Managing an Acute Hospital for Clinical Success and Financial Health: An Evidence-Based, DRG-Aware, Patient-Centred, EHR-Enabled Operating Model

Abstract

An acute hospital can be clinically successful and financially healthy only when quality management, clinical practice, operational efficiency, patient outcomes, and reimbursement are governed as one integrated system. The Donabedian model provides the conceptual logic: structures shape care processes, and processes determine outcomes. Value-based healthcare (VBHC) adds the strategic objective: maximize patient-relevant outcomes relative to the cost of achieving them. Evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice provide the epistemic standard for clinical decisions, while Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) impose a financial discipline by linking hospital revenue to case mix, coding, resource use, and length of stay. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) ensure that “success” is not reduced to mortality, complications, throughput, or margin alone. The Electronic Health Record (EHR), supported by Clinical Decision Support (CDS), is the technical infrastructure through which this model becomes operational at the bedside, in management dashboards, and in continuous improvement cycles.

1. Introduction: The central management problem

The acute hospital is a high-risk, high-cost, knowledge-intensive organization. It must deliver urgent, complex, multidisciplinary care while maintaining solvency under constrained reimbursement. The managerial error is to treat clinical quality, operational efficiency, patient experience, coding, and financial performance as separate domains. In practice, they are causally linked.

Avedis Donabedian’s structure-process-outcome framework remains the most useful starting point: staffing, governance, facilities, information systems, and professional capabilities are structures; diagnostics, treatment, handovers, discharge planning, and communication are processes; mortality, complications, functional recovery, patient experience, readmission, and cost are outcomes. Donabedian’s classic formulation explicitly established quality assessment as an analysis of the relationship between these three domains.

A financially healthy acute hospital therefore does not “save money” by cutting care indiscriminately. It improves value by reducing unwarranted variation, avoidable harm, delays, rework, low-value interventions, inaccurate medical records, coding errors, and avoidable length of stay (LOS) while preserving or improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes. This aligns with Michael Porter’s definition of value in healthcare as health outcomes achieved relative to cost.

2. Conceptual framework: integrating quality, value, evidence, and finance

2.1 Donabedian as the hospital’s quality logic

The Donabedian model should be used as the hospital’s governing quality architecture:

• Structure includes workforce capacity, competence, equipment, bed base, governance, EHR capability, clinical data quality, clinical coding capability, ICU capacity, diagnostic access, pharmacy support, and patient engagement infrastructure.
• Process includes evidence-based pathways, medication reconciliation, surgical safety checks, sepsis screening, diagnostic turnaround, discharge planning, multidisciplinary rounds, rehabilitation planning, communication, and escalation protocols.
• Outcome includes survival, complications, functional recovery, symptom burden, quality of life, patient experience, readmissions, avoidable mortality, hospital-acquired harm, and cost per care cycle.

The model is powerful because it prevents simplistic performance management. A poor outcome may reflect defective processes, but defective processes often reflect weak structures: understaffing, unavailable diagnostics, fragmented EHR design, lack of clinical ownership, or poor (clinical) data quality.

2.2 Evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice as clinical discipline

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is the “conscientious, explicit, and judicious” use of current best evidence in decisions about individual patients, integrated with clinical expertise and patient preferences. Evidence-based practice (EBP) extends this logic across professional disciplines, including nursing, allied health, pharmacy, and care management; it integrates research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values in healthcare decisions.

For hospital management, EBM and EBP imply that clinical pathways, order sets, discharge criteria, nursing protocols, rehabilitation triggers, antimicrobial stewardship rules, and escalation policies should be explicitly evidence-based, version-controlled, audited, and updated. The purpose is not cookbook medicine; it is disciplined standardization where evidence is strong, with justified individualization where patient complexity requires it.

2.3 DRGs as the financial constraint and case-mix language

Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) classify inpatient episodes into clinically coherent and economically meaningful groups. In DRG-based systems, hospital income is substantially related to the type and complexity of patients treated, rather than to every individual input consumed. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) describe DRGs as a patient classification scheme that relates case mix to hospital costs and forms the basis of prospective payment rates in Medicare.

