Too many bond-up slots, not enough reviews
An orthodontic diary runs on templates: blocks for new patient consultations, bond-ups, adjustments, aligner reviews, retention checks, debonds and emergencies. They were designed years ago, perhaps when the practice did almost entirely fixed appliances.
Now the mix has changed. Aligner reviews are squeezed into adjustment slots. Bond-up blocks sit empty. Retention review slots are booked months out. Reception works round it every day, overriding the template.
Aligners have changed the shape of the day in particular. Aligner reviews are often shorter and less predictable than fixed appliance adjustments, and practices that added aligner work gradually tend to fit it into whatever slots were free rather than redesigning the template around it.
Why templates drift
- Templates are set once and rarely reviewed.
- The mix of treatment types changes over time.
- Reception overrides templates, which hides the mismatch.
- Nobody measures how each slot type is used.
- Future demand from active cases is not modelled.
What mismatched templates cost
Underused clinical time in some slot types and long waits for others. Reception time spent working around templates. Clinicians doing appointments in slots the wrong length, so they run late or sit idle. And decisions about sessions or staffing made without seeing where the pressure really is.
Holiday periods expose the problem most. Templates designed for term time do not suit the weeks when school-age patients are free during the day, and adjusting them by hand for each holiday is a job that gets left.
The template review we build
- Diary data is read from your practice management system for a period you choose, with slot types and the appointment booked in each.
- For each slot type, we show how often it was used as intended, used for something else, overbooked or left empty.
- Appointment lengths booked are compared with the slot lengths the template gives.
- Active cases are used to model demand in the coming months, for example how many debonds and retention reviews are likely, based on estimated treatment times.
- A proposed template is suggested for discussion, showing the effect of changes.
- The review can be rerun regularly, so drift is caught early.
| Slot type | What the review shows |
|---|---|
| Bond-up | Use rate and empty blocks |
| Adjustment | Overbooking and other uses |
| Aligner review | Where they are being squeezed |
| Retention | Future demand from debonds |
| Emergency | Use by day of week |
Appointment lengths and clinical scheduling are decisions for your clinicians. The review gives them evidence to decide with.
Templates that match the work
Reception overrides the template less often. Clinicians work in slots of the right length. Future demand, such as a wave of debonds, is visible months ahead. And template changes are made on evidence rather than on complaints.
The review also helps when the practice changes, for example when a new therapist joins, an orthodontist reduces sessions or the practice takes on more aligner work. Instead of guessing a new template, the practice can see how existing demand would fit.
Reception usually knows where the template is wrong long before anyone measures it. The review turns that knowledge into figures the clinicians and owner can agree on, which makes the change easier to make.
Is your diary like this?
- Diary templates have not been reviewed for a long time.
- Reception regularly overrides the template.
- Some slot types sit empty while others are overbooked.
- Your treatment mix has changed since templates were set.