Why the Traditional Method of Running an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Practice is no Longer Effective and Competitive When it Comes to Dental Implant Services

while also considering your practice’s bottom line and your own standards of clinical excellence for your practice.

Before going further into making recommendations based on Operational Excellence to solve this complex problem, it is important to point out the customary methodology for practice management.

Rarely do dental and surgical practices set forth an ideal way they would like to see workflow happen in every situation that goes on within their offices. Patterns have been established by habit, rather than what works most efficiently for everyone in the office and, most importantly, the patients. Traditional and “old school” clinicians are ignoring the need to implement newer business models including efficient process improvements, effective methodologies, and integrated value chains (clinical activities that bring the most profit).

Status Quo:

Oral surgeon is the leader:

• Trains the staff
• “Knows it all” (including the numbers)
• Entire team and system revolve around the surgeon

Challenges with this system:

• Has many limitations
• It depends heavily on the practice owner
• System can fail because of personality, motivation level, and longevity of office staff

The status quo in practice management and operation is rarely challenged in dental and oral surgery offices. Things stay the same in many cases even though technology, education, and other areas have significantly advanced. The reasoning many give for the lack of innovation is, “That’s the way we’ve always done it.” This can be one of the most debilitating excuses made for mediocre practices.

Consequences of the Status Quo:

• Inconsistency in care
• Limited access to necessary resources for daily operations
• Continual interruptions
• Long wait time for patients
• Increased potential for error among the staff contributing to less than optimum treatment outcome

SROMS

6

Volume 22.6