DRG systems create incentives for efficiency by encouraging hospitals to reduce avoidable cost per case and unnecessary length of stay (LOS). However, they may also create risks: premature discharge, under-provision, coding distortions, patient selection, or excessive activity where marginal revenue exceeds marginal cost. Reviews of DRG-based systems therefore emphasize both transparency and efficiency gains, while also warning that quality must be actively monitored.

Thus, DRG management must never be separated from outcome management. The correct question is not “How do we reduce length of stay?” but “How do we reduce medically unnecessary days while maintaining or improving risk-adjusted outcomes, PROMs, PREMs, and readmission rates?”

Note: Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) are a patient classification system that categorizes hospital inpatient stays into clinically similar groups that consume similar resources. Developed in the 1970s at Yale University, it serves as a cornerstone for hospital reimbursement, shifting from cost-based payment to a prospective, fixed payment system based on the patient's complexity and diagnosis.

Note: Premature discharge, under-provision, coding distortions, patient selection (cherry picking, lemon dropping), or excessive activity where marginal revenue exceeds marginal cost, describe common strategic behavioral responses by healthcare providers (hospitals and physicians) to financial incentives in prospective payment systems (PPS) or diagnosis-related group (DRG) based funding. When reimbursement is fixed per case, providers are incentivized to reduce costs per patient and maximize volume, often leading to unintended consequences that affect quality of care.

2.4 Patient-reported measures as the correction to provider-centred quality

PROMs and PREMs are essential because clinician-defined outcomes do not fully capture whether care improved the patient’s life. PROMs measure outcomes such as symptoms, function, mental health, quality of life, or recovery; PREMs measure the patient’s experience of communication, coordination, access, dignity, involvement, and continuity. Patient-reported measures are increasingly used to understand patient needs and elevate healthcare quality.

ICHOM’s work is relevant because it standardizes patient-centred outcome measurement across conditions. ICHOM states that its mission is to standardize and drive global adoption of patient-centred outcome measurement, and its standard sets are designed to measure outcomes that matter to patients.

3. The hospital operating model

A clinically successful and financially healthy acute hospital should be governed through five linked systems: clinical governance, pathway management, DRG/cost management, outcome measurement, and digital execution.

3.1 Organize care around patient conditions and DRG-relevant pathways

The hospital should identify high-volume, high-cost, high-risk, and strategically important conditions. In an acute hospital these commonly include, depending on local case mix: sepsis, pneumonia, heart failure, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, hip fracture, COPD exacerbation, major joint replacement, colorectal surgery, obstetric care, emergency general surgery, and ICU episodes.

For each condition or DRG cluster, the hospital should create a multidisciplinary clinical value team. This team should include physicians, nurses, pharmacists, allied health professionals, case managers, coders, data analysts, finance partners, and patient representatives. The team owns the pathway, outcomes, cost profile, patient experience, documentation quality, and improvement agenda.

This resembles the logic of value-based healthcare and integrated practice units: organize around patient conditions and measure outcomes and costs for the full care cycle rather than only departmental activity.

Note: Integrated Practice Units (IPUs) are specialized, multidisciplinary teams organized around specific patient medical conditions rather than medical specialties. 

3.2 Translate EBM and EBP into clinical pathways

Clinical pathways are the operational form of EBM and EBP. They should define:

1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
2. Initial assessment and risk stratification (e.g. ASA score, ...).
3. Diagnostic standards (e.g. STARD 2015 guidelines).
4. Evidence-based treatment steps.
5. Nursing and allied health interventions.
6. Medication standards and stewardship rules.
7. Escalation criteria (e.g. Early Warning Score).
8. Expected clinical milestones.
9. Discharge criteria.
10. Follow-up, rehabilitation, and patient-reported outcome collection.

Systematic reviews have found that (realistic) clinical pathways can reduce length of stay (LOS) and hospital costs, and may improve documentation and reduce complications, although effects vary by condition and implementation quality.

The pathway should distinguish process efficiency from process effectiveness. Efficiency asks whether care is delivered without waste, delay, duplication, or avoidable resource consumption. Effectiveness asks whether the right evidence-based care was delivered to the right patient and produced the intended outcome.

