The short answer
Use these twelve workflows as candidates for an EHR scorecard, not as universal requirements. Start with the organization’s actual clinical, prescribing, privacy, revenue-cycle, admissions, reporting, and integration processes. Mark irrelevant workflows—such as capacity management for a non-bed-based service—not applicable. For every in-scope workflow, require a demonstration and document configuration, interfaces, services, implementation work, and contractual scope.
Which workflows should your EHR scorecard cover?
A polished interface does not establish that a product fits the work. Before each demonstration, convert a current workflow into a scenario with named roles, inputs, decisions, exceptions, corrections, and expected outputs. Ask the vendor to complete that scenario in the proposed configuration and identify every point where staff leave the system or re-enter information.
Suggested scoring: use 0 for not demonstrated, 1 for a largely manual or external workflow, 2 for a workable workflow with material gaps, and 3 for an end-to-end workflow that meets the defined scenario. Alongside the score, record the system of record, manual steps, data latency, dependencies, implementation owner, and whether the demonstrated behavior is included in the contract.
12 workflows and capabilities to evaluate
| # | Workflow or capability | What to check in a demo |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Individualized treatment planning | Trace one assessed need through goals, objectives, interventions, progress documentation, revisions, approvals, and audit history; identify which relationships are structured, configurable, or manual |
| 2 | Group documentation | Document a sample group and show how shared session details and participant-specific content are created, reviewed, corrected, and signed under the organization’s documentation policy |
| 3 | Assessments and level-of-care workflows | List the instruments and criteria the program actually uses. For programs using the ASAM Criteria, demonstrate assessment, level-of-care decision, reassessment, and transition workflows. For each instrument, verify version, licensing, permissions, scoring or decision logic, storage, review, and planning handoffs |
| 4 | Electronic prescribing and EPCS, where applicable | If clinicians electronically prescribe controlled substances, demonstrate data preparation, readiness for signing, signing, corrections, logical access controls, two-factor authentication, and audit events described in the applicable workflow; compare the configuration with 21 CFR 1311.120 and applicable state requirements |
| 5 | Eligibility and benefit verification | Run a sample inquiry and show the returned information, source, timestamp, limitations, staff interpretation, and payer work that remains outside the system |
| 6 | Authorization and utilization review | Trace a sample case through requested and approved dates or units, supporting records, status changes, follow-up, extensions, denials, and claim impact; identify portal work and duplicate entry |
| 7 | Consent, access, and disclosure workflows | For programs and records the organization determines are in scope, turn its documented requirements into test cases for consent, revocation, access, disclosure, notices, corrections, and audit history. Use the current HHS Part 2 final-rule fact sheet as a primary reference |
| 8 | Census and capacity management | For bed-based programs, show occupancy and available capacity by relevant unit or level of care, the timing and source of updates, admissions, transfers, holds, discharges, and resolution of delayed or conflicting entries |
| 9 | Referral, intake, and admission handoffs | Trace a referral through intake, coverage checks, clinical review, disposition, admission, and chart creation; identify the system of record, interfaces, manual handoffs, duplicate entry, and failure-recovery process |
| 10 | Telehealth | Run a sample virtual visit and show scheduling, organization-defined consent and identity steps, connection recovery, documentation, signatures, corrections, and data transfer between the video service and clinical record |
| 11 | Revenue-cycle traceability | Trace a documented service through charge creation, edits, claim submission, remittance, denial work, payment posting, and reconciliation; identify payer portals, interfaces, queues, and manual steps |
| 12 | Outcomes and operational reporting | Reproduce one clinical and one operational measure from source records; inspect definitions, lineage, refresh timing, late corrections, filters, exclusions, exports, access, and reconciliation effort |
Clinical documentation: treatment planning and group notes
Start with the organization’s approved treatment-planning model and documentation policy. In the demo, trace a realistic case from an assessed need through goals, interventions, progress documentation, review, revision, and approval. Inspect which links are structured, which depend on templates or staff action, what can be reported, and what the audit history retains after a correction.
For group services, define what information may be shared across participant records and what must be documented individually. Then test group creation, attendance changes, participant-specific entries, signatures, late additions, corrections, and access permissions. This reveals the actual workflow without assuming that every program or product should use the same note design.
