INTOUCH IntegratedRehabilitationCenter INTOUCH

Patient retention
Waiting on the date range. The export doesn't state which dates it covers; this becomes a period selector once they're confirmed.
  • Jane export · loaded 21 Oct
  • Enquiry capture · not connected
Waiting on the date range. The export doesn't state which dates it covers; this becomes a period selector once they're confirmed.
  • Jane export · loaded 21 Oct
  • Enquiry capture · not connected

Enquiries not connected

  • Enquiries Not captured Instagram only: 90 in August
  • Time to first reply Not tracked Measured by hand twice: 13h 33m and 14h 09m
  • Enquiry → booked Not tracked Instagram only: 90 → 77, August

Clinic Jane export · loaded 21 Oct All locations

  • Patients 349 in period
  • Visits 885 in period
  • Avg visits per patient 2.54 target 6
  • Seen once only 41.8% 146 patients Clinic-wide only in this export

Enquiries

Awaiting data · enquiry capture not connected

Every panel here is built and waiting. None holds an estimate or a sample; the only figures are single measurements, each labelled with its source.

Enquiries are not attributed to a branch, so this zone is the same for every location.

Enquiries

Awaiting data

Enquiries by channel

Not currently captured on any channel but Instagram.

  • Instagram90 in Augustreported once, August review
  • WhatsAppNot captured
  • EmailNot captured
  • Google messaging0 chat clicks in SeptemberGoogle profile report
Detail

Instagram: 90 enquiries in August 2026, from your August performance review. Google messaging: 0 chat clicks in September 2026, from your September Google Business Profile report; the messaging channel is switched off or invisible. WhatsApp and email are not counted by anything.

Enquiries are not attributed to a branch.

Enquiries

Awaiting data

Enquiries by hour and day

Not currently captured.

Enquiries

Awaiting data

Time to first reply — median and worst

Measured by hand twice: 13h 33m and 14h 09m. Not tracked.

Median

Not tracked

Worst

Not tracked

Two test enquiries timestamped by Spark X. Manual measurements, not a series.

Detail
  • Email: sent Sat 17 Oct, 19:58 · first human reply Sun 18 Oct, 10:07 · 14h 09m
  • WhatsApp: sent Sun 18 Oct, 18:36 · first human reply Mon 19 Oct, 08:09 · 13h 33m

Both were sent in the evening, when patients research treatment. Two measurements are evidence of a delay, not a tracked figure.

Enquiries

Awaiting data

Enquiry → booked, by channel

Instagram only: 90 → 77.

  • Instagram90 → 7785.6% · August review
  • WhatsAppNot captured
  • EmailNot captured
  • Google messagingNot captured
Detail

From your August 2026 performance review: 90 Instagram enquiries, 77 bookings. The report labels its other social figures ambiguously, so only this progression is used.

The funnel

Where the two halves join

From the 21 October diagnostic

3 of 7 not measured

The seven stages from the funnel diagnostic. Solid stages have a figure; dashed stages are not measured.

Enquiry half

  1. Finds you 2,191 Google profile views · 11,173 Instagram followers Partly measuredGoogle profile, Sep · August review
  2. Enquires Not counted on any channel but Instagram Not measured
  3. Gets a reply 13h 33m – 14h 09m out of hours Measured by usSpark X tests, 17–19 Oct

Clinic half

  1. Books 153 new patients KnownYour 21 Oct export
  2. Attends No-show rate not reported Not measured
  3. Comes back 58.2% came back · 203 of 349 patients Not available for one location in this export Measured from your 21 Oct exportAll locations only
  4. Completes the plan Not reported Not measured
Detail

In the 21 October diagnostic, four of the seven stages were not measured. “Comes back” is now measured from your 21 Oct export: 203 of 349 patients came back for a second visit within the period. Enquires, attends and completes the plan still cannot be produced from any report the clinic holds.

The diagnostic showed 144 new patients a month, from your August review. This dashboard uses the 153 new patients in your 21 Oct export, whose period is still to be confirmed.

Clinic

Live · Jane export, loaded 21 Oct All locations

Showing All locations. Panels that need the clinic-wide visit breakdown say so rather than estimate it.

01 · The headline

The retention curve

How many visits each patient made in the period. Every patient appears once, in the column for their visit count.