Examples:

Domain	Example indicators
Efficiency	Length of stay, avoidable bed days, theatre utilization, diagnostic turnaround, time to discharge prescription, cost per DRG, nursing overtime, delayed transfers
Effectiveness	Guideline adherence, mortality, complications, rescue failure, medication safety, readmission, functional recovery, PROM improvement
Patient-centredness	PREMs, shared decision-making, communication quality, dignity, involvement of family/caregivers
Financial health	DRG margin, case-mix index (CMI), clinical documentation completeness, cost variance, contribution margin by pathway
Balancing measures	Readmission, post-discharge mortality, complaints, staff burnout, Emergency Department (ED/ER) boarding, premature discharge signals

3.3 Manage DRGs ethically and analytically

DRG management should be a clinical-financial discipline, not a coding game. The hospital should implement:

• Clinical documentation integrity. Diagnoses, comorbidities, complications, procedures, and discharge status must be accurately documented. This protects legitimate reimbursement and supports risk adjustment. It should not be used for inappropriate upcoding.
• Case-mix analytics. Compare observed case mix, severity, complications, length of stay (LOS), and cost against internal history, peer benchmarks, and payer expectations.
• Contribution margin by pathway. For each major DRG cluster, calculate revenue, direct cost, indirect cost allocation, avoidable cost, complications cost, and opportunity cost of capacity constraints.
• Length-of-stay governance. Distinguish clinically necessary days from avoidable days caused by delayed diagnostics, late senior review, unavailable rehabilitation, medication delays, social care barriers, or poor discharge coordination.
• Complication economics. Hospital-acquired infections, pressure injuries, medication harm, venous thromboembolism, falls, and avoidable ICU transfers are clinical failures and financial failures. Reducing harm is one of the few strategies that improves quality and margin simultaneously.
• Patient-level costing. DRG averages are insufficient for pathway redesign. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) has been proposed and used in healthcare as a method to measure the actual resources consumed across care processes, supporting value-based healthcare cost measurement.

Note: Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) is a streamlined cost-management method that calculates expenses by multiplying the time required for activities by the cost per unit of capacity. It simplifies traditional ABC by requiring only two parameters - unit cost of capacity and time per activity - to provide more precise, scalable, and actionable profitability data.

Note: Potentially Preventable Complications (PPCs) and Potentially Preventable Readmissions (PPRs) are harmful events or return hospitalizations that occur after admission, often resulting from the processes of care rather than the natural progression of an illness. These events, which include hospital-acquired infections and premature discharges, are key indicators of healthcare quality and contribute significantly to increased hospital costs.

Note: Never events are shocking, preventable, and serious medical errors that should never occur, such as wrong-site surgery, retained foreign objects, or incompatible blood transfusions. Defined as preventable, measurable, and causing serious harm or death, these errors serve as a call to action for improved safety, rather than just a, mechanism for blaming staff.

4. Measurement architecture: from dashboard to learning system

The hospital should adopt a measurement system that follows Donabedian and VBHC simultaneously. Adopting a measurement system that simultaneously integrates the Donabedian model (Structure-Process-Outcome) and Value-Based Health Care (VBHC) frameworks provides a comprehensive approach to quality improvement. This hybrid model connects the foundational, operational aspects of care (Donabedian) with the ultimate goal of maximizing patient outcomes per unit of cost (VBHC).

4.1 Structure measures

Structure measures should include staffing ratios, vacancy rates, skill mix, bed capacity, ICU capacity, diagnostic access, EHR uptime, CDS coverage, pathway ownership, coding timeliness, (clinical) data completeness, and availability of patient portals or PROM collection tools.

Structural measures in healthcare are essential for assessing a provider’s capacity, systems, and processes to deliver high-quality care. These measures indicate whether a facility has the necessary resources, such as staffing, equipment, and information technology, to function effectively.

4.2 Process measures

Process measures should include timely antibiotics in sepsis, time to CT in stroke, medication reconciliation, VTE prophylaxis, early mobilization after surgery, daily senior review, discharge planning within 24 hours, antimicrobial review, pain assessment, and completion of patient education.

Note: Process measures for the First Hour Quintet (FHQ) - Cardiac Arrest, Chest Pain (specifically acute myocardial infarction/cardiac origin), Stroke (acute cerebral vascular incident), Severe Trauma,Severe Respiratory Difficulties/Failure - focus on minimizing time intervals to improve survival. They are generally considered more effective than outcome measures for rewarding quality, as they encourage continuous improvement, according to the European Emergency Data Project (Response Time (RT), Maximum Allowed Response Time Compliance Rate (MARTCR), Time to First Proper Treatment, Median Handover Time).

