Variation in clinical practice is inherent to personalized care; however, unwarranted variation can compromise quality, efficiency, and patient experience.(1) Health systems increasingly face pressure to reduce such variation while maintaining clinician engagement and operational sustainability.
Beyond clinical practice differences, organizational variation manifested through fragmented governance, siloed improvement initiatives, and inconsistent accountability often limits the impact of quality efforts.(2) Recognizing these challenges, leaders at Jersey Shore University Medical Center (JSUMC), a large academic medical center within Hackensack Meridian Health in New Jersey, sought to establish a unified governance model capable of aligning clinical, operational, and patient experience priorities.
In early 2025, JSUMC launched the Clinical Variation Reduction (CVR) Steering Committee to coordinate improvement initiatives, promote transparency, and strengthen accountability across disciplines. This field report describes the structure, implementation, and early outcomes of that initiative.
BACKGROUND AND OPERATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
Before the launch of the CVR initiative, JSUMC’s quality and performance improvement activities were dispersed across various departments, often operating in isolation. While individual projects achieved modest gains, there was limited integration between clinical and operational priorities. The absence of a unified oversight body led to variability in focus, inconsistent follow‑through, and duplication of effort.(3)
To address these challenges, JSUMC leadership designed the CVR Steering Committee to achieve three objectives. First, it aimed to align the organization’s clinical, operational, and patient experience priorities around shared metrics and system goals. Second, it sought to create a disciplined process of accountability through regular data review, transparent reporting, and standardized performance tracking. Finally, it emphasized leadership engagement, ensuring that physician, clinical, and administrative leaders were active partners in the hospital’s performance agenda rather than passive recipients of data.
By reframing variation reduction as an organizational strategy rather than a departmental task, the committee established a foundation for integrated improvement. This alignment between clinical excellence and operational responsibility became a defining feature of the program.
INTERVENTION AND PROCESS
Governance Structure
The CVR Steering Committee is co‑sponsored by executive and clinical leadership and includes department chairs, nursing leadership, and quality, case management, and patient experience leaders. This interdisciplinary composition ensures that improvement strategies reflect clinical realities and operational constraints.
The committee holds shared responsibility for prioritizing initiatives, reviewing performance data, and addressing barriers to execution. Authority for escalation and resource alignment is embedded within the group’s structure, enabling timely decision‑making.
Meeting Structure and Workflow
The committee meets weekly for one hour using a standardized agenda that includes:
Review of current performance dashboards.
Identification of operational or clinical barriers.
Development of targeted action plans.
Review of prior commitments and progress.
Front-line clinical teams participate directly, fostering shared ownership and accountability. This approach promotes peer learning and reinforces expectations for continuous improvement.
Data Infrastructure
Standardized dashboards were developed to track performance across key domains, including length of stay, discharge efficiency, patient experience, and readmissions.(4) Data are reviewed longitudinally to assess trends rather than isolated point estimates. Departments report progress using a standardized template capturing baseline performance, target goals, and current status.
RESULTS
Within the first year of implementation, the CVR Steering Committee addressed multiple domains, including length-of-stay index (Observed/Expected), multidisciplinary rounds, discharge‑to‑home optimization, and patient experience.(5) While improvement magnitude varied by domain, the standardized governance model enabled consistent prioritization, escalation, and follow-through across initiatives that previously lacked integration (Table 1).
Participation among clinical and operational leaders remained high throughout implementation. Over time, discussions evolved from justification of performance to collaborative problem‑solving. Transparency in data sharing fostered trust and reinforced shared accountability.
Not all domains demonstrated immediate improvement. In several areas, performance stabilized rather than improved, reflecting the complexity of system‑level change and the varying maturity of improvement efforts. Nonetheless, stabilization itself represented progress compared to prior trends.
LESSONS LEARNED
This experience demonstrates how a structured, interdisciplinary governance model can support meaningful progress in reducing unwarranted clinical variation. By aligning executive, clinical, and operational leadership around shared metrics and accountability, the CVR Steering Committee fostered both performance improvement and cultural change.
Importantly, the value of the model extended beyond quantitative outcomes. The process strengthened trust, clarified roles, and created a shared language for improvement. These relational and structural elements were critical to sustaining engagement even when performance gains were incremental.
While this work reflects a single‑center experience, the principles of transparency, shared accountability, and disciplined governance may be transferable to other institutions seeking to align clinical excellence with operational performance.
Limitations include the experience of a single academic medical center and may not be generalizable to all settings. Some performance domains remain in early stages of measurement, and longer follow‑up will be necessary to assess durability and scalability.
NEXT STEPS
Building on early successes, the committee identified several priorities for its next phase. These include expanding the CVR framework to additional departments, where opportunities for standardization remain substantial; integrating predictive analytics to identify variation before it affects patient outcomes; and leveraging programs to support continuity after discharge.(6)
In addition, JSUMC plans to share lessons and best practices across the broader Hackensack Meridian Health network, helping to foster a system‑wide model for clinical and operational alignment.
OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
The JSUMC experience demonstrates that reducing clinical variation is as much a leadership exercise as it is a data‑driven one. Establishing an interdisciplinary governance structure bridged traditional divides between departments and operations. By emphasizing transparency, consistency, and follow‑through, the initiative transformed variation reduction from a technical project into an organizational discipline.
This approach not only improved outcomes but also deepened trust between clinicians and administrators, a critical foundation for sustainable improvement. For physician leaders, this model offers a practical approach to balancing clinical autonomy with system-level accountability.
CONCLUSION
The JSUMC experience demonstrates that interdisciplinary leadership, supported by structured governance and transparent data review, can meaningfully advance clinical and operational performance. By aligning diverse stakeholders around shared goals, health systems may create sustainable frameworks for reducing unwarranted variation and improving care delivery.
References
Atsma F, Elwyn G, Westert G. Understanding unwarranted variation in clinical practice: a focus on network effects, reflective medicine and learning health systems. Int J Qual Health Care. 2020;32(4):271–274. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaa023 .
Sarkies M, Francis-Auton E, Long J, Roberts N, Westbrook J, Levesque JF, Watson DE, Hardwick R, Sutherland K, Disher G, Hibbert P, Braithwaite J. Audit and feedback to reduce unwarranted clinical variation at scale: a realist study of implementation strategy mechanisms. Implement Sci. 2023;18(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-023-01324-w .
Tjomsland O, Thoresen C, Ingebrigtsen T, Søreide E, Frich JC. Reducing unwarranted variation: can a ‘clinical dashboard’ be helpful for hospital executive boards and top-level leaders? BMJ Lead. 2024;8(3):186–190. https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2023-000749 . PMID: 38053259; PMCID: PMC12038096.
Pugh J, Penney LS, Noël PH, Neller S, Mader M, Finley EP, Lanham HJ, Leykum L. Evidence-based processes to prevent readmissions: more is better, a ten-site observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06193-x .
Afsar-Manesh N, Lonowski S, Namavar AA. Leveraging lean principles in creating a comprehensive quality program: The UCLA health readmission reduction initiative. Healthc (Amst). 2017;5(4):194–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2016.12.002 .
Fatani A, Alzebaidi S, Alghaythee HK, Alharbi S, Bogari MH, Salamatullah HK, Alghamdi S, Makkawi S. The role of the discharge planning team on the length of hospital stay and readmission in patients with neurological conditions: a single-center retrospective study. Healthcare (Basel). 2025;13(2):143. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13020143 .