Study Evaluates Benefits of Pre-Visit Planning

Healthcare groups are increasingly looking for ways to prove that the pre‑visit planning process actually reduces workload and improves patient flow, prompting clinics to adopt concrete measurement methods.

Tracking patient contacts before and after the new process

One practical metric is the volume of telephone calls or electronic messages that revolve around lab and imaging results. Staff members record each outreach attempt on a simple log for a full week prior to the change, then repeat the exercise at 12 weeks and again at 24 weeks after rollout.

The log captures inbound and outbound interactions, noting whether the conversation was completed, deferred, or required a follow‑up. By aggregating these entries, a practice can see whether the number of contacts per clinician declines once patients receive required tests ahead of their appointment.

Clinics are advised to compute an average weekly count across all providers who submitted data. The total number of recorded contacts forms the numerator, while the number of participating clinicians serves as the denominator. This yields a per‑clinician average that can be compared across the three measurement periods.

Turning numbers into visual insight

After calculating the averages, the next step is to plot the data on a line graph.

The chart should display three points: baseline, the 12‑week mark, and the 24‑week mark, allowing staff to see trends at a glance. Sharing the visual with the whole team often reinforces the value of the approach and encourages continued adherence.

The trend becomes visible instantly.

In many cases, the graph shows a modest but steady drop in outreach attempts, suggesting that patients arrive with results already in hand. This reduction can free up appointment time for discussion rather than data gathering.

When looking at similar initiatives in other specialties, the pattern resembles earlier efforts to streamline medication reconciliation, where front‑end data collection also trimmed down redundant calls. The experience hints that front‑loading information gathering tends to pay off across different clinical workflows.

Reported benefits and practical hurdles

Proponents claim that the approach strengthens the doctor‑patient relationship, improves access, and yields smoother visits. Some clinicians even report leaving the office an hour earlier, citing a sense of accomplishment at the end of the day.

Nevertheless, the effort required to maintain the tracking log can be a deterrent for busy practices. Critics point out that dedicating staff time to data entry may offset the anticipated gains, at least in the short term.

According to Neil Baum, M.D., a professor of clinical urology at Tulane Medical School, practices that have adopted the method “report improvements in the doctor‑patient relationship, access to care, streamlined visits and favorable responses from patients, staff and physicians.” He adds that the process “creates a sense of satisfaction with the day, a job well done, and the knowledge that your patients and staff feel the same.”

Baum’s own publications, including a textbook that has sold over 175,000 copies, often stress the business side of medicine, arguing that efficiency tools must be measured to justify their cost.

The document outlining the measurement steps does not claim universal success, but it does provide a clear framework for clinics willing to test the hypothesis that early data collection can free up valuable face‑time during appointments.