Note: Combining process mining with Statistical Process Control (SPC) in healthcare offers a data-driven approach to monitor, analyze, and improve patient care pathways. While process mining discovers the actual workflows from event logs (e.g., in hospital information systems), SPC provides control charts to determine if the process is stable and consistent over time.

Note: Continuous improvement cycles are iterative, four-stage methodologies - most commonly Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) or PDSA (Study) - used to improve products, services, or processes incrementally.

4.3 Outcome measures

Outcome measures should include risk-adjusted mortality, complications, readmission, functional status, symptom control, quality of life, return to usual activities, discharge destination, adverse events, and cost per episode.

WHO defines high-quality care as effective, safe, people-centred, timely, equitable, integrated, and efficient; the Institute of Medicine’s six aims similarly emphasize safety, effectiveness, patient-centredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity:

1. Safe: Avoiding injuries to patients from the care that is intended to help them.
2. Effective: Providing services based on scientific knowledge to all who could benefit, and refraining from providing services to those not likely to benefit (avoiding underuse and overuse).
3. Patient-centered: Providing care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values, ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions.
4. Timely: Reducing waits and sometimes harmful delays for both those who receive and those who give care.
5. Efficient: Avoiding waste, including waste of equipment, supplies, ideas, and energy.
6. Equitable: Providing care that does not vary in quality because of personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status.

Note: Keep in mind the Quintuple Aim, which is an updated health care framework designed to optimize health system performance by pursuing five key goals simultaneously: improving patient experience, improving population health, reducing costs, advancing health equity, and enhancing clinician well-being. It builds upon the Triple Aim (patient experience, population health, cost) and Quadruple Aim (adding clinician well-being) by emphasizing health equity as a foundational component to reduce care disparities. Adopting an integrated measurement system that simultaneously utilizes the Donabedian model (Structure-Process-Outcome), Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) principles, and the Quintuple Aim provides a comprehensive framework to transition from volume to value. This integrated approach ensures that quality improvement efforts are anchored in measurable, patient-centered outcomes, cost efficiency, and equity.

4.4 PROMs and PREMs

PROMs and PREMs should be embedded into routine care, not treated as research add-ons. For each pathway, the hospital should define:

• Baseline PROM: collected before intervention or at admission when feasible.
• Discharge PROM or symptom score: collected before leaving hospital.
• Follow-up PROM: collected at clinically meaningful intervals, such as 30, 90, or 180 days depending on condition.
• PREM: collected shortly after discharge, focusing on communication, coordination, dignity, involvement, and discharge preparedness.

For example, hip fracture care should not be judged only by surgical timing and mortality. It should include mobility, pain, independence, discharge destination, fear of falling, rehabilitation access, and patient/family experience.

Note: Common PROMs include 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), EuroQol - 5 Dimensions - 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), while common PREMs include Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys.

Note: PROMs answer the question "Did the treatment improve the patient's health?", while PREMs answer the question "Was the experience of care good?".Integrating both tools allows providers to understand the relationship between the care experience (PREMs) and the resulting health improvements (PROMs), facilitating a shift towards value-based, patient-centered care.

5. EHR and CDS integration

The Electronic Health Record (EHR) should become the hospital’s clinical operating system. Clinical Decision Support (CDS) should translate evidence, pathways, risk models, and patient-specific data into timely action. Transforming the Electronic Health Record (EHR) into a hospital’s clinical operating system means shifting from a passive repository of patient data to an active, real-time intelligence engine. By embedding Clinical Decision Support (CDS) directly into the workflow, hospitals can move beyond simple documentation to active, data-driven patient management.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) defines clinical decision support as timely information, often at the point of care, to help inform decisions about a patient’s care; CDS can include alerts, reminders, order sets, dashboards, diagnostic support, and care suggestions.

5.1 Data model

The EHR must contain structured, reusable data elements:

• Diagnoses, comorbidities and complications.
• Procedures.
• Medications.
• Laboratory results.
• Vital signs.
• Nursing observations.
• Clinical scores.
• Imaging results.
• Allergies.
• Functional status.
• Discharge destination.
• PROMs and PREMs.
• DRG assignment and expected reimbursement.
• Cost and resource-use proxies.

