On the FTE-correct metric — hygiene visits per hygienist per day — Park Column GP offices improved +1.9% YTD while comparable non-Park-Column offices slipped −0.6%: a +2.5pp relative edge. Encouraging, but attribution isn’t clean — the offices using the column most didn’t improve more than the dormant ones.
What the Park Column is meant to do. When an appointment isn’t confirmed ~24 hours out, the office moves it into a “park” column and backfills the freed slot — the goal is to stop losing hygiene chair time to broken appointments. If it works, a rollout office should get more completed hygiene visits out of each hygienist day than an office without the column.
Why per-hygienist, and why a baseline. Earlier we divided by office operating days, but that inflates the instant an office adds a hygienist (more visits spread over the same ~20 days). The correct normalization — and the one SGA East uses — is visits per hygienist-day: completed hygiene visits ÷ hygienist days worked. We then compared the 47 Park Column GP offices against the 24 Active GP West offices that never rolled out the column, same periods, as a difference-in-differences.
What we found. Per hygienist-day, Park Column GP went 5.83 → 5.94 YTD (+1.9%) while the control went 7.93 → 7.88 (−0.6%) — a +2.5pp relative edge; May was −0.4pp (flat). But splitting the rollout offices by how much they report shows no dose-response: regular +1.2%, occasional +0.2%, dormant +5.4%, correlation −0.14. A real column effect should show up most in the heavy users; here it doesn’t.
How to read it honestly. The +2.5pp YTD edge is genuine in the data but can’t be cleanly pinned on the column: usage doesn’t track improvement, and the control runs a structurally higher baseline (~7.9 vs ~5.9 visits/hygienist-day), so the two groups aren’t matched. Read the year-over-year change, not the levels. Without CDT-level appointment data we still can’t isolate the specific appointments the column recovered.
Bottom line. On the FTE-correct metric, Park Column offices edged the baseline by +2.5pp YTD — a more hopeful read than the per-office view — but the lack of any usage dose-response keeps it short of proof. Confirm it with consistent daily use plus appointment-level data, and a same-ROD matched control.
| Cohort | Offices | YTD ’25 | YTD ’26 | YTD Δ | May ’25 | May ’26 | May Δ |
|---|
| Office | ROD | May ’25 | May ’26 | May Δ | YTD ’25 | YTD ’26 | YTD Δ |
|---|
| ROD | Offices | May ’25 | May ’26 | May Δ | YTD ’25 | YTD ’26 | YTD Δ |
|---|
Karen asked whether hygiene visits per day actually improved at the 56 SGA West offices that rolled out the Park Column — measured from the PBI, because the offices won’t keep the manual daily form (22% form compliance). This is the SGA West parallel to the SGA East risk-score readout.
Hygiene Visits per Hygienist-Day = completed hygiene visits ÷ hygienist days worked, per office per period.
[Completed Visits] filtered to providers where User Type = "HYG".[Work Days] filtered to User Type = "HYG": the FTE denominator. This normalizes for headcount — an office that added a hygienist (3 in ’25 → 4 in ’26) no longer looks busier just for the extra body. Matches SGA East’s “Appointments ÷ Days Worked”.May 2026 vs May 2025 (last year), and YTD Jan–May 2026 vs YTD Jan–May 2025. Park Column went live Oct/Nov 2025, so YTD captures pre- and post-launch on the 2026 side.
Gen4 / SGA West Power BI dataset (Appointments + Providers + Date), queried directly via Service Principal. 120 West locations available; the 56 live Park Column offices were matched by practice name to the PBI location dimension.
To separate the Park Column from network-wide trends, we ran the identical per-hygienist-day metric for the 27 Active GP West offices that never rolled out the column (24 with usable PBI data) over the same periods. The Park-Column-minus-control gap is a difference-in-differences: if the column worked, rollout offices would beat the control. YTD, Park Column GP rose +1.9% while the control slipped −0.6% — a +2.5pp edge; in May the two were about even (−0.4pp). Caveat: the control runs a higher absolute level (~7.9 vs ~5.9 visits/hygienist-day), so it’s an imperfect comparator — read the change, not the levels.
Within the 47 GP rollout offices we used the Implementation Tracker’s per-office daily-form submission count as a usage proxy and split into Regular reporters (10+), Occasional (1–9), and Dormant (0). On the per-hygienist-day metric the tiers show no dose-response — regular +1.2%, occasional +0.2%, dormant +5.4% YTD — and the Pearson correlation between submissions and YTD change is −0.14 (slightly negative). A strict “80%+ compliant” split was not usable — only 1 of 56 offices clears that bar. Caveat: submissions imperfectly proxy actual column use; if the column worked, heavy users should lead, and they don’t — which is why the +2.5pp cohort edge can’t be cleanly attributed to the column.
Hygiene VpD moves for reasons beyond the Park Column (provider staffing, demand, schedule template). This shows whether throughput moved in the right direction in the rollout offices — it is not a clean attribution of the column alone. Same caveat flagged for SGA East: without CDT-level appointment data we can’t yet prove the office moved the right appointments.