Healthcare & Public Health Solutions

EHR Data, Reporting & Workflow Feasibility

Before a grant application moved forward, DOMAS assessed whether a proposed reporting and tracking workflow could be supported across the organization’s existing systems and what would be required to implement it successfully.

Challenge

A healthcare organization was preparing a grant proposal that depended on new reporting, patient-tracking, and care-coordination capabilities across two existing systems: its EHR and a federally supported care-management and reporting system.

Before submission, leadership needed a clear understanding of what the existing systems could support, where technical gaps remained, what additional access or development would be required, and what technology costs should be included in the proposal. The assessment also needed to account for operational impact, particularly where a lower-cost approach could create substantial ongoing manual work for staff.

Approach

DOMAS reviewed the proposed grant activities against the capabilities of the organization’s existing systems and identified the technical questions that needed to be resolved before submission. The review focused on whether the proposed reporting and tracking functions were feasible, what additional system access or vendor support would be required, and which assumptions still needed confirmation.

DOMAS then worked directly with the vendors to clarify data access, reporting, update capabilities, import and export options, implementation requirements, and costs. Those findings were used to refine the proposed implementation approach and build a more realistic technology budget for the grant.

Feasibility Review

From proposed workflow to an implementation-ready plan.

1

Define the required workflow

Clarify the reporting, tracking, and operational capabilities the organization will need if the project is funded.

2

Assess the current systems

Determine how the EHR and the care-management and reporting system could support the workflow, and identify gaps, dependencies, and remaining manual steps.

3

Compare implementation options

Evaluate EHR-based approaches, external tracking or reporting tools, and API- or database-supported options, including the tradeoffs in staff effort and technical complexity.

4

Validate key assumptions with vendors

Confirm data access, update capabilities, import and export options, support requirements, and pricing where documentation alone was not sufficient.

5

Refine the implementation and budget

Use the confirmed capabilities, constraints, and costs to define a feasible implementation direction and a technology budget appropriate for the proposal.

What DOMAS Did
  • Translated the proposed program model into specific workflow, data, reporting, and system requirements
  • Reviewed both systems in the context of the proposed work rather than treating either platform in isolation
  • Compared realistic options with different levels of automation and staff effort
  • Worked directly with vendors to validate capabilities and resolve questions that documentation alone could not answer
  • Clarified which technology costs belonged in the grant budget and which design decisions could be deferred until implementation
Outcome

The client was able to submit the grant with the key technical questions answered, a clearer implementation direction, and a technology budget based on actual vendor requirements rather than estimates. The project was funded, and the organization moved into vendor onboarding after the award.

What This Work Demonstrates

The feasibility review reduced the risk of building a proposal around unverified technical assumptions. Before submission, the client had a clearer understanding of what the existing systems could support, where additional access or development would be required, and where operational burden needed to be considered in the design.

More broadly, the work demonstrates a practical approach to pre-award planning and implementation readiness:

  • Program goals translated into practical system and workflow requirements
  • Staff workload considered alongside technical capability
  • Vendor validation focused on requirements that were material to implementation
  • Sufficient technical clarity to support a funding decision without over-designing the solution before award
  • A clearer transition from pre-award planning into funded implementation
Explore Technical Planning & ImplementationSchedule a Conversation