Where possible, data should use standard vocabularies and interoperable structures (e.g. SNOMED CT, LOINC, WHO ICD, WHO ICHI). FHIR, SMART on FHIR, and CDS Hooks are relevant because they support interoperable EHR data access, workflow-integrated decision support, and reusable applications. CDS Hooks specifically describes a workflow-triggered pattern in which EHR events invoke CDS services and return information or suggestions. 

Note: SMART on FHIR (Substitutable Medical Applications, Reusable Technologies on Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) is an open-standards framework that allows third-party healthcare applications to securely and seamlessly connect to Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems. It enables developers to build a single app that works across different EHR vendors by using standard security (OAuth2) and data models (FHIR).

Note: CDS Hooks is an HL7 standard and FHIR-based specification that enables near real-time clinical decision support to be embedded directly into a clinician's Electronic Health Record (EHR) workflow. It triggers external services at specific workflow moments - such as prescribing or reviewing a patient record - to display actionable insights, recommendations, or data directly on the screen.

5.2 Pathway-embedded CDS

For each major pathway, the EHR should contain:

• Admission order sets.
• Risk stratification calculators.
• Nursing care plans.
• Medication protocols.
• Diagnostic bundles.
• Escalation criteria.
• Discharge criteria.
• Patient education materials.
• Follow-up scheduling.
• PROM/PREM triggers.
• Documentation prompts for legitimate comorbidities and complications.

Clinical Decision Support (CDS) should follow the “five rights”:

1. Right Information: Evidence-based, relevant data, or decision guidance.
2. Right Person: The specific clinician (physician, nurse) or patient/caregiver who needs to act.
3. Right Format: The most effective presentation (e.g., alert, order set, checklist) to ensure usability.
4. Right Channel: The medium of delivery, such as an Electronic Health Record (EHR) popup, mobile app, or dashboard.
5. Right Time: Delivered at the exact moment it is needed in the workflow for maximum impact.

This “five rights” principle is widely used in CDS design and appears in AHRQ-related CDS guidance.

5.3 Use cases

• Emergency admission. When a patient presents with suspected sepsis, stroke, acute coronary syndrome, pneumonia, or hip fracture, the EHR should trigger pathway-specific risk stratification, diagnostics, treatment bundles, and escalation rules.
• Medication safety. CDS should check allergies, renal function, drug interactions, anticoagulation risks, antimicrobial selection, and dose adjustments.
• Clinical deterioration. EHR data should feed early warning systems and escalation workflows.
• Discharge readiness. The EHR should require completion of medication reconciliation, patient education, follow-up appointment, pending results review, PROM/PREM scheduling, and discharge summary.
• DRG and documentation support. The EHR should prompt clinicians to document clinically relevant comorbidities, complications, laterality, severity, and procedures. This should support (clinical) accuracy, not manipulation (upcoding).
• PROM/PREM integration. The patient portal, bedside tablet, SMS link, or app should collect PROMs and PREMs directly into the EHR. Results should be visible in the clinical workflow, not hidden in a survey database.

5.4 CDS governance and evaluation

Clinical Decision Support (CDS) can improve clinician performance, but its effects on patient outcomes are variable and depend heavily on design, workflow integration, and clinical context. A JAMA systematic review concluded that many computerized CDS systems improve practitioner performance, while patient-outcome effects were less consistent. A BMJ review found that CDS improved clinical practice in 68% of trials and identified success features such as automatic provision within workflow, timing at the point of decision-making, and actionable recommendations. More recent reviews of inpatient CDS suggest positive effects in selected areas such as glucose management, transfusion, Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) prevention, pressure injury prevention, acute kidney injury, and deterioration detection, but effects vary by implementation.

Therefore, every Clinical Decision Support (CDS) tool should have:

• A named clinical owner.
• Evidence source and version date.
• Intended population.
• Expected benefit.
• Risk of alert fatigue.
• Override monitoring.
• Equity review.
• Safety review.
• Outcome evaluation.
• Retirement criteria if ineffective or harmful.

