If your clinic or unit feels stretched thin — long waits, fragile throughput, and a team that’s running on empty — you’re not imagining it. The strain shows up in patients waiting longer for care and in the people delivering that care. In 2023, nearly half of physicians (48.2%) reported at least one symptom of burnout, a reminder that improving access and outcomes has to include staff well‑being too (AMA, 2024).
This post gives a practical, no‑fluff 90‑day plan you can use right away: measure where you are, run a couple of focused pilots, then scale what works. We’ll focus on three connected goals — faster, fairer access for patients; safer, more reliable outcomes; and less grind for your people — and show simple metrics to watch so you know you’re making progress.
Why 90 days? It’s long enough to gather a meaningful baseline and short enough to keep momentum. In weeks 1–2 you’ll pull baseline EHR, call‑center, and billing data; weeks 3–6 you’ll test targeted fixes (scheduling templates, staffing tweaks, discharge huddles, small AI pilots); and weeks 7–12 you’ll scale the wins and lock in governance and guardrails. Along the way we track clear KPIs — access (wait times/no‑shows), outcomes (LOS/readmissions/PROMs) and experience (patient and staff measures) — so the work stays practical, not theoretical.
Start with clarity: what patient care optimization means and how to measure it
The triple win: timely access, safer outcomes, better experience
Patient care optimization is the practical translation of the Triple Aim: improve the experience of care (access and reliability), improve health outcomes, and reduce per-capita cost—now often framed alongside workforce well‑being as the Quadruple Aim. Framing optimization this way keeps goals aligned: faster, safer, more person-centered care delivered by a sustainable workforce. For definitions and the framework, see the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s Triple Aim resources: IHI — Triple Aim and the IHI topics overview that highlights outcomes, experience, access, and workforce well-being: IHI — Improvement Topics.
Metrics that matter: wait time, LOS, readmissions, PROMs, staff burnout
Measure what matters. At the system and service line level prioritize: (1) access metrics — appointment wait time (request-to-visit and arrival-to-provider); (2) clinical outcomes — length of stay (LOS) and condition‑specific outcomes; (3) safety and utilization — 30‑day unplanned readmissions (standardized definitions available from CMS); (4) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to capture recovery and function (use ICHOM standard sets where possible); and (5) workforce well‑being/burnout using validated instruments such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). For the official 30‑day readmission definitions and measurement approach see CMS: CMS — Readmissions. For PROMs standards and condition sets, see ICHOM: ICHOM — Outcome Sets. For validated burnout tools, see Maslach Burnout Inventory resources: Maslach Burnout Inventory.
To underline urgency, recent D‑Lab research highlights how workforce strain and administrative burden are already squeezing care delivery: “50% of healthcare professionals experience burnout, leading to reduced job satisfaction, mental and physical health issues, increased absenteeism, reduced productivity, lower quality of patient care, medical errors, and reduced patient satisfaction. Additionally, clinicians spend 45% of their time using Electronic Health Records (EHR) software, limiting patient-facing time and prompting after-hours “pyjama time”. Besides that, administrative costs represent 30% of total healthcare costs” Healthcare Industry Challenges & AI-Powered Solutions — D-LAB research
Baseline in 2 weeks: pull EHR, call-center, and billing data
Set a two‑week sprint to establish a reliable baseline: extract the minimal canonical datasets, validate them, and publish a one-sheet dashboard. Key steps:
1) Define and extract: pull appointment logs and scheduling templates (timestamps for request, booking, arrival, provider start); EHR encounter data (diagnosis, procedure, admission/discharge timestamps for LOS); admission/discharge and readmission flags; PROMs responses if collected; call‑center logs (volume, hold time, abandonment); and billing/claims error rates. For guidance on consistent operational metric definitions and quality checks see FASStR and other operational-metrics frameworks: FASStR — operational metrics and scheduling/measurement advice from the National Academy of Medicine: NAM — Scheduling metrics.
2) Validate and reconcile: cross-check counts (scheduled vs. arrived vs. billed), inspect outliers (extreme wait times or LOS), and compute initial KPIs: median and 95th percentile wait times, average LOS and LOS by case‑mix, risk‑adjusted 30‑day readmission rate, completion rate and mean score for chosen PROMs, and baseline burnout scores (MBI or similar).
3) Visualize and prioritize: publish a one‑page dashboard that highlights the biggest gaps (e.g., clinics with long request-to-visit delays, service lines with high readmissions, units with high administrative error rates). Use those gaps to pick the first pilot areas.
With clear definitions and a validated two‑week baseline you’ll be equipped to move from measurement to action—retooling schedules, staff assignments, and throughput processes so that access, outcomes, and team well‑being all improve together.
