Clinic Overbooking to Improve Patient Access and Increase Provider Productivity*
Abstract
The problem of patient no‐shows(patients who do not arrive for scheduled appointments) is significant in many health care settings, where no‐show rates can vary widely. No‐shows reduce provider productivity and clinic efficiency, increase health care costs, and limit the ability of a clinic to serve its client population by reducing its effective capacity. In this article, we examine the problem of no‐shows and propose appointment overbooking as one means of reducing the negative impact of no‐shows. We find that patient access and provider productivity are significantly improved with overbooking, but that overbooking causes increases in both patient wait times and provider overtime. We develop a new clinic utility function to capture the trade‐offs between these benefits and costs, and we show that the relative values that a clinic assigns to serving additional patients, minimizing patient waiting times, and minimizing clinic overtime will determine whether overbooking is warranted. From the results of a series of simulation experiments, we determine that overbooking provides greater utility when clinics serve larger numbers of patients, no‐show rates are higher, and service variability is lower. Even with highly variable service times, many clinics will achieve positive net results with overbooking. Our analysis provides valuable guidance to clinic administrators about the use of appointment overbooking to improve patient access, provider productivity, and overall clinic performance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Using overbooking as a solution to no-shows and last-minute cancelations often causes an increase in patients' wait time and clinicians' overtime.
“To address the issues resulting from no-shows and last-minute cancelations, using overbooking as a solution often causes an increase in patients’ wait time and clinicians’ overtime [278].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [278]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 43 · Cited by 338
- Authors
- LaGanga, L. R., & Lawrence, S. R.
- Affiliations
- Mental Health Center of Denver (US)
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Corresponding author
- LaGanga, Linda R.
- Lawrence, Stephen R.
- ORCID
- LaGanga, Linda R.
- Venue
- Decision Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-05
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 251-276
- ISSN
- 0011-7315 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5915
- OpenAlex
- W2126521023
- Cited by
- 338
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 9.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Decision Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Supply Chain and Inventory Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
- Keywords
- patient no-shows, patient access, provider productivity, clinic efficiency, patient waiting time, service time variability, clinic capacity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review