Where CDS software crosses regulatory boundaries, hospitals must consider applicable medical-device or software-as-medical-device requirements. The FDA, for example, has issued guidance clarifying when CDS software may or may not be regulated as a device. The EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR 2017/745) is the comprehensive legal framework governing the safety, performance, and sale of medical devices in the European Union. The GDPR, AI Act, and European Health Data Space (EHDS) form a tripartite regulatory framework designed to govern digital health and artificial intelligence within the EU, prioritizing safety, privacy, and data innovation. While GDPR protects personal data, the AI Act regulates AI risk, and the EHDS acts as sector-specific legislation (lex specialis) facilitating health data sharing.

Note: Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) are the non-medical, environmental conditions - such as housing, education, and economic stability - where people are born, live, work, and age, which deeply influence health outcomes. Achieving health equity requires addressing these disparities to ensure everyone has a fair, just opportunity to reach their full health potential.

6. Implementation roadmap

Phase 1: Establish governance

Create a hospital value board chaired jointly by the chief medical officer (CMO), chief nursing officer (CNO), chief financial officer (CFO), chief information officer (CIO), and quality lead. Its role is to align EBM/EBP, DRGs, outcomes, patient experience, and digital implementation.

Each priority clinical pathway should have a clinical-financial dyad: a senior clinician and a finance/operations partner. Add data analysts, medical coders, nurses, pharmacists, allied health professionals (AHPs), and patient representatives.

Note: A Quality Lead in an acute hospital is a senior clinical or management role responsible for driving patient safety, regulatory compliance, and continuous quality improvement (QI). They translate complex healthcare data and accreditation standards into actionable, front-line policies to elevate patient outcomes. Core responsibilities are patient safety & incident management, performance metrics, accreditation & compliance and quality improvement (QI).

Phase 2: Select priority pathways

Prioritize clinical pathways using:

• High mortality or morbidity.
• High volume.
• High cost.
• High variation.
• Negative margin.
• Poor patient experience.
• High readmission.
• Strategic importance.
• Feasibility of improvement.

A pragmatic start is to choose five pathways: one medical emergency, one surgical emergency, one elective surgical pathway, one chronic exacerbation pathway, and one frailty/complex-care pathway.

Phase 3: Build the pathway and measure baseline performance

For each clinical pathway:

1. Define patient cohort and DRG mapping.
2. Map the current process from admission to post-discharge follow-up (process mining).
3. Identify evidence-based interventions.
4. Identify waste, delays, duplication, and failure points.
5. Measure baseline outcomes, cost, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, PROMs, PREMs, and margin.
6. Identify clinical documentation and coding gaps.
7. Define pathway standard work and justified exceptions.

Note: Process mining in healthcare is a data-driven technique that analyzes digital event logs from hospital information systems (e.g., EHRs) to map, analyze, and optimize real-life clinical and administrative workflows. It identifies bottlenecks, inefficiencies, and deviations from standard medical protocols to improve patient care and reduce costs.

Note: Statistical process control (SPC) in healthcare is a scientific, data-driven method used to monitor, control, and improve clinical and operational processes over time. By using graphical tools like control charts, healthcare providers can distinguish between natural, random variation and significant "special cause" changes, allowing them to improve patient care and reduce errors in real-time.

Note: Pre-calculation (budgeting/estimation) and post-calculation (actual process cost analysis) are essential, sequential cost management processes. Pre-calculation sets expected costs, while post-calculation analyzes actual costs after completion to calculate process margins, compare against the (DRG) budget, and improve future clinical process performance and outcome (value for the patient).

Phase 4: Build EHR/CDS tools

Translate the clinical pathway into EHR functionality:

• Order sets.
• Clinical documentation templates (diagnosis, comorbidities, complications, procedures).
• Clinical Risk Scores (risk stratification, decision support, outcome prediction, reducing variation).
• Nursing care plans (NCP).
• Medication protocols.
• Discharge checklists.
• PROM/PREM collection.
• Dashboards (clinical and financial).
• Coding-support prompts.
• Quality and financial reporting.

Note: EHR order sets are pre-defined, standardized collections of medical orders - including medications, labs, imaging, and nursing instructions - designed to improve patient care efficiency and align with evidence-based practices for specific conditions. They facilitate Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE), reduce variations in care, and increase clinician efficiency by allowing multiple orders to be placed simultaneously. CPOE improves patient safety by reducing handwriting errors and providing real-time clinical decision support (CDSS) for alerts regarding drug interactions and dosages.

