Skip to main content

Strategies for utilisation management of hospital services: a systematic review of interventions



To achieve efficiency and high quality in health systems, the appropriate use of hospital services is essential. We identified the initiatives intended to manage adult hospital services and reduce unnecessary hospital use among the general adult population.


We systematically reviewed studies published in English using five databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, and MEDLINE via Ovid). We only included studies that evaluated interventions aiming to reduce the use of hospital services or emergency department, frequency of hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, or the use of diagnostic tests in a general adult population. Studies reporting no relevant outcomes or focusing on a specific patient population or children were excluded.


In total, 64 articles were included in the systematic review. Nine utilisation management methods were identified: care plan, case management, care coordination, utilisation review, clinical information system, physician profiling, consultation, education, and discharge planning. Primary case management was shown to effectively reduce emergency department use. Care coordination reduced 30-day post-discharge hospital readmission or emergency department visit rates. The pre-admission review program decreased elective admissions. The physician profiling, concurrent review, and discharge planning effectively reduced the length of hospital stay. Twenty three studies that evaluated costs, reported cost savings in the hospitals.


Utilisation management interventions can decrease hospital use by improving the use of community-based health services and improving the quality of care by providing appropriate care at the right time and at the right level of care.


Hospitals provide a wide range of services necessary to meet the increasing demand for health care services and are an integral component of any health delivery system. However, inappropriate utilisation of high-cost but unnecessary or ineffective tests and medications in hospitals remains a significant challenge in many health systems [1]. Several studies documented improper hospital service use, which can be defined as “a hospital admission to provide care that could have been given in a less complex healthcare environment and at a lower cost” [2]. For example, it was previously shown that up to one-third of days of care [3,4,5] and diagnostic tests [6, 7], and one-fifth of all hospital admissions [8] could be inappropriate or unnecessary, negatively impacting patients’ physical and mental well-being, and driving up overall health care costs. Hence, eliminating inappropriate utilisation and waste is essential given the existing shortage of financial and human resources.

Advances in medical technology and, consequently, aggressive marketing to health care providers, direct-to-consumer advertising, political pressure from advocacy organisations, defensive medical decision making, fragmentation and discontinuity of care within and between health and social sectors - all can become the cause of healthcare overutilisation [9, 10]. Cost containment strategies can limit healthcare-related expenditure by eliminating inappropriate use of health care services while ensuring the continuous improvement of the quality of care. For example, one could consider controlling demand or supply for care, altering provision structures or hospital performance, cost-sharing, managed care, reference pricing, and generic substitution [11]. Another strategy is fostering hospital mergers and networks that may speed up restructuring through economies of scale at relatively small hospital sizes. However, creating a dominant position in the local hospital market may have an anticompetitive effect [12].

With the rising demand for healthcare services, hospitals can apply innovative methods to increase their efficiency [4]. This can be achieved by strengthening operational efficiency and targeting more significant healthcare expenditure cases. A range of measures can be used for this purpose: reducing duplication of services, decreasing the use of expensive inputs, decreasing the length of stay for inpatient care, reducing the number of long-stay beds, and reducing medical errors [13,14,15]. Another approach would be implementing measures that could rebalance services provision across the health system, improve allocative efficiency, and centralise administrative functions. Such measures could include shifting the provision of care from the hospital into the community, improving care coordination, strengthening preventative care, increasing the use of day surgeries, providing appropriate levels of acute care at home (hospital at home), and facilitating the discharge of patients who have to stay in hospitals longer [16, 17]. One could also consider implementing initiatives that lower management expenses and enhance administrative efficiency, such as simplifying managerial procedures; introducing uniform standards, distribution strategies and the availability of real-time consumer and provider information; improving electronic mechanisms of lodging, processing, and reimbursement of payments and claims; and outsourcing member management systems and other back-office services [18, 19].

Most importantly, besides the cost-saving and improving operational, allocative, and administrative efficiency, reducing inappropriate utilisation could eliminate potential iatrogenic effects of unnecessary services while improving healthcare quality. However, previous studies primarily focused on evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in reducing a specific service, while studies that would provide a clear overview of the utilisation management strategies for adult hospital services are still lacking. Hence, our study aimed to identify the initiatives intended to manage adult hospital services and reduce unnecessary hospital use among the general adult population.


We conducted a systematic review of published studies investigating initiatives intended to manage adult hospital services and reduce unnecessary hospital use among the general adult population.

Inclusion criteria

Studies were included if they reported using intervention in a general population aimed to reduce relevant primary outcomes (i.e., hospital services and/or emergency department (ED) use, frequency of hospital admissions, LOS, and use of diagnostic tests) compared to care as usual or different intervention. There were no time restrictions, but the publication language was restricted to English only.

