Generative engine optimization

When a patient asks ChatGPT or Perplexity for a doctor recommendation, the model pulls from whichever sources it trusts most. GEO is the work of becoming one of those sources.

GEO work starts with a simple test: we ask ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini the questions your future patients are likely asking, and see whether your practice comes up at all. Most first audits turn up nothing, not because the practice isn't good, but because nothing on the site is structured for a model to confidently cite. From there, the work is building the citations, schema, and consistent facts across the web that give a model a reason to trust your practice as a source, then re-testing the same questions monthly to track whether citations are actually appearing.

The trust-resolution problem

When a language model is asked for a doctor recommendation, it's effectively resolving a trust question in real time: which of the sources it has access to is confidently accurate about this specific practice. A practice with clean, consistent, well-structured information wins that resolution more often, regardless of how long the practice has been in business or how many backlinks its site has.

Why GEO work needs monthly re-testing, not a one-time fix

Unlike a Google ranking, which you can check any time in Search Console, there's no dashboard for AI citation status. The only reliable way to know where a practice stands is to actually ask the models the questions a patient would ask, on a recurring basis, since citations shift as the models update and as competitors do their own structural work.

What we've found actually correlates with getting cited

Across accounts we manage, three things correlate most consistently with a practice starting to get cited: complete and accurate schema markup, identical NAP (name, address, phone) information across the website and every directory listing, and content with a named, credentialed physician byline. Backlink volume and page count show a much weaker correlation than they do for traditional SEO rankings. This tracks with published research too, a Princeton and Georgia Tech study on generative engine optimization found that structured statistics, clear citations, and formatted Q&A content lifted AI-generated answer visibility by up to 40% over unstructured equivalents, which is consistent with the pattern we see in practice.

GEO across different AI platforms isn't identical

ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini don't source and weigh information in exactly the same way. Perplexity tends to cite sources more explicitly and in real time; Gemini draws more heavily on Google's existing index; ChatGPT's behavior varies by which browsing or search feature is active. We test against all three separately rather than assuming a fix for one automatically applies to the others.

When GEO and traditional SEO priorities conflict

Occasionally the two pull in slightly different directions, a page structured purely for keyword density might read as less citable to a model than one written more plainly with clearer factual statements. In practice this is rare, and when it happens we generally favor the more citable, plainly-written version, since that tends to perform reasonably well for both.

What we tell clients who want faster results

GEO is genuinely slower to show measurable movement than GMB work, and faster than waiting passively hoping AI models notice a practice on their own. There's no reliable way to accelerate it beyond doing the structural and consistency work correctly and testing consistently, since the models update on their own schedule, not a client's timeline.

GEO for multi-location practices

Each location needs its own consistent, accurate facts, not just the parent practice. A multi-location group where three locations have perfectly consistent information and a fourth has an outdated address on one directory listing will likely see uneven citation results across locations, since AI models evaluate the specific practice being asked about, not the brand as a whole.

GEO work varies significantly by country

A practice in Australia under AHPRA's testimonial restrictions needs different citation-building content than one in the UAE targeting bilingual patient searches. See our full country coverage for how compliance and GEO strategy interact market by market.

Related reading on GEO

For a deeper walkthrough of the mechanics behind this, our blog post on why practices rank on Google but not ChatGPT covers the underlying trust-resolution problem GEO is built to solve, and pairs well with our LLM SEO service for the technical implementation side.