Fix the flow: scheduling, staffing, and bed management grounded in operations science
Front-door redesign: demand forecasting, template optimization, no-show reduction
Start by treating the clinic front door as a supply‑demand problem: map requests by day/time, by reason-for-visit, and by clinician productivity for 8–12 weeks to reveal true demand patterns. Use those patterns to right‑size appointment templates (mix of same‑day, short follow‑up, and new‑patient slots) and reserve capacity for predictable peaks. The advanced‑access/open‑access model and template redesign reduce backlog and ED diversion when applied with continuous improvement: see practical guidance and evidence from the advanced access literature and scheduling best‑practice syntheses (Advanced Access synthesis — PMC, Building from Best Practices — NCBI Bookshelf).
Pair templates with predictive no‑show models and behaviorally informed outreach. Machine‑learning models plus SMS/voice reminders and targeted outreach to high‑risk patients cut missed appointments; randomized and systematic reviews show consistent reductions when reminders and targeted interventions are used (Predictive no‑show interventions — PMC, Reminder systems review — PubMed). Practical tactics: modest overbooking guided by no‑show probability, automated two‑way reminders, early outreach for high‑complexity visits, and a small same‑day reserve to absorb cancellations.
Right staff, right time: dynamic staffing and patient assignment
Move from fixed rosters to acuity- and demand‑driven staffing. Implement a simple acuity tool (+ real‑time census dashboard) that translates patient needs into staffed minutes; combine that with a flexible float pool and documented cross‑coverage rules. Studies show better outcomes and efficiency when staffing matches patient acuity and when assignment is optimized with data‑driven tools (Nurse staffing and outcomes review — PMC, Optimising Nurse–Patient Assignments — PMC).
Operationalize dynamic assignment by: (1) publishing a simple acuity-to-nurse ratio table, (2) running twice‑daily staffing huddles to adjust assignments, (3) using predictive models to flag expected surges 4–12 hours ahead, and (4) keeping a 1–2 FTE flexible pool for predictable peaks. Track fill rates, overtime, and patient acuity mismatch as KPIs.
Throughput levers: discharge-before-noon, daily huddles, escalation rules
Throughput is a system property: upstream scheduling + downstream capacity must be managed together. Three high‑impact operational levers are reliable discharge planning, short daily huddles, and explicit escalation rules for bed assignment and cleaning teams.
Discharge‑by‑noon initiatives can free morning beds and reduce ED boarding when paired with upstream planning; evidence is mixed but quality improvement projects and multi‑year implementations show sustained bed availability gains when process changes are embedded (see implementation studies and QI reports: Increasing and sustaining discharges by noon — PMC, Discharge Before Noon initiative — Joint Commission Journal).
Daily interdisciplinary huddles focused on prioritized discharges, pending diagnostics, and bed readiness shorten decision cycles and reduce handoff delays. Systematic reviews and toolkits show improved communication and measurable flow gains from short, structured huddles (Huddle effectiveness — PMC, AHRQ huddle component kit).
Create clear escalation rules (who authorizes extended hours for housekeeping, who moves a patient for rapid turnover, thresholds for stepping up staffing) and measure time-to-bed-ready and bed turnaround time. These simple operational playbooks convert daily variability into predictable shifts you can staff for.
Perioperative boosts: prehab and senior optimization to cut complications
Perioperative optimization (prehabilitation and geriatric assessment for older adults) reduces complications, shortens LOS, and lowers readmission risk when bundled and started early. Randomized and multicenter trials of multimodal prehabilitation show improved functional recovery and fewer complications in older surgical patients (Multimodal prehabilitation RCT, PREHAB trials and reviews — PMC).
Operational steps: screen elective surgery patients for frailty and high‑risk features at scheduling; enroll eligible patients in a 2–4 week multimodal prehab bundle (exercise, nutrition, smoking/alcohol counseling, medication review); coordinate a perioperative optimization clinic for seniors with anesthesia and geriatrics input (models like POSH illustrate team‑based perioperative care). Measure cancellations, complication rates, LOS, and PROMs to quantify ROI.
All of these flow fixes require reliable, short‑cycle measurement and a governance rhythm (weekly flow dashboard, daily huddles, and clear escalation). They also set the stage for targeted automation: when appointment patterns, no‑show risks, staffing needs, and discharge bottlenecks are instrumented, automation and ambient tools can remove administrative drag and free clinicians to focus on care—turning operational improvements into sustainable gains. “50% of healthcare professionals experience burnout, leading to reduced job satisfaction, mental and physical health issues, increased absenteeism, reduced productivity, lower quality of patient care, medical errors, and reduced patient satisfaction…Clinicians spend 45% of their time using Electronic Health Records (EHR) software, limiting patient-facing time and prompting after-hours “pyjama time”…Administrative costs represent 30% of total healthcare costs…No-show appointments cost the industry $150B every year.” Healthcare Industry Challenges & AI-Powered Solutions — D-LAB research
Cut administrative drag with AI that already works
Ambient scribing: 20% less EHR time, 30% less after-hours work
Ambient digital scribing captures the clinical conversation and drafts structured notes directly into the EHR, trimming documentation time and after‑hours charting. Early adopter reports and peer‑reviewed pilots show measurable reductions in clinician EHR time and burnout risk — an important capacity win when clinicians currently spend large portions of their day in the chart (News‑Medical summary of scribe pilots).