146 patients — 41.8% — came once and did not return within the period.

29 patients (8.3%) reached six or more visits. They account for 24.7% of all visits.

Detail
Visits per patientPatientsShare of patientsVisits
114641.8%146
26819.5%136
35816.6%174
4308.6%120
5185.2%90
682.3%48
7102.9%70
841.1%32
930.9%27
1020.6%20
1120.6%22

The per-patient rows in this export don't carry a location, so this breakdown is clinic-wide only.

02 · Reading the report

Two numbers that disagree

Share of visits 82.71%

“% Returning”, as Jane reports it

of 885 visits

Share of patients 58.2%

Patients who came back for a second visit in the period

203 of 349 patients

Share of patients

Patients who came back for a second visit in the period

Clinic-wide only in this export. Not available for one location.

Already patients before the period (Jane's “Returning Patients”): 56.2%, 196 of 349.

Jane's “% Returning” is a share of visits, not patients: (885 − 153) ÷ 885 = 82.71%. Counted by patient, 203 of 349 came back at least once within the period: 203 ÷ 349 = 58.2%. Both are correct arithmetic. They answer different questions, and only one of them is about retention.

Jane's “% Returning” is a share of visits, not patients: (885 − 153) ÷ 885 = 82.71%. The patient-level figure, who came back for a second visit, is clinic-wide only in this export, so it can't be shown for one location.

Detail
  • “Returning Patients”, 196. Jane calculates this as total patients minus new patients, 349 − 153 = 196. It counts people who were already patients before the period, whether or not they came back within it: 56.2% of patients.
  • “% Repeat Visits Within Date Range”, 60.56%. Also a share of visits: (885 − 349) ÷ 885 = 60.56%, every visit that was not a patient's first in the period. It reconciles exactly, as do both locations' figures (El Mercado 58.83%, Al Wesam 51.28%).

03 · Reconciliation

Why the patient counts don't add up

33 patients were seen at both locations. Jane counts them once at each site and once overall.

MeasureEl Mercado + Al WesamAgainst the overall total
New patients 103 + 50 = 153 matches 153
Total visits 651 + 234 = 885 matches 885
Total patients 268 + 114 = 382 vs 349 reported · difference of 33

This comparison needs both locations, so it shows both whichever is selected.

Detail

Adding the two locations together reproduces the overall new-patient and visit totals. The patient total comes out higher.

Nothing is miscalculated — it is a de-duplication rule, and it can be fixed.

The same 33 appear in Jane's returning count (165 + 64 = 229, against 196 overall) and none in the new-patient count.

04 · By location

Retention by location

Average visits per patient at each site, against the target of 6.

Al Wesam retains less well per patient than El Mercado.

Detail
El MercadoAl Wesam
Patients268114
Visits651234
Avg visits per patient2.432.05
New patients10350
Already patients before the periodJane's “Returning Patients”61.6%56.1%
Came back for a second visitThe per-patient rows don't record locationnot availablenot available

05 · Value

What more visits would be worth

At BD 23.82 per visit, the figure from your August 2026 report.

ScenarioAdditional visitsValue
The 146 one-visit patients return once each 146146 × 1 BD 3,478146 × BD 23.82
One-visit patients return once each Not available for one location: the visit breakdown is clinic-wide only in this export.
Average rises 2.54 → 4.0 511349 × 4.0 − 885 BD 12,172511 × BD 23.82
Average rises 2.54 → 6.0, the treatment plan target 1,209349 × 6.0 − 885 BD 28,7981,209 × BD 23.82

For All locations: uses the clinic-wide BD 23.82 per visit, and counts the 33 patients seen at both sites at each.

These are arithmetic on the period above, not forecasts. The period length is unconfirmed, and podiatry and manual therapy legitimately carry lower visit counts than chiropractic and physiotherapy, so part of the gap is not recoverable.

06 · Limits

What this export cannot show

  • EnquiriesNot in this export. They sit on WhatsApp, Instagram and Google, and nothing currently joins them to visits.
  • No-showsNot in this export, though Jane can report them.
  • Retention by providerNeeds a per-provider export. This is the one Dr. Bowzaylo asked for.
  • Plan completion against what was prescribedNeeds the treatment plans, not just the visit counts.

Each of these becomes available with the matching export.