Prescribing, assessments, and level-of-care workflows
Organizations should first inventory the instruments, criteria, and reassessment processes they actually use. The ASAM Criteria is a broader framework for assessing needs, planning individualized services, matching levels of care, and reassessing transitions—not simply a placement form (ASAM). For ASAM workflows and instruments such as the PHQ-9, GAD-7, or ASI, verify the applicable version, licensing, permissions, scoring or decision logic, storage format, review process, corrections, and connection to planning. Native capture may be convenient, but a governed interface or document workflow may also meet the organization’s requirements.
Medication workflows should be evaluated separately from the fact that a program offers medication treatment. When clinicians electronically prescribe controlled substances, ask the vendor to demonstrate the proposed EPCS workflow. Among other application requirements, 21 CFR 1311.120 addresses logical access controls, the practitioner’s indication that a prescription is ready for signing, renewed review after specified data changes, two-factor authentication during signing, and auditable events (21 CFR 1311.120). Map that federal baseline together with applicable state requirements and the responsibilities of the prescriber, application provider, implementation team, and pharmacy connections.
Billing, authorization, and consent workflows
Behavioral health revenue workflows may involve eligibility information, benefit interpretation, authorization, utilization review, service documentation, coding, payer portals, claims, remittances, denials, and patient balances. Test traceability across the proposed architecture: who records each decision, which source and timestamp are retained, how changes affect downstream work, and where staff must reconcile another system.
HHS explains that 42 CFR Part 2 protects specified records maintained in connection with federally conducted, regulated, or assisted substance-use-disorder programs or activities. Its current final-rule fact sheet also states that the rule permits a single consent for future treatment, payment, and health care operations uses and disclosures and does not require segregating or segmenting Part 2 records (HHS). That description does not determine whether a particular program, record, or disclosure is covered. For workflows the organization determines are in scope, test its documented consent, revocation, access, disclosure, notice, correction, and audit scenarios in the configured system; do not treat a generic product compliance label as proof.
Operations: census, telehealth, and outcomes
For bed-based programs, test how current census and available capacity are maintained across units or levels of care. The relevant function might be delivered through a bed board, scheduling module, integration, or governed external system. Ask who owns each update, when a change becomes visible, how holds and transfers affect availability, what happens when two users act on the same capacity, and how staff detect stale or conflicting data. Trace the related referral, coverage, clinical-review, admission, and chart-creation handoffs across the proposed architecture.
Telehealth may be native, integrated, or delivered through a separate service. Demonstrate how appointments, organization-defined consent and identity steps, session status, documentation, signatures, corrections, and connection failures move between components. Record duplicate entry, latency, access boundaries, support ownership, and the authoritative chart location.
Apply the same neutrality to reporting. A transactional report, data warehouse, interface, or governed export can be workable if definitions and lineage are controlled. Reproduce sample clinical and operational measures from their source records, then test late corrections, refresh timing, filters, exclusions, access, and reconciliation effort.
How to run a workflow-based vendor demonstration
Give the vendor one written scenario for every in-scope workflow and use realistic synthetic or properly de-identified test data. A demonstration involving production data should occur only under the organization’s approved privacy and security controls. Assign participants the roles they would hold in practice, and ask them to complete the normal path, a correction, and a failure or exception path.
- Record whether the scenario was completed and assign the 0–3 score.
- Capture every manual step, interface, portal, queue, export, and duplicate entry.
- Name the system of record and operational owner at each handoff.
- List configuration, third-party services, implementation work, limitations, and support ownership.
- Require material commitments to appear in the proposal, statement of work, or contract rather than relying on the demonstration alone.
A specialist side tool is not automatically a defect, and an integrated module is not automatically sufficient. For either design, test data flow, access controls, auditability, latency, correction handling, outage recovery, version ownership, and contractual scope.
Our EMR connects clinical, administrative, and financial workflows. Bring our team the scenarios that matter most to your program, including the exceptions staff handle today. We can work through the proposed setup with you and identify the products, configuration, interfaces, manual steps, separately licensed items, and implementation services involved.
Sources
Sources reviewed September 9, 2026.
