In 2007, researchers at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, working with InsideSales.com, studied what actually happened when businesses tried to contact people who’d shown interest in their services. Analysing three years of data across six companies, more than 15,000 leads, and over 100,000 call attempts, the finding was blunt: contacting someone within five minutes made a business roughly 100 times more likely to actually reach them than waiting just 30 minutes, and 21 times more likely to have a meaningful, qualifying conversation.
A follow-up study in Harvard Business Review in 2011, auditing 2,241 US firms and over a million inquiries, found the same pattern at a larger scale: businesses that made contact within the first hour were roughly seven times more likely to succeed than those that waited even a little longer, and around 60 times more likely than businesses that took 24 hours or more.
The intuitive assumption is that following up matters, and it does, but these studies point at something sharper: it isn’t just whether contact happens, it’s how quickly. The odds don’t decline gradually. They fall off a cliff in the first hour, then keep falling as time passes. A business that follows up reliably, but slowly, is still losing most of the advantage that following up is supposed to provide.
The likely explanation isn’t complicated. Interest and intent are highest at the moment someone raises their hand, whether that’s a sales inquiry or, in a clinic’s case, a moment when a patient is due for something and hasn’t yet acted on it. The longer that moment sits unaddressed, the more it competes with everything else in a person’s day, and the less likely a response ever comes.
Clinics aren’t running sales pipelines, but the underlying mechanic isn’t as different as it might seem. A patient flagged as overdue for a review is, in effect, a lead the clinic already has, someone who needs to take an action, contactable, and with a window of attention that narrows the longer it goes unaddressed.
Most clinics don’t measure how long it takes between a patient becoming overdue and the first attempt to reach them, largely because that gap is usually invisible. A reminder system that runs on a weekly or monthly batch, rather than continuously, is effectively choosing a response time measured in days or weeks, even if nobody explicitly decided that was acceptable.
If the research on response speed translates even loosely to a clinic setting, the implication is fairly direct: a process that identifies and contacts overdue or high-risk patients continuously, rather than in occasional batches, is likely to perform meaningfully better than one that’s technically reliable but slow. The gap between “we have a process” and “our process responds quickly” may matter more than either a clinic’s size or its overall administrative effort.
None of this requires urgency for its own sake. It simply means that timing is a variable worth managing deliberately, rather than treating outreach as something that only needs to happen eventually, correctly, at some point.
Sources: Oldroyd, J. (2007), MIT Lead Response Management Study, in partnership with InsideSales.com; Oldroyd, McElheran & Elkington (2011), “The Short Life of Online Sales Leads,” Harvard Business Review.
See how Coda keeps outreach running continuously, instead of in occasional batches.
The infrastructure layer that turns GP clinics from passive waiters into active carers.
© 2026 Coda Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
Made in Australia.
