Background 

Urgent Care centers play a critical role in providing timely, accessible care for acute medical conditions across the United States. As the Urgent Care field continues to expand, healthcare organizations increasingly rely on productivity metrics to evaluate clinician performance and operational efficiency. 

Historically, clinician productivity in Urgent Care has often been defined primarily by patient volume or patients seen per shift. While throughput is an important operational consideration, productivity models based solely on visit volume may not fully reflect the complexity of Urgent Care practice or the multiple factors required to deliver safe, high-quality care. 

To better understand clinician perspectives on productivity in Urgent Care settings, the College of Urgent Care Medicine (CUCM) conducted a national survey of Urgent Care clinicians across a variety of practice models and geographic regions. 

Position Statement 

The College of Urgent Care Medicine (CUCM) and and Urgent Care College of Physicians (UCCOP) affirms that clinician productivity in Urgent Care should be defined using a balanced, multidimensional framework that incorporates patient volume, clinical quality, patient safety, patient complexity, documentation requirements, and operational resources. 

CUCM believes that productivity expectations should support safe, high-quality patient care while promoting sustainable clinical workflows and clinician well-being. Productivity models that rely solely on patient throughput risk overlooking the broader responsibilities of Urgent Care clinicians and may contribute to operational inefficiencies and workforce burnout. 

CUCM supports the adoption of productivity frameworks that are transparent and fair in how expectations are defined and measured, and that align operational goals and patient-centered care. 

Recommendations 

CUCM recommends a consistent productivity framework for Urgent Care that does not rely on patient volume alone, but instead evaluates clinician productivity using the following four integrated components: 

1. Quality of Care: Patient safety, clinical quality, patient satisfaction, and patient complexity should be incorporated into productivity assessments. 

1. Documentation and Administrative Workload: Productivity frameworks should account for documentation requirements and administrative responsibilities that extend beyond direct patient care. 

1. Operational Resources and Staffing Alignment: Productivity expectations should be aligned with available staffing resources, support staff, and operational workflows. 

1. Burnout and Workforce Sustainability: Organizations should monitor the relationship between productivity expectations, clinician burnout, and long-term workforce sustainability. 

Supporting Rationale 

Survey findings from practicing Urgent Care clinicians demonstrated that productivity expectations influence several aspects of care delivery, including patient safety, quality of care, and patient satisfaction.  

Many respondents reported additional documentation responsibilities beyond scheduled clinical shifts, indicating that traditional productivity metrics may underestimate the total scope of clinical workload.  

Clinicians also identified high patient volume, staffing limitations, and documentation burden as significant contributors to workplace stress and burnout. These findings support CUCM’s recommendation that productivity models emphasizing visit volume alone fail to account for key clinical and operational factors affecting Urgent Care practice.  

Conclusion 

Clinician productivity is an important component of Urgent Care operations; however, productivity measures must reflect the full complexity of the current clinical environment of Urgent Care practice. 

CUCM supports and recommends the use of balanced, multidimensional productivity frameworks that promote high reliability, evidence-based, high-quality patient care, operational efficiency, and the long-term sustainability of the Urgent Care workforce. 

Approved June 11, 2026