Implementation of medical scribes in an academic urology practice: an analysis of productivity, revenue, and satisfaction

Benjamin J. McCormick, Allison Deal, Kristy M. Borawski, Mathew C. Raynor, Davis Viprakasit, Eric M. Wallen, Michael E. Woods, Raj S. Pruthi

Pressure on physicians to increase productivity is rising in parallel with administrative tasks, regulations, and the use of electronic health records (EHRs). Physician extenders and clinical pathways are already in use to increase productivity and reduce costs and burnout, but other strategies are required. We evaluated whether implementation of medical scribes in an academic urology clinic would affect productivity, revenue, and patient/provider satisfaction. Six academic urologists were assigned scribes for 1 clinic day per week for 3 months. Likert-type patient and provider surveys were developed to evaluate satisfaction with and without scribes. Matched clinic days in the year prior were used to evaluate changes in productivity and physician/hospital charges and revenue. After using scribes for 3 months, providers reported increased efficiency (p value = 0.03) and work satisfaction (p value = 0.03), while seeing a mean 2.15 more patients per session (+ 0.96 return visits, + 0.99 new patients, and + 0.22 procedures), contributing to an additional 2.6 wRVUs, $542 in physician charges, and $861 in hospital charges per clinic session. At a gross collection rate of 36%, actual combined revenue was + $506/session, representing a 26% increase in overall revenue. At a cost of $77/session, the net financial impact was + $429 per clinic session, resulting in a return-to-investment ratio greater than 6:1, while having no effect on patient satisfaction scores. Additionally, with scribes, clinic encounters were closed a mean 8.9 days earlier. Implementing medical scribes in academic urology practices may be useful in increasing productivity, revenue, and provider satisfaction, while maintaining high patient satisfaction.