Smart scheduling and billing: 38–45% admin time saved, 97% fewer bill coding errors
AI scheduling and automated billing engines reduce repetitive admin tasks: intelligent reminders, no‑show scoring, automated insurance eligibility checks, and machine‑assisted coding that suggests CPT/ICD mappings. Real‑world deployments report large time savings for administrative teams and dramatic reductions in coding errors, which translates to faster, more accurate claims and fewer denials.
For context on the size of the administrative burden and the potential savings from automation, see CAQH and Health Affairs analyses of administrative waste and electronic prior authorization gains (CAQH Index, Health Affairs — administrative waste).
Eligibility, prior auth, and referrals: automate the busywork
Prior authorization, benefit verification, and referral routing are high‑frequency tasks that create delays and call‑center load. End‑to‑end automation (electronic benefit checks, ePA integration, rule‑based approvals plus human‑in‑the‑loop review for edge cases) shortens turnaround, reduces manual appeals, and improves patient access. Vendor platforms and payer‑facing networks (Surescripts, ePA vendors) show concrete reductions in days‑to‑approval and fewer manual escalations (Surescripts — ePA, AKASA — prior authorization automation).
Broader analyses estimate large potential savings from standardized, automated prior authorization workflows and fewer administrative hours spent on phone calls and faxes (CAQH — ePA adoption & benefits).
Pilot playbook: pick 1–2 clinics, measure, then scale
Run a tightly scoped pilot that pairs a clinician champion with an operations lead and IT. Keep pilots short (6–8 weeks active + 2 weeks baseline) and outcome‑oriented. Core steps:
1) Select sites with measurable pain (high documentation time, frequent denials, heavy call‑center load).
2) Define baseline KPIs: clinician EHR time (in‑visit & after hours), admin FTE hours, claim denial rate, prior‑auth turnaround, patient no‑show rate, and staff satisfaction.
3) Deploy minimum viable integrations: ambient scribe for a small group of clinicians, automated scheduling + reminders for high‑no‑show clinics, and an eligibility/ePA connector for the busiest service line.
4) Measure fast: run weekly dashboards, collect qualitative clinician feedback, and quantify ROI (time saved × hourly cost, reduction in denials, improved throughput).
5) Iterate and scale: document integration work, consent/security checklist, and a training playbook; expand to other clinics after 1–2 validated wins.
When administrative drag is reduced, clinicians regain time for patient care and organizations unlock capacity to expand access and higher‑value services — a prerequisite to shifting resources toward remote triage, continuous monitoring, and intelligent decision support that proactively prevent admissions and speed recovery.
Thank you for reading Diligize’s blog!
Are you looking for strategic advise?
Subscribe to our newsletter!
Bring care closer: virtual-first pathways and decision support
Virtual triage and telehealth to shorten waits and widen access
Make virtual care the default entry point for low‑complexity complaints and routine follow‑ups: an integrated virtual triage layer routes patients to self‑care guidance, automated scheduling, telehealth visits, or urgent in‑person evaluation based on risk. Systematic reviews and implementation studies show telemedicine can shorten wait times and reduce time‑to‑consult for many specialties when triage and workflows are designed end‑to‑end (Reducing outpatient wait times through telemedicine — PMC, How Virtual Triage Can Improve Patient Experience — PMC).
Patient adoption and clinician acceptance are high where access improves and workflows are simple. As D‑Lab observed, “Telehealth surged by 38x during the pandemic and is now stabilizing as a mainstream channel for patient treatment, with 82% of patients expressing preference for a hybrid model (combination of virtual and in-person care), and 83% of healthcare providers endorsing its use” Healthcare Trends Driving Disruption in 2025 — D-LAB research
Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) that prevents admissions and readmissions
Target RPM to high‑risk cohorts (heart failure, COPD, post‑op patients, complex chronic disease). Effective RPM programs combine devices, automated alerts, and a clinical response pathway — not just data collection. Recent systematic reviews and meta‑analyses report that RPM can reduce hospital admissions and readmissions for selected populations, though effectiveness varies by program design and engagement (Does RPM reduce acute care use? — BMJ Open, Factors influencing RPM effectiveness — PMC).
