Screening capacity planner
Put in your reviewer hours and your hours per review. This returns the number of birth injury cases your firm can sign this year, which is usually lower than the number it is buying inquiries for. It then shows what a given inquiry volume does to your queue and to the age of the inquiries sitting in it.
The link carries your inputs. Forward it and the recipient sees exactly this result.
Result
- Reviews demanded per week
- ,
- Headroom (or shortfall)
- ,
- Utilisation of review capacity
- ,
- Queue after 4 weeks
- ,
- Queue after 12 weeks
- ,
- Wait for a new inquiry at week 12
- ,
- Max sustainable inquiries per week
- ,
Show the arithmetic
What a queue actually costs
| Lever | Speed | What it changes in the model above |
|---|---|---|
| Tighten the conversational screen | Immediate | Lowers the share of inquiries reaching records review. The cheapest lever, and the one most firms have not written down. |
| Fix the records-request process | Weeks | Removes waiting time that is not review time. Often recovers a fifth of throughput with no new headcount. |
| Add reviewer hours | Weeks to months | Raises the ceiling directly, at a known cost per hour. |
| Retain an external nurse consultant for overflow | Weeks | Converts a fixed ceiling into a variable one, at a higher unit cost. |
| Measure | Where it comes from | Common surprise |
|---|---|---|
| Hours actually spent on review, per person, per week | A two-week time log, nothing more elaborate | Usually well under half what the firm assumed |
| Hours per review | Timestamped start and decision on ten real reviews | Wider variance than expected; the mean hides it |
| Share of inquiries reaching records review | CRM stage counts | Higher than the firm believes, because the conversational screen is undocumented |
| Current backlog and its age distribution | A single CRM query | The oldest item is usually older than anyone thought |
Feed this ceiling into cost per signed case → · The full manual →
Provenance
| Input or output | Origin | If it is wrong, what breaks |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewers and hours per week | You, from a two-week time log, not from a job description | The ceiling, directly and proportionally. |
| Hours per review | You, timestamped on ten real reviews | The ceiling. It is the most commonly underestimated input here. |
| Utilisation | You, a realistic estimate | The ceiling. Nobody reviews for 100% of scheduled hours. |
| Share reaching records review | You: CRM stage counts | Demand, and therefore whether the queue grows or clears. |
| Queue forecast | Computed, backlog + weeks × (demand − ceiling) | Nothing; the equation is shown. |
| Any assumed screen-out rate | Not present. Yours or nothing. | n/a |
No default in this tool is a claim. The starting values exist so the page is not blank on arrival. They are not benchmarks, they are not averages, and they describe no real firm. Replace every one of them with your own before acting on the result. See Methodology.
Other tools
Cost per signed case
Put your real spend through birth injury conversion economics and see the number your reporting is missing.
Firm site audit
A scored, sourced, prioritised read of your own site against twenty checks. Full result on screen, no email.
Market opportunity
Births, obstetric delivery capacity and legal capacity for any state, from federal data.
All seven tools → · The publications behind them → · Or have me run it with you →
Authorship & review
- Author
- Kevin Schwaner, Founder; Chief Marketing Officer. Credentials.
- Last reviewed
- Corrections
- Found an error? Tell me and it goes in the dated corrections log, whether or not it flatters me.