Note: A hospital discharge checklist ensures a safe transition home, reducing readmission risks by confirming medication changes, follow-up appointments, and home support. Key steps include obtaining a written discharge plan, reviewing medication changes, identifying red-flag symptoms, scheduling follow-up care, and arranging necessary home equipment or care support.

Note: An actionable clinical and financial dashboard is designed to transition from data visibility to immediate decision-making, moving beyond passive reporting. To be "acted upon," dashboards should highlight clinically relevant key performance indicators (KPIs) that show exactly what is happening, why it is happening, and what should be done next.

Note: Clinically relevant key performance indicators (KPIs) are specific, quantifiable metrics used in healthcare to measure patient outcomes, safety, and operational efficiency, acting as actionable "flags" for clinical process improvement. Top indicators focus on reducing mortality, reducing preventable complications, enhancing patient safety, optimizing treatment efficacy, reducing preventable readmissions, reducing unwarranted variability, and streamlining care delivery processes.

Phase 5: Pilot, evaluate, and scale

Pilot in one unit or patient cohort. Evaluate using statistical process control (SPC) rather than before/after anecdotes alone. Track clinical outcomes, operational indicators, financial indicators, staff burden, alert burden, patient experience, and unintended consequences.

Scale only after demonstrating that the pathway improves or preserves outcomes while reducing avoidable variation, waste, or financial leakage.

7. Risks and safeguards

The model has risks if implemented poorly.

1. Risk 1: Financial reductionism. DRG pressure may lead to unsafe discharge or under-treatment. Safeguard: use balancing measures, readmissions, post-discharge mortality, PROMs, and patient complaints.
2. Risk 2: Checklist medicine. Pathways may suppress clinical judgment. Safeguard: allow documented exceptions and senior review.
3. Risk 3: Alert fatigue. Excessive CDS interrupts clinicians and may reduce safety. Safeguard: tier alerts by severity, monitor overrides, remove low-value alerts, and use passive guidance where possible.
4. Risk 4: Gaming measurement. Coding, outcome selection, or exclusion rules may be manipulated. Safeguard: independent audit, transparent definitions, and risk adjustment.
5. Risk 5: Inequity. Patients with low digital literacy, language barriers, disability, frailty, or social complexity may be underrepresented in PROM/PREM data. Safeguard: multilingual tools, assisted completion, proxy reporting where appropriate, and equity stratification.
6. Risk 6: Data without action. Dashboards do not improve care by themselves. Safeguard: assign owners, review measures in operational meetings, and link data to improvement cycles.

Note: Cherry-picking and lemon-dropping are patient-selection strategies used by healthcare providers or insurers to maximize financial performance, particularly under value-based care or bundled payment models. "Cherry-picking" involves favoring healthier, lower-cost patients, while "lemon-dropping" involves avoiding or discharging sicker, high-cost, or complex patients.These practices are essentially different sides of the same coin, often described as a form of "adverse patient selection" that can impact patient access to care.

Note: "Gaming the system" in healthcare refers to the manipulation of rules, data, or targets to achieve a specific outcome - ranging from well-intentioned patient advocacy to corporate profit-seeking and clinical training. Gaming can lead to distributive injustice where resources are diverted from those who need them most to those whose providers are best at "playing" the rules. Continuous gaming of metrics can make reported data unreliable for actual system improvement.

Conclusion

An acute hospital becomes clinically successful and financially healthy when it treats quality, evidence, operations, patient-reported outcomes, and reimbursement as one integrated management system. Donabedian provides the causal framework; EBM and EBP provide the standard for clinical content; DRGs provide the economic discipline; process efficiency and process effectiveness provide the operational lens; PROMs and PREMs define whether care matters to patients; and EHR/CDS provides the infrastructure for execution.

The central management principle is this: standardize evidence-based care where standardization improves reliability, individualize care where patient biology or preferences require it, measure outcomes that matter, understand cost at pathway level, and embed the whole system into clinical workflow. Financial health follows not from crude cost-cutting, but from delivering the right care, at the right time, with fewer defects, fewer delays, better outcomes, better documentation, and lower avoidable cost.