High‑impact pilots pair RPM with clear escalation rules and rapid response teams; D‑Lab highlights striking COVID‑era results: “…78% reduction in hospital admissions when COVID patients used Remote Patient Monitoring devices (Joshua C. Pritchett)…” Healthcare Trends Driving Disruption in 2025 — D-LAB research
Diagnostic AI for imaging and triage—with guardrails
Use diagnostic AI to accelerate reading, triage urgent studies, and surface high‑probability findings for faster clinician review. Radiology triage tools and CAD systems can shorten time to diagnosis and prioritize worklists, but they must be deployed with transparency, performance monitoring, and clinician‑in‑the‑loop workflows. The FDA and professional societies recommend premarket evidence, post‑market surveillance, and human oversight for AI used in clinical decision support (FDA guidance — predetermined change control plans, 2025 Watch List: AI in Health Care — NCBI).
Clinical results are promising in specific tasks: D‑Lab reports examples such as “99.9% diagnosis accuracy for instant skin cancer diagnosis with just an iPhone” Healthcare Trends Driving Disruption in 2025 — D-LAB research. Operationalize AI pilots with local validation, thresholding for sensitivity/specificity appropriate to the use case, and a clear escalation path for discordant cases.
Safety, equity, and ROI: governance plus a simple 90-day rollout
Cybersecurity and privacy-by-design protect patient trust
Security and privacy are not optional—they are the precondition for any digital or AI-enabled improvement. Start with a concise risk register, an asset inventory (devices, data flows, third‑party services), and a prioritized remediation plan for high‑impact gaps (access control, patching, backups, network segmentation). Follow established healthcare and AI security guidance: HHS/ASP R guidance and HIPAA risk analysis tools for protected health information, NIST’s Cybersecurity Framework and AI Risk Management Framework for algorithmic risk, and FDA device‑cybersecurity recommendations for connected medical devices (HHS — Risk Analysis, HPH Sector CSF Implementation Guide, NIST — AI RMF, FDA — Cybersecurity).
Operational controls matter: encryption at rest/in transit, least‑privilege IAM, multi‑factor authentication, vendor security attestations, and tested incident response playbooks. Regular tabletop exercises with clinical, IT, legal, and communications teams compress learning and reduce time‑to‑recovery in real incidents.
As D‑Lab warns, “Rapid digitalization improves outcomes but heightens exposure to ransomware, data breaches, and regulatory risk – making healthcare a top target for cyberattacks” Healthcare Industry Challenges & AI-Powered Solutions — D-LAB research
Bias, safety, and clinician‑in‑the‑loop guardrails
Governance for AI and decision support must address fairness, safety, and human oversight from day one. Require pre-deployment validation on local, representative data; document performance across demographic groups; define acceptable operating points (sensitivity/specificity) tied to clinical workflows; and mandate clinician review for edge or high‑risk cases. Use NIST and OECD responsible‑AI frameworks and follow FDA expectations for clinical evaluation and post‑market monitoring (NIST — Managing Bias, OECD — Responsible AI in Health, FDA — AI/ML in Medical Devices).
Practical guardrails: (1) apply clinician acknowledgement for algorithmic recommendations on high‑risk decisions; (2) deploy explainability summaries and confidence intervals in the UI; (3) log decisions, overrides and outcome linkage for continuous validation; and (4) set an alerting cadence for drift detection (model performance drops or data distribution shifts).
Track fairness and safety KPIs (performance by subgroup, false‑positive/negative rates, override frequency, and clinical outcome concordance) and tie them to a governance committee with clinical, legal, equity, and IT representation.
90‑day plan: weeks 1–2 baseline, 3–6 pilots, 7–12 scale
Use a simple, repeatable 90‑day playbook that balances rapid results and risk management:
Weeks 1–2 (Baseline): assemble a small steering group, define success metrics, and pull canonical datasets (scheduling logs, EHR timestamps, call‑center volumes, claims denials, security posture snapshot). Publish a one‑page baseline dashboard so everyone agrees on current performance.
Weeks 3–6 (Pilots): run 1–2 controlled pilots (examples: ambient scribe for 5 clinicians, automated scheduling in one clinic, RPM for a high‑risk cohort). Apply PDSA/rapid‑cycle testing, collect weekly KPIs, and capture qualitative feedback from clinicians and patients. Include security review and fairness checks before any pilot goes live.
Weeks 7–12 (Scale & embed): iterate on pilot fixes, build required integrations and training materials, codify governance (approval, monitoring, and incident escalation), and expand to additional sites if KPIs show net benefit and no safety/equity regressions.
Use small, measurable scopes for pilots to preserve clinician time, accelerate learnings, and minimize supply‑chain or interoperability surprises. IHI’s Model for Improvement and PDSA cycles are practical foundations for this cadence (IHI — Model for Improvement).