Why tracking referral sources pays off
Referral Sources is a settings page where you maintain the list of places patients say they heard about your clinic — a website, a friend's recommendation, a specific advertising campaign, or a referring practice. Once defined, a referral source can be assigned to a patient's record, usually captured once at intake and then left alone.
On its own, tagging a single patient with a source doesn't tell you much. The value shows up in aggregate, once enough patients have been tagged that patterns emerge — which channels are actually bringing in new business, and which ones you might be spending time or money on for very little return. That's only possible if the list of sources is set up thoughtfully from the start, since messy or overlapping categories make the resulting report harder to read, not easier.
- How to add, edit, and remove referral sources
- How to structure source categories so reporting on them stays meaningful
- How referral sources connect to the New Patients by Source report
Managing the list
Referral Sources uses a simple grid where each row is a source name or label — there's no additional configuration per source beyond its name, which keeps the list quick to maintain.
Open the settings page
Go to <strong>Settings > Referral Sources</strong>.
Add a source
Click <strong>Add</strong> and enter a name for the referral source, such as "Google Search" or "Patient Referral".
Edit or remove a source
Use the row controls to edit a name or delete a source you no longer use.
Save
Save your changes so the source becomes available to assign on patient records.
Getting the categories right the first time
Because every new patient gets tagged against whatever list already exists, the structure you set up early tends to stick around for a long time — front desk staff will naturally pick from whatever's already there rather than requesting new categories. A little planning up front avoids a list that's either too coarse to be useful or too fragmented to summarize.
| Approach | Example | Tradeoff |
|---|---|---|
| Too broad | A single "Online" source covering search, social media, and your website equally | Easy to fill in, but the resulting report can't tell you which specific channel is actually working |
| Too granular | A separate source for every individual ad variant or staff referral by name | Precise, but the list becomes unwieldy at intake and the report fragments into too many tiny slices to read at a glance |
| A good middle ground | Distinct sources per channel that map to a decision you'd actually make — "Google Search", "Instagram", "Existing Patient Referral", "Referring Physician" | Coarse enough to fill in quickly, specific enough that the report tells you where to invest |
A useful test when naming a new source: would knowing this specific category change what you'd do next? If a more detailed split would actually change a marketing or partnership decision, it's worth the extra category. If it wouldn't change anything, it's likely better folded into a broader existing source.
How this feeds reporting
The referral source assigned to each patient feeds the New Patients by Source report, letting you see which sources bring in the most new patients over a given period. This is where the category design choices above pay off directly — a well-structured list turns into a report you can act on, while an inconsistent one just produces a long list of near-duplicate rows.