They say
“PatientNow already reports by lead source.”
We say
It does, using a field somebody typed. Joining enquiries to revenue gives a second view and shows where the two disagree.
For PatientNow
A consultation is an hour of clinical time somebody has to pay for.
Export enquiries and treatment revenue from PatientNow, join them, and rank channels on treatments rather than on consultations booked.
No API key Nothing to install in PatientNowNothing to install No card requiredNo card
PatientNow holds both halves of the match — the enquiry with its source and the treatment revenue that followed — which makes it one of the few systems here where a single vendor can supply the whole file. CloseRev joins those exports on the patient's phone or email and reports revenue by source, including the consultations that never converted. Revenue with no traceable enquiry is reported as Direct / Unknown.
Last checked against PatientNow's own documentation on September 24, 2026.
The gap
The consultation diary is full and the treatment schedule is not, and no report connects the two to a channel.
PatientNow sees
What was sold, to whom, and for how much.
no shared row
Your ad account sees
The click, the keyword, the call, and what each one cost.
The file
What the export needs in it.
Three things carry the match: who, how much, and when. Anything else is optional and only changes how the report can be sliced.
- Needed
Patient phone or email
Captured at enquiry. It is the key that joins the lead export to the revenue export.
- Needed
Treatment revenue
What was collected, including packages and retail. Quoted treatment plans are not revenue.
- Needed
Enquiry and treatment dates
Both. The interval between them differs sharply by channel and by procedure.
- Optional
Procedure or category
Injectables, devices, surgical. Their values differ by an order of magnitude and so do their sources.
Step by step
Getting the file out of PatientNow.
Written for somebody with PatientNow open in the next tab. Report names vary by edition, so each step says what to look for.
-
Export enquiries with their source
One row per enquiry with a contact detail, the source and the date, including the ones that never booked.
-
Export treatment revenue
Collected amounts with a patient contact detail and a date.
-
Keep the consultations that did not convert
Each one consumed clinical or advisor time, and a channel that produces many is expensive in a way cost per lead never shows.
-
Take a year
Considered aesthetic procedures are researched for months, and packages are consumed over more.
-
Upload both
The join runs on the phone and the email, normalised, with consultation-to-treatment conversion reported per source.
What comes back
The page PatientNow cannot show you.
Revenue by channel, the count of sales behind each figure, and an honest bucket for the ones nobody could trace. Sample figures, from the worked example on the Med Spas & Dermatology page — not from a PatientNow account.
Traced to a channel$165,60072% of $230,000
Sales matched201 of 280high confidence only
Average sale$820per paid sale
| Channel | Share | Sales | Revenue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meta Ads | 96 | $78,200 | |
| Google Ads | 61 | $55,200 | |
| Email marketing | 44 | $32,200 | |
| Direct / Unknown | 79 | $64,400 |
Unmatched sales stay in Direct / Unknown. They are never spread across the paid channels to make the total look better.
The argument
What changes when the patient and the ad share a row.
The consultation is the expensive middle nobody costs
In aesthetics the consultation is often free, takes forty minutes, and occupies a provider or a trained advisor whose time is the practice's scarcest resource.
Cost per consultation therefore understates the true cost of a channel by exactly the amount of time it wastes, and the waste is not evenly distributed.
A source producing ten consultations for one treatment is consuming a working day per patient acquired, which is invisible in every advertising report.
Because both halves are in one system here, conversion from consultation to treatment can be reported per source without any additional tracking.
That number is usually more actionable than the revenue ranking, because it points at the offer and the consultation script rather than at the channel.
Procedure mix explains most of the difference between sources
A course of injectables, a device package and a surgical procedure differ enormously in value, in consideration time and in who is looking for them.
A channel weighted towards one is ranked as though it produced the mix, which is how a good source of high-value work gets cut for producing few patients.
Where the export carries a procedure category, the report splits on it and each category gets its own ranking and its own sensible window.
Most practices find the sources feeding injectables and the sources feeding surgical enquiries barely overlap, which argues for separate budgets rather than one.
It also stops a single large case from deciding a channel's ranking, because the median is shown beside the total.
Packages and memberships spread one decision across a year
Treatment packages and membership plans are bought once and consumed over months, which breaks any match that attributes on the treatment date.
Attributing on purchase keeps the decision with the campaign that produced it, and the report sums by patient so a package is one outcome rather than six.
It also prevents a maintenance visit a year later being credited to whatever campaign happened to be running that week.
Where the export flags the package, this is automatic; where it does not, the amounts and dates usually make it obvious.
The distinction matters most for the channels that sell on price, because a discounted package looks like strong revenue on the day it is bought.
Both halves in one system is an advantage and still not a complete answer
Holding the enquiry and the revenue in the same place removes most of the joining problems this catalogue exists to solve, and it is a genuine advantage.
What it does not do is verify the source field, which is still filled in by whoever took the enquiry and is subject to the usual drift.
Where you also run call tracking or have a separate lead file from an advertising platform, bringing it in gives a second, independent view.
Where the two disagree, the report shows the gap rather than preferring one, which is how a source field gets corrected rather than trusted.
Fair questions
“PatientNow already does that.” Not quite.
They say
“Our consultations are free, so they cost nothing.”
We say
They cost forty minutes of the practice's scarcest time. That is the largest hidden cost in the category.
They say
“Cost per consultation is our metric.”
We say
It understates channels that waste clinical hours. Conversion to treatment is the number that fixes it.
No. It reads exported files, so your charts, photographs and consent records stay where they are.
Enquiries with a contact detail, source and date, plus collected treatment revenue with amounts and dates.
Each consumed clinical or advisor time. A channel producing many is expensive in a currency cost per lead does not measure.
Yes, consultation to treatment, and it is usually more actionable than the revenue ranking itself.
A year. Considered procedures are researched for months and packages are consumed over more.
Attributed on the purchase date and summed by patient, so one decision is not spread across six visits.
Yes, where the export carries a category, and it usually explains most of the difference between sources.
To check the source field against an independent join, and to bring in call tracking or platform lead files the system never saw.
The median is shown beside the total so one case cannot silently rank a source.
Any revenue with no traceable enquiry. Its size is stated rather than distributed.
A contact detail, an amount and a date, plus a procedure category if you include one. No photographs, no clinical notes, no consent forms, no card data. Encrypted in transit and at rest and deleted with the import.
Revenue per source with consultation-to-treatment conversion beside it, split by procedure where available, and everything unmatched kept visible.
By trade
Trades that run PatientNow.
What the report looks like once the export is in, written for each one.
- Med Spas & DermatologyWhich ads produced treatments people paid for?
- Cosmetic SurgeryWhich ads produced procedures, not consultations?
- DermatologyWhich channels produced treated, paying patients?
- Hair RestorationWhich channels produced procedures, not consultations?
- Weight Loss ClinicsWhich channels produced patients who stayed?
Other systems
Also worth reading.
Running more than one system, or comparing? The method is the same and the columns are not.
Closed-sales file Zenoti Med spa and salon groups Closed-sales file What to export Closed-sales file Boulevard Med spas, salons and aesthetic clinics Closed-sales file What to export Lead and call file NexHealth Dental and medical practices Lead and call file What to export
All 97 systems 
PatientNow and the other product names and logos on this page belong to their owners and are shown to identify the software a file comes from. CloseRev is not affiliated with or endorsed by them, and connects to none of them: it reads a file you export.
Start today
Two exports, and you will know.
Nothing to install in PatientNow, no API key, and no need to have been tracking anything until now. Last year works as well as this month.