Exclusion criteria

We excluded studies that targeted adult patient populations only with a specific medical condition (e.g., diabetes, asthma, cardiac failure, or cancer) or children to increase homogeneity and comparability between studies.

Search strategy

Five bibliographic databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid/Medline) were searched until March 2020. To capture a broad range of primary outcomes, in addition to utilisation management and utilisation review, we included the following search terms: concurrent review, prospective review, retrospective review, pre-admission review, pre-admission review, pre-certification, pre-admission certification, pre-admission certification, pre-admission authorisation, pre-admission authorisation, pre-admission testing, pre-admission testing, prior authorisation, same-day admission, physician profiling, provider profiling, physician financial incentives, demand management, case management, discharge planning, second surgical opinions, second opinions, step therapy, therapeutic substitution, closed formulary, utilisation. We additionally searched the references of included studies for other potentially essential studies.

Study selection, data extraction, and synthesis

Results from the bibliographic databases were merged, and duplicates removed. Two reviewers (LD and RKh) independently screened the search results by title, abstract and performed a full-text review. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus with a third reviewer (HJ). We extracted the following information from the studies included in the review: type of intervention, study design, details of the intervention, and effects on primary outcomes (hospital services and ED use, admissions, LOS, use of diagnostic tests) and secondary outcomes (readmissions and costs). This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [20].

Assessment of the methodological quality

We used an adapted version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies (developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project [21] to assess the methodological quality of the included studies (Appendix). The tool contains 19 items in eight key domains: (1) study design; (2) blinding; (3) representativeness in the sense of selection bias; (4) representativeness in the sense of withdrawals/drop-outs; (5) confounders; (6) data collection; (7) data analysis; and (8) reporting. Studies can have between six and eight component ratings, with each component score ranging from 1 (low risk of bias; high methodological quality) to 3 (high risk of bias; low methodological quality). An overall rating for each study was determined based on the component ratings. For example, if eight ratings have been given, a rating of ‘strong’ was attributed to those with no weak ratings and at least five strong ratings, ‘moderate’ to those with one weak rating or fewer than five strong ratings, and ‘weak’ attributed to those with two or more weak ratings. To minimise the risk of bias, assessments were completed independently by two reviewers (LD and EK). The ratings for each of the eight domains and the total rating were compared, and a consensus was reached on a final rating for each included article.

Data Analysis

Descriptive analyses were used to describe all studies that met the inclusion criteria, focusing on study design, participants, interventions and outcomes.


The results of the screening process are shown in Fig. 1. After removing duplicates, 2261 papers were screened by title and abstract for possible inclusion in the review. The full text of 264 articles was obtained and assessed for eligibility. Of them, 56 selected papers were eligible for review. After screening references of included papers, we identified additional nine papers. Sixty four studies [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85] met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final review.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Characteristics of the selected studies

Included studies were published between 1982 and 2020, conducted mostly in the USA (n = 34) [22,23,24, 29,30,31,32, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 56, 57, 60, 63, 65, 67,68,69,70,71, 73,74,75, 77, 78, 81, 82, 84, 85], Canada (n = 4) [26, 35, 55, 61], Australia (n = 4) [38, 41, 59, 83], UK (n = 3) [36, 64, 72], Sweden (n = 3) [62, 66, 76], and one each in the Netherlands [52], Korea [44], China [53], Taiwan [27], Singapore [54], and Bahrain [34]. All studies focused on the general adult population; however, some focused on specific broader subgroups with psychiatric problems [29, 45, 54, 83], comorbid conditions [49, 77], psychosocial problems (e.g., problems with housing, medical care, substance abuse, mental health disorders, or financial entitlements) [70], uninsured [30, 31, 43, 68], patients with chronic medical conditions [27, 46, 49, 61, 67], or older patients [41, 43, 47, 49, 64, 66, 67, 76]. The duration of the study follow-up ranged from one month to seven years (Table 1).

Table 1 Study characteristics

Fourteen studies (21.9%) were randomized controlled trials [22, 23, 43, 47, 49, 52, 53, 55, 62, 66, 69, 70, 73, 74], three were multicenter research trials [36, 63, 76], two were quasi-experimental studies [31, 67], four were controlled before-and-after studies [30, 68, 72, 85], twenty-one studies (32.8%) were non-controlled before-and-after studies (NCBA) [24, 27,28,29, 32, 35, 37,38,39, 41, 42, 50, 54, 56,57,58,59,60,61, 75, 78], three were time-series studies [26, 34, 44], three were case-control studies [64, 65, 84], one was a prospective cohort study [77], one was longitudinal study, six were retrospective cohort studies [25, 33, 79,80,81,82], and four were cross-sectional studies [40, 45, 71, 83]. While, in two studies were not stated type of design [48, 51]. Fourty studies (59.7%) can be categorized as assessing interventions targeted at the patient journey during hospital stay or medical center-based interventions [22,23,24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 49, 54, 56, 57, 59,60,61,62,63, 65, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 78, 81,82,83, 85]; four evaluated interventions aimed at discharge [41, 47, 55, 76], Not; and 13 examined community-based interventions [31, 35, 38, 43, 46, 52, 53, 64, 66,67,68, 73, 77].

Methodological quality assessment

In the overall assessment, the methodological quality of only one reviewed study (1.5%) was rated as ‘strong’, while seven (11%) and 56 (87.5%) articles were rated as ‘moderate’ and ‘weak’, respectively (Appendix). In terms of study design, 21 studies (32.8%) were rated as ‘strong’. The remaining 13 studies (20.3%) scored ‘moderate’ and 30 studies (46.9%) scored ‘weak’. We were able to rate 39 studies for representativeness relating to withdrawals and drop-outs: 25 (64.1%) studies rated as ‘weak’, four (10.3%) as ‘moderate’, and ten (25.6) as ‘strong’. With respect to confounders, 11 (17.2%) studies were rated as ‘strong’, six (9.4%) as ‘moderate’, and 47 (73.4%) as ‘weak’. There were 23 studies (35.9%) rated as ‘weak’ for their data collection because the authors did not provide sufficient information on the validity or reliability of their collection methods. There were 37 papers (57.8%) rated as ‘moderate’ and four papers (6.3%) rated as ‘strong’. Based on the data analysis of each reviewed study, 36 (56.3%) of the reviewed studies were rated as ‘strong’, while 12 (18.8%) and 16 (25.0%) were rated as ‘moderate’ and ‘weak’, respectively. The reporting quality of the reviewed articles was also analysed. Out of the 64 articles included, 36 studies (56.3%) were rated as ‘strong’, 21 studies (32.8%) and seven studies (10.9%) were rated as ‘moderate’ and ‘weak’, respectively.

Nine broad utilisation management methods

We identified nine broad utilisation management methods: care plan, case management, care coordination, utilisation review, clinical information system, physician profiling, consultation, education, and discharge planning. The findings related to these nine methods are described below in Table 2, using sub-categories of the following main types of interventions: non-organisational interventions aiming to reduce hospital utilisation, organisational interventions to reduce hospital utilisation, and interventions at the discharge stage of the patient journey.

Table 2 Reported measures and outcomes

Prehospital advanced life support drug treatment

These interventions focused on access to primary care, medical and social resources. For example, two studies [31, 68] evaluated interventions that aimed to improve access to primary care. Studies suggest that improving access to primary care centres is associated with fewer ED visits [31, 68], fewer inpatient hospital days than controls [31], but report no difference in inpatient admissions between groups [68]. One retrospective cohort study examined the effect of prehospital advanced life support drug treatment in reducing subsequent hospital utilisation by the medical patients receiving such drugs [35]. There was a significant decrease in admissions in the drug intervention group driven by chest pain patients and improved prehospital field conditions for all chief complaints. Care plan and case management were the main interventions related to prehospital advanced life support drug treatment.

Two comparative cohort studies examined the impact of patient care plans on service utilisation [38, 77]. Sweeney et al. [77] compared patient-centred management to usual case management for patients who had a life-limiting diagnosis with multiple comorbid conditions. Among the patient-centered management, inpatient admissions reduced by 38%, inpatient hospital days by 36%, and emergency department visits by 30%. Grimmer-Somers et al. [38] found that a holistic community-based program using a care plan for frequent ED attendees had significant improvements in client health and decreased crisis emergency department and inpatient admissions.

Case management

Primary care case management

Case management is “a collaborative process that assesses, plans, implements, coordinates, monitors, and evaluates the options and services required to meet an individual’s health needs using communication and available resources to promote quality and cost-effective outcomes” [50]. Eight studies focused on using case management interventions based outside the hospital. Five studies reported a decrease in hospital utilisation [45, 46, 64, 66]. Three studies found no significant difference between groups in neither ED visits nor hospital admissions [43, 67, 73].

Hospital-based case management

Of 23 studies evaluating case management interventions, 12 focused on case management as an ED-initiated or medical centre-based intervention for frequent hospital utilisers. Six comparative cohort studies observed a decrease in the mean or the median number of ED visits than the controls [30, 72] or before the case management [27, 39, 57, 61]. One study reported an increase of 2.79 median ED visits post-intervention [59]. This study included primarily patients with substance abuse or psychiatric problems underlying the ED visits, suggesting case management may be less effective in reducing ED utilisation in this population. One RCT reported no significant difference in the median number of ED visits following CM [74]. In contrast, two RCTs reported a decrease in the number of ED visits [62, 70] and hospital days [64] among those in the intervention group. Two studies have examined changes in hospital admissions or LOS, found a significant decrease in the number of admissions [29], hospital readmissions [54] and LOS.

Care coordination

Two studies examined the impact of care coordination programs on ED visit rate amongst frequent ED users [49, 56]. The randomised controlled pilot study by Koehler et al .[49] found that hospital-based care coordination using extra care bundle comprising three interventions (medication counselling, enhanced discharge planning, and phone follow-up) targeting high-risk older people compared to usual care was successful in reducing 30-day post-discharge hospital readmission or emergency department visit rates. The comparative cohort study by Murphy et al. [56] implemented a multidiscipline ED-care coordination program using a regional hospital information system capable of sharing patients’ individualised care plans between ED providers. The study reported a significant decrease in ED visits 12-months following the intervention.

Utilisation Review

The utilisation review program consists of several different review activities: pre-admission authorisation (prospective review), concurrent review (during the patient stay), retrospective review (relying on medical records), prospective review. One study investigating a pre-admission review program found a decrease in hospital admissions by approximately 12% [81]. Of eight studies that examined the effect of concurrent review on the LOS, five studies found a decrease in hospital LOS [26, 34, 63, 82, 84]. Another study that examined the effect of utilisation review on patterns of health care use found that the referrals for a second opinion have reduced the number of procedures performed in the review group. However, there was no significant difference between the groups during the study period in terms of rates of admission to medical-surgical, substance abuse, or psychiatric units, average LOS, the percentage of those who received pre-admission testing, or the rates of use of home care following utilisation review activities [65].

A retrospective analysis of utilisation management programs has concluded that pre-admission review rarely denies requests for admission, and nearly one-third of patients approved by pre-admission review for inpatient care requested approval for continued stay through concurrent review [82]. One multicenter trial examined the effect of utilisation management strategies on the use of a radiological test [36]. There was a consistent reduction from 29.4 to 13.3 X-rays per 100 operations after introducing the new request form and concurrent review. Two studies that evaluated the effectiveness of a prospective review program in reducing blood component utilisation reported that the implementation by the blood bank staff of a prospective review of orders for blood products resulted in a significant decrease of 38.8% and 31.4% in the use of fresh frozen plasma and platelets, respectively [40], as well as a total reduction inpatient medical costs realised as a result of cancelled orders [71]. Due to the importance of drug utilisation, this type of utilisation review has been categorised as a primary intervention.

Drug utilisation review

Three studies focused on drug utilisation review interventions. One study reported a significant decrease in the number of antibiotic treatment courses and the percentage of patients receiving any antibiotic following implementing an antibiotic order form for all inpatient antibiotic orders in the hospital [32]. The second study reported a significant decrease from 40% to 20% of patients using benzodiazepines after drug utilisation review activities in an inpatient setting [83]. Another retrospective cohort study examined the effect of implementing a drug utilisation management program and evidence-based guidelines on the appropriate use of drugs and found that implementing a drug-utilisation management program using clinical pharmacists was associated with a decrease in inappropriate epoetin prescribing and significant cost savings [24].

Clinical information system

A clinical information system is a computer-based system encompassing clinical or health-related information, distinguished from administrative information systems by the requirement for data entry or data retrieval by clinicians at the point of care. Some areas addressed by clinical information systems are clinical decision support, electronic medical records, physician’s order entry, telemedicine, problem lists, summary reports, results review, nursing protocols and care plans, and alerts and reminders. Recently, interests have been focusing on medical errors with monitoring and managing variation in practice [86]. Electronic medical records and physician’s order entry systems, and clinical decision support are the primary interventions related to clinical information systems.

Electronic Medical Record

One before-after analysis of an intervention targeting ED frequent users reported that the use of health information technologies to identify the most frequently visiting patients and easy access to individualised care plans through the EMR to all healthcare providers resulted in a significant reduction in the number of ED visits, labs ordered, total ED contact time, and ED charges [75].

Physician’s order entry system

A physician’s order entry system is a subsystem of a hospital information system. One prospective time series study reported that the number of stat lab tests and overall LOS at six months after physician’s order entry implementation decreased significantly compared with the pre- physician’s order entry system period [44]. Using a randomised controlled design, Shea et al. [69] demonstrated that a computer-generated informational message directed to physicians as an intervention resulted in reduced LOS in an inpatient setting. According to Bates et al. [22], 69% of potentially redundant diagnostic tests were cancelled in response to reminders following the introduction of a clinical information system that included a physician’s order entry system.

Clinical decision support

A clinical decision support system is a computer-based application that analyses data and provides knowledge and person-specific information to aid physicians and other health providers in clinical decision making [87]. One study that evaluated real-time clinical decision support intervention observed improved blood utilisation. After implementing clinical decision support system, the percentage of patients transfused outside the guidelines decreased to 35% [37].

Physician profiling

Physician profiling is a cost-containment strategy whereby the patterns of health care provided by a practitioner or other provider (e.g., hospital) for the defined population are compared to other norms - profiles of other physicians or practice guidelines - based on practice [88]. A quasi-experimental study with control groups found that LOS at the profiled site decreased by an additional third of a day in the profiling year than at the non-profiled sites [85].


The randomised controlled trials by Bree et al. [24] implemented mandatory radiology consultation whereby each radiology examination required prior approval. This intervention did not observe differences in inpatient imaging use following the mandatory radiology consultation.

Discharge planning

Discharge planning refers to developing a plan to treat the patient’s medical needs after leaving the inpatient department to contain costs and improve patient outcomes. Discharge planning should ensure that patients leave the hospital at an appropriate time in their care and that, with adequate notice, the provision of post-discharge services is organised [89]. We identified three studies that focused on interventions at the discharge stage of the patient journey [41, 47, 55]. All three studies that examined the effect of discharge planning on LOS in hospital and readmission rates compared with usual care found a decrease in hospital LOS for those allocated to discharge planning. There were lower readmission rates in the discharge planning group for older participants with a medical condition at three months of discharge [41, 47].

Early supported discharge

Discharge planning typically involves a greater degree of care provision and support following discharge than discharge planning interventions. Early supported discharge or early home-supported discharge may include discharge planning but aims specifically to accelerate discharge from the hospital with continued support in a community setting, typically at the same intensity that would have been provided had the patient remained in hospital. These interventions are usually provided by multidisciplinary teams, including doctors, nurses, and therapists. Still, the degree of coordination and whether they are driven by hospital outreach or community teams can vary [89].

Post-discharge case management

Two RCTs have examined the effectiveness of case management provided after patients are discharged from the hospital regarding the utilisation of hospital services by these patients. One study found a significant reduction in hospital admissions, bed-days and attendances at the out-patient department [53]. In contrast, the second study did not find significant differences between groups for readmission, care utilisation, quality of life, or psychological functioning [52].

Cost outcome

Of all included studies, 23 studies provided cost-related outcomes. Six studies reported savings after implementing utilisation review programs [24, 37, 40, 81, 84] or a computerised physician order entry system [22]. One study reported cost savings from reduced days of hospitalization [29]. Ten studies reported significantly reduced hospital charges [30, 31, 56, 62, 64, 67, 68, 77] or ED costs after the intervention [43, 75]. One randomised controlled trial of 96 patients observed a trend toward reduced total healthcare cost in the experimental group, but the difference was not statistically significant [73]. Two studies reported a mixed effect - one reported a significant decrease in ED and medical inpatient costs but no apparent change in the cost of medical out-patient, psychiatric inpatient, psychiatric emergency, or ambulance services [57]. The other found a significant decrease in ED costs. However, no difference was reported for inpatient services, psychiatric emergency services, out-patient services, physicians’ fees, or total hospital costs, with the cost of case management included [70]. Also, one study reported program costs with no assessment of net costs or savings [38].


Developing education programs for patients, families and health care providers (i.e., nurses or physicians) is considered the primary intervention in many countries [49, 67, 77, 90]. The goal of the education programs is to provide health care providers with the principles of utilisation management.


Our review identified nine utilisation management methods, including care plan, case management, care coordination, utilisation review, clinical information system, physician profiling, consultation, education, and discharge planning. Of all interventions reported in the reviewed studies, case management strategy was the most frequently examined. Disease management is considered an effective strategy for dealing with frequent hospital users with specific diseases (e.g., congestive heart failure or diabetes). Whereas disease management focuses on particular illnesses, case management is focused on optimising multidisciplinary treatment. We identified several models of case management, such as brokerage [54], assertive community treatment [46], intensive case management [29, 39], clