Procedure history
Date, provider, location, code, tooth/surface where relevant, submitted/allowed/adjusted/collected amount, and payer class.
Acquisition playbook
Will the clinical production transfer—or leave the buyer with obligations?
A buyer may face patient expectations, open treatment, credits, remakes, and retreatment exposure created before closing. Which legal and financial obligations transfer depends on the transaction documents and applicable law; patient continuity still needs an explicit plan. Screening metrics locate the review; they do not prove overtreatment.
Minimum dataset
Request enough history to separate a pattern from a final-period story.
This is a restricted professional data schema, not an upload template for DenQAI. Real coded patient rows can remain identifiable, especially with exact treatment and visit dates. Keep them in an authorized review environment; use only reviewed aggregate findings in public calculators.
Patient cohort
Coded patient ID in an authorized review environment, new/established status, first-visit date, age band, payer, and active/recall definition.
Treatment planning
Plan and diagnosing provider, planned, accepted, declined/deferred, completed, and elapsed time.
Clinical documentation
Exam, images, periodontal records, diagnosis/prognosis, alternatives, consent, communications, and follow-up availability.
Quality and reversals
Remake, refund, credit, write-off, retreatment, complaint, payer/board inquiry, lab remake, warranty adjustment, and emergency return.
Referral and capacity
Recommendations and completions, services retained, doctor/hygiene days, booked hours, cancellations, new-patient exams, and provider departures.
Seller transition
Workback days, covenant, presale-work responsibility, indemnity, reserve, chart review, open cases, and patient communication.
Use the required fields to organize the review.
Clinical-transfer professional review schema · CSV · 32 fields · Includes one entirely fictional patient-level example · v2026.09.1The example is entirely fictional. Its Unverified status means no clinical finding has been established. Replacing a name with a code does not make real records safe for public tools or general AI prompts.
Screening metrics
Question generators—not verdicts.
Adjusted production and collections per doctor day and per active patientCrowns/onlays per 100 unique adult patients and crown-to-direct-restoration ratioFirst-12-month treatment for new patients versus established patientsPlanned → accepted → completed conversion and elapsed timeRemakes, refunds, credits, retreatment, complaints, and emergency returns per 100 unitsSeller versus associate mix, productivity, referrals, and procedure concentrationFinal 12 and 24 months versus the preceding 36 monthsRevenue dependent on procedures the buyer would not independently diagnose or perform
Independent chart review
Do not let the seller hand-select only attractive charts.
Predefine a sample that includes random active and inactive patients, every material provider, ordinary and high-production months, high-value cases, new patients, remakes/refunds/complaints, periodontal care, proposed-but-uncompleted cases, emergency returns, and enough presale treatment to estimate post-close exposure.
The reviewer should be independent, appropriately licensed or otherwise acting within lawful scope, and blinded to the desired price where practical. Counsel and the privacy lead should document the permitted disclosure path, recipient role, minimum necessary records, access controls, and any required agreement before review. A proposed sale does not authorize unrestricted chart access. The review asks whether the record supports assessment, diagnosis, findings, alternatives, the consent discussion, performed treatment, communications, and follow-up. A signed consent form alone does not establish an informed process.
Three economic cases
Price what this buyer can ethically and operationally reproduce.
The buyer can clinically and operationally reproduce the seller’s supported mix.
The buyer counts only work they would independently diagnose and are trained, willing, and staffed to deliver.
Unsupported, uncertain, nontransferable, or high-retreatment-risk production is excluded or discounted.
Use a recurring adjustment for future production lost and a separately supported one-time reserve for inherited obligations.
Young-practice / rapid-exit audit
Test maturity without inventing motive.
DenQAI’s reviewed sources do not establish a general “overtreat for four years, then sell” trend. Test the actual practice instead: ask whether its operating history, cohort maturity, evidence quality, and transferable production justify the goodwill.
Entity, site, brand, first-clinical-operation, and current-owner ages do not agreeLimited mature patient cohorts or low repeat, recare, and hygiene historyFinal-period increase in high-value treatment without a documented clinical and cohort explanationProduction concentrated in the seller or in procedures the buyer cannot reproduceRemakes, refunds, complaints, adjustments, or emergency returns absent from the sale memorandumStaff churn, recent cosmetic upgrades, equipment liens, deferred maintenance, or expiring warrantiesTax, PMS, claim, deposit, and bank records do not reconcilePrice depends on annualized recent months rather than verified multi-year performance
Chronology ruleentity age ≠ site age ≠ brand age ≠ clinical operating age ≠ current-owner tenure
Reconstruct formation, DBA, NPI, license, radiation, permit, occupancy, lease, UCC, first claim/deposit/patient/payroll, team, marketing, listing, and broker-engagement dates. Each mismatch creates a question, not a misconduct finding.
Convert the finding into structure
Adjust recurring value, reserve inherited obligations, and define presale-work responsibility.
Carry the independent-review case into the buyer-repeatable cash bridge and counteroffer. State the evidence, the amount, the duration, the non-double-count rule, and the transition protection requested.