Meeting the competitive pressure on patient digital self-scheduling

Widespread use of digital self-scheduling tools for patients may still be the exception and not the rule for many medical group practices, but more patients expect it as part of their care experience: Nearly nine in 10 patients would choose their health practice based on convenient options such as self-scheduling, texting, making this feature a factor in competitive pressures. 

A July 29, 2025, MGMA Stat poll finds that 71% of practices have less than 25% of their patients using digital tools to self-schedule, whereas about one in five (21%) have between 25% and 50% of patients self-scheduling. On the higher end, only 5% reported having 51% to 75% of patients self-scheduling, and then only 3% with more than 75% of patients using these tools. The poll had 244 applicable responses. 

When asked if use of self-scheduling tools helped decrease patient no-shows, the respondents whose medical groups had the highest share of patients using self-scheduling were more likely to respond “yes,” while those with less self-scheduling were less likely to report no-show improvement.   

The results point to a slight change from a similar poll in November 2024, which found nearly three out of four groups (73%) had less than one in four of their patients using digital self-scheduling tools. 

Learn more 

This week’s MGMA Stat poll is sponsored by NextGen Healthcare. Learn more about the NextGen® Closed Loop™ Patient & Practice Experience for an end-to-end solution that creates a seamless experience for patients, providers, and staff. 

Addressing the barriers and how practices can overcome them 

People and culture 

Many physicians remain skeptical of self-scheduling tools, often fearing a loss of control over their appointment templates or anticipating a spike in no-shows. This resistance is often rooted in uncertainty about how the tools will interact with day-to-day workflows.  

• Solution: The most effective countermeasure is to pilot self-scheduling with supportive providers, share transparent no-show data early, and build momentum through peer champions. 

Process complexity 

Scheduling rules — especially those involving visit type, payer, or provider preferences — are often difficult to encode in a digital tool. Staff may assume these complexities make automation impossible.  

• Solution: Starting with high-volume, rule-light visit types (such as wellness exams or flu shots) allows practices to gain confidence and iterate from a solid foundation. 

Technology limitations 

EHR integration gaps and outdated scheduling platforms are frequent roadblocks. When systems can’t support real-time availability or sync cleanly with patient portals, adoption stalls.  

• Solution: The key is selecting platforms or third-party tools with proven API-level integration with major EHRs and prioritizing vendors with real-world success stories in similar-sized practices. 

Equity and patient access 

Digital scheduling can inadvertently create friction for patients with limited digital literacy, English proficiency, or reliable internet access. Practices that over-index on tech adoption without alternative pathways risk worsening disparities.  

• Solution: A hybrid model — pairing digital tools with phone, SMS text, and even interactive voice response (IVR) options — ensures broader accessibility while preserving operational efficiency. 

Governance and risk management 

Particularly in surgical and high-acuity specialties, concerns persist around mis-triaged appointments, malpractice exposure, and gaps in pre-visit consent or prep. These worries are not unfounded but can be mitigated.  

• Solution: Successful implementations use rule-based triage logic, require pre-appointment questionnaires, and restrict self-scheduling to visits with predictable protocols (e.g., post-ops or follow-ups). 

The payoff of digital self-scheduling: Value you can measure 

Administrative efficiency and staff reallocation 

When patients book appointments online, call volumes and hold times can drop significantly, freeing up frontline staff to focus on higher-value tasks such as prior auths or patient outreach, managing referrals, or supporting clinical teams. 

Revenue capture and growth 

Offering self-scheduling after hours or via mobile devices helps fill canceled slots faster and attract new patients who might otherwise go elsewhere. Practices that adopt digital tools see measurable gains in appointment volume and panel size. 

No-show reduction 

Practices using digital scheduling with reminders and confirmations can realize decreases in no-show rates, particularly for follow-ups and routine visits. These improvements directly translate into fewer revenue gaps and more consistent care delivery. 

Patient experience and retention 

Patients increasingly expect the convenience of digital booking. Practices that offer it not only improve satisfaction scores but also reduce the risk of patient attrition, especially among younger and commercially insured populations. 

What self-scheduling looks like in practice, by specialty grouping 

Primary care specialties 

In family medicine, pediatrics, and internal medicine, the volume and predictability of visits make digital self-scheduling a natural fit, but adoption often lags due to concerns around triage for same-day sick visits and variations in provider preferences.  

The best starting point is to enable self-scheduling for routine, low-risk visit types like annual physicals, new-patient intakes, or vaccination appointments. These serve as training grounds for staff and patients. As confidence grows, practices can expand to same-day appointments by pairing online booking with a “quick-fill” process, where last-minute openings are offered to patients via SMS. Practices also should track call volume per booked appointment, no-show rates, and panel growth to measure impact. 

Surgical specialties 

Surgical practices tend to hesitate when it comes to patient self-scheduling, largely due to the complexity of pre-op workflows, concerns about case appropriateness, and a heightened sensitivity to legal risk. But the reality is that not all visits carry the same risk profile.  

High-frequency, low-complexity visits (e.g., post-op follow-ups, wound checks, or suture removals) are ideal candidates for digital booking. Some groups have also successfully added minor procedures (e.g., carpal tunnel injections) to their self-scheduling menu by embedding pre-visit questionnaires that screen for exclusions.  

For these groups, success should be measured by appointment volume as well as gains in OR block utilization, earlier identification of cancellations, and fewer missed follow-ups. 

Nonsurgical specialties 

Cardiology, endocrinology, dermatology, and similar specialties operate in a middle zone; they are less procedurally intense than surgery but often more clinically complex than primary care. A key barrier here is referral-dependent scheduling: Patients often can’t book until records are reviewed or test results are in.  

To make self-scheduling viable, these practices can pair booking access with preconditions — such as uploading a referral document or completing a short clinical questionnaire. Telehealth visits for medication management, chronic condition check-ins, or results review are another strong candidate for digital access.  

Metrics to watch include new-patient conversion time, visit fill rate, and how many patients drop out between referral and appointment. 

Multispecialty groups 

Organizations with primary care and specialty services face a different kind of challenge: scaling digital scheduling across a wide range of visit types, workflows, and EHR templates. Success here often hinges not on the tech itself, but on governance — creating a unified provider directory, establishing shared scheduling protocols, and ensuring the data infrastructure is clean and up to date.  

Rather than launching everything at once, these organizations often begin by enabling self-scheduling in high-demand, access-sensitive specialties such as OB/GYN or orthopedics, while centralizing oversight in an access operations center.  

The payoff is highest when digital scheduling is tied to cross-service referral retention and measurable reductions in administrative burden. 

Conclusion 

Each specialty starts from a different place, but the path forward is similar: begin with what’s simple and scalable, build trust with staff and patients, and expand iteratively using data to guide each move. 

Additional resources 

• “Streamlining scheduling workflows to improve appointment capacity with physician engagement and technology” (Insight article) 
• “Putting the power of scheduling into patients’ hands” (MGMA Stat)