Bibliography

AHRQ. Clinical Decision Support. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

AHRQ. Clinical Decision Support Systems: State of the Art. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

AHRQ. AHRQ-CDS GitHub. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Atsma, F., Elwyn, G., & Westert, G. (2020). Understanding unwarranted variation in clinical practice: a focus on network effects, reflective medicine and learning health systems. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 32(4), 271-274.

Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L., ... & STARD Group. (2015). STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology, 277(3), 826-832.

Busse, R., Geissler, A., Aaviksoo, A., Cots, F., Häkkinen, U., Kobel, C., ... & Quentin, W. (2013). Diagnosis related groups in Europe: moving towards transparency, efficiency, and quality in hospitals?. Bmj, 346.

Donabedian, A. (2005). Evaluating the quality of medical care. The milbank quarterly, 83(4), 691.

European Commission. Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act).

European Commission. European Health Data Space Regulation (EHDS).

European Commission. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

FOD VVVL. Terminology Center.

Garg, A. X., Adhikari, N. K., McDonald, H., Rosas-Arellano, M. P., Devereaux, P. J., Beyene, J., ... & Haynes, R. B. (2005). Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. Jama, 293(10), 1223-1238.

HL7/FHIR.Welcome to FHIR®

ICHOM. About us: Putting patients at the heart of healthcare. International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement.

ICHOM. Sets of Patient-Centered Outcome Measures. International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement.

Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academies Press.

Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. National Academies Press.

Kaplan, R. S., & Porter, M. E. (2011). How to solve the cost crisis in health care. Harv Bus Rev, 89(9), 46-52.

Kawamoto, K., Houlihan, C. A., Balas, E. A., & Lobach, D. F. (2005). Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. Bmj, 330(7494), 765.

Keel, G., Savage, C., Rafiq, M., & Mazzocato, P. (2017). Time-driven activity-based costing in health care: a systematic review of the literature. Health policy, 121(7), 755-763.

Leis, J. A., & Shojania, K. G. (2017). A primer on PDSA: executing plan–do–study–act cycles in practice, not just in name. BMJ quality & safety, 26(7), 572-577.

LOINC. What LOINC is.

Mathauer, I., & Wittenbecher, F. (2013). Hospital payment systems based on diagnosis-related groups: experiences in low-and middle-income countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 91, 746-756A.

Moja, L., Kwag, K. H., Lytras, T., Bertizzolo, L., Brandt, L., Pecoraro, V., ... & Bonovas, S. (2014). Effectiveness of computerized decision support systems linked to electronic health records: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American journal of public health, 104(12), e12-e22.

Niazkhani, Z., Pirnejad, H., Berg, M., & Aarts, J. (2009). The impact of computerized provider order entry systems on inpatient clinical workflow: a literature review. Journal of the American medical informatics Association, 16(4), 539-549.

OECD. PROMoting quality of care through patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Porter, M. E. (2010). What is value in health care?. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(26), 2477-2481.

Reed, J. E., & Card, A. J. (2016). The problem with plan-do-study-act cycles. BMJ quality & safety, 25(3), 147-152.

RIZIV. Federaal toezicht op en audit van de ziekenhuizen.

Rotter, T., Kinsman, L., James, E., et al. (2008). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of clinical pathways on length of stay, hospital costs and patient outcomes. BMC Health Services Research, 8, 265.

Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ, 312, 71–72.

SNOMED Internationale. SNOMED CT.

Sutton, R. T., Pincock, D., Baumgart, D. C., et al. (2020). An overview of clinical decision support systems: Benefits, risks, and strategies for success. NPJ Digital Medicine, 3, 17.

Taylor, M. J., McNicholas, C., Nicolay, C., Darzi, A., Bell, D., & Reed, J. E. (2014). Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ quality & safety, 23(4), 290-298.

Titler, M. G. (2008). The evidence for evidence-based practice implementation. In R. G. Hughes (Ed.), Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. AHRQ. 

USA. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Varghese, J., Kleine, M., Gessner, S. I., Sandmann, S., & Dugas, M. (2018). Effects of computerized decision support system implementations on patient outcomes in inpatient care: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 25(5), 593–602.

Weldring, T., & Smith, S. M. S. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures. Health Services Insights, 6, 61–68.

World Health Organization. International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI)

World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11)

World Health Organization. Quality of care.

World Health Organization. Surgical Safety Checklist.

Peter Van Osta. An essay concerning a new healthcare.