Every sprint is sold on a promise about measurement rather than money: the same numbers as week 0, taken again at day 60, and sent to you whichever way they moved. This is what that document looks like.
This one is for a No-Show & Cancellation Sprint at an invented practice. There is no client here and no result here — the numbers were made up to show the format, the arithmetic and the parts most vendors leave out. Yours will use your own figures, and may well be less flattering than this.
Sample practice · single location, four providers · live 14 July, measured 12 September
No-shows and late cancels, as a share of booked appointments
18.4% → 11.2%
down 7.2 points
Measured across 1,284 booked appointments in the 60 days before the install and 1,341 in the 60 days after. Both figures come from your booking system's own export, not from anybody's recollection.
| Measure | Week 0 | Day 60 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| No-show + late cancel rate | 18.4% | 11.2% | −7.2 pts |
| Released slots refilled | 9% | 61% | +52 pts |
| Median time to refill | — | 41 min | new |
| Appointments confirmed at the 3-day text | — | 73% | new |
| Deposit taken where policy applies | 0% | 88% | +88 pts |
| Repeat no-showers (2+ in 60 days) | 14 | 13 | −1 |
| Provider utilisation | 71% | 72% | +1 pt |
| Patient complaints about the policy | — | 2 | new |
Two of these went the wrong way or barely moved. They stay in the report. A report that only contains the numbers that improved is marketing, not measurement.
This is an estimate, and here's where it's soft. It assumes a refilled slot is worth your room-hour value, which is a proxy rather than a measured margin. It counts each recovered slot once and nothing else: no claim is made about what those patients spent, whether they rebooked afterwards, or what the deposit policy prevented. Your accountant would call this directional, and they'd be right.
Against a $2,500 install and roughly $40 a month in texting costs, the sprint paid for itself inside the measurement window on these figures. On a quieter practice, or one where the desk holds the policy less consistently, it might not have.
Repeat no-showers barely moved. Thirteen patients account for a disproportionate share of what's left. The written rule is new enough that most haven't hit it yet; this is the number I'd look at again at day 120.
Utilisation moved one point, not seven. Filling a released slot doesn't automatically fill the calendar — some of those refills came from patients who would have booked later anyway. That's why the estimate above counts recovered time rather than claiming new revenue.
Two patients complained about the deposit. Both were resolved by reception, and both are in this report because you should know the cost side of a policy, not just the benefit.
One provider's schedule lags the others. Refill rate on Dana's column is 44% against 68% elsewhere, because her waitlist has fewer patients on it. That's a list-building problem, not a software problem, and it's worth fifteen minutes at your next staff meeting.
This install is finished and it's working. The next thing worth money at this practice isn't another install — it's the 31% of patients leaving without their next visit booked, which shows up in the week-0 data I already have. That's the Rebooking & Recall sprint, and it would be the honest recommendation.
If you'd rather run this one for another quarter and see whether it holds before spending anything else, that's a reasonable answer too, and it costs you nothing.
Sample document. The practice, the figures and the findings are invented to show the format. Nothing here is a client result or a prediction of yours.
The numbers differ by install — response times for Inquiry-to-Booking, rebooking rate for Rebooking & Recall, churn for Membership — but the shape is the same, including the section about what didn't move.