, no link.

Highest-priority decision: Confirm each clinician’s register entry, then publish the number and a register link, or amend the claim.

Confidence: 29 High, 0 Medium, 0 Low, for the finding behind each of the 29 decisions.

What the four domains mean

Clinical: whether the clinicians’ qualifications, registrations and published work can be verified by a patient from public sources. Operational: whether price, process, terms and what happens next are stated plainly before a patient has to commit. Reputational: whether the practice’s standing is corroborated independently, rather than only by testimonials it hosts itself. Digital: whether the site lets a patient find, read and check that evidence without friction. Each is banded on independently verifiable public evidence only; none is a judgement of clinical quality.

Redrawn for the web.

Clear Signal Partners Ltd · Registered office: Bankside, Jordans Lane, Burghfield Common, Reading RG7 3LP · Email: hello@clearsignalpartners.co.uk

Fictional exampleLarkmoor Private Clinic

Sheet 2 of 5 Board pack

Patient Trust Diagnostic · Board pack

The first four of 29 decisions, each with an owner

Decision	Owner	Review timing	Status
Confirm each register entry, then publish it or amend the claim	Clinical / Founder	Next reassessment + quarterly	Open
Confirm indemnity, then name the provider or remove “insured”	Clinical / Founder	Next reassessment + quarterly	Open
Confirm the clinic’s CQC registration, then publish it	Governance / Founder	Next reassessment + quarterly	Open
Confirm the trading entity, then publish its name and number	Governance / Founder	Next reassessment + quarterly	Open

Owner names who acts on each decision. Governance is an owner, not a domain: the four domains stay clinical, operational, reputational and digital.

Success criterion for every row: published on-page and independently checkable without contacting the clinic.

Which decision will we own this quarter, and how will we know at the 90-day reassessment whether it worked?

Redrawn for the web.

Fictional exampleLarkmoor Private Clinic Patient Trust Diagnostic

Sheet 3 of 5 Report page 4

The overall verdict and the four domain bands beneath it, each on independently verifiable public evidence

Overall verdict

Materially unevidenced

Less evidenceMore evidence

The site’s material claims about who treats patients, how the practice is regulated and what treatment achieves can be read on the site but not checked from it. These findings identify missing public evidence. They do not establish why it is missing.

Clinical evidence
Materially unevidenced
Rests on credentials the clinic states for itself: a named medical director, a stated 2009 qualification, a menopause-care diploma in a blog byline. The pages give no GMC numbers. The checks shown here do not establish whether the named doctors can be matched to the GMC register. No risks are stated on the pages checked.
Operational transparency
Thinly evidenced
Promises a reply within one working day and a stated aftercare route, but gives no telephone number or opening hours, no complaints route and no fees.
Reputational integrity
Materially unevidenced
A 4.9 rating from 340-plus reviews and two patient quotes, but the platform is never named or linked, and both quotes are anonymous and undated.
Digital experience
Thinly evidenced
Eleven pages captured with no errors, consistent navigation and plain copy, but no photograph of the premises, the consulting rooms or any clinician.

Band legend, weakest to strongest

Materially unevidenced
Thinly evidenced
Stronger bands, unlabelled in this example

Redrawn for the web.Report page 4

A strong result means the provider’s public evidence is clear, consistent and checkable. It does not mean its clinical care is good, that its treatments are appropriate, or that it is safe.

Fictional exampleLarkmoor Private Clinic Patient Trust Diagnostic

Sheet 4 of 5 Report page 15

After reviewing the site, a self-funding patient still cannot answer 15 of the questions we put to it

Each one is an opportunity.

What is the telephone number, and when are you open?
How do I complain, and to whom do I escalate?
What is either doctor’s GMC number, and where do I check it?
What will this cost, and is the consultation itself chargeable?
What happens if the full-body health screen finds something, who follows it up, and what are my alternatives?
What does the ‘results within 48 hours’ promise actually cover, and what happens if it is missed?
Which platform holds the 340 reviews, and how do I read them for myself?
Who reviews my blood results, a doctor or a nurse?
What are Dr Fenwright’s qualifications?
Who is the practice manager I am told to write to about my records, and at what address or email?
What happens to the data I type into the booking form, on what basis, for how long, and who do I complain to about it?
Who is the legal entity behind Larkmoor Private Clinic, and is it registered with the Care Quality Commission?
When was the 98 per cent figure calculated, or last reviewed?
Who do I call if I feel unwell after a treatment at ten o’clock on a Saturday night?
Did my booking request actually send?

Band legend, weakest to strongest

Materially unevidenced
Thinly evidenced
Stronger bands, unlabelled in this example

Redrawn for the web.Report page 15

Fictional exampleLarkmoor Private Clinic Patient Trust Diagnostic

Sheet 5 of 5 Evidence appendix

How one finding is built

Reputational integrity

Materially unevidenced

Finding: The review platform is never named or linked, so a patient cannot check the rating from the practice’s own pages.
Claim checked: A 4.9 rating from 340-plus reviews, published on two of the practice’s own pages and attributed to “an independent review platform”.
Where and when we checked: The practice’s own website, both pages that cite the rating. Checked 7 September 2026.
What a patient can verify: From these two pages, nothing. The platform is named only as “an independent review platform”, with no name, no link and no profile address.
What remains unclear: Whether 340-plus reviews averaging 4.9 exist on some platform is not established. Couldn’t find it is not the same as doesn’t have it.
What would close the gap: If a public review profile exists, check that it belongs to the practice and matches the quoted rating and review count. Then link it and correct any mismatch. If no profile exists, remove the claim.