I don't have much experience working in large-system outpatient practice. Something I have always wondered with numbers like the above (700 patients) is how you approach care with a panel of that size. Doing some quick math, if you only do follow-ups (zero intakes) you have:
48 follow-up slots per week (24 patient care hours, 30 mins per follow-up)
700 patients
700 / 48 = 14.6 weeks between patients, if everyone is being seen regularly at the exact same frequency.
In my experience, many outpatients need to be seen more often (anywhere from every 1-4 weeks when not stable). Anyone being seen at that high frequency obviously throws the numbers off quite a bit in terms of how often everyone else can be seen.
So are there a lot of patients who are on your list who are actually inactive, as in you don't see them in a typical year? Or do you tend to see some people only once or twice per year, and anyone needing frequent follow-up (such as every week for a time) refer to a higher level of care like IOP? I often see what seem like high numbers to me thrown around for outpatient panel sizes, but find myself wondering if (for instance) many patients can bee seen once per year, why not hand them back off to the PCP?
In terms of my own thoughts for a "full" outpatient private practice panel, I think in terms of how often I am comfortable seeing people. I would feel very uncomfortable with doing an intake but, for instance, not being able to see them for follow-up until a month or two has passed. If we assume people average out to being seen around every three weeks, and assume 24 patient hours, that works out to something like:
48 follow-up slots per week
Q3 week follow-up (on average)
3 weeks between patients x 48 available slots per week = around 144 patients to be "full." In a productivity-based system (like PP), this also works out fine. You get just as much workload credit seeing a 30-min followup who was seen two weeks ago as you do for seeing a 30-min follow up that needs to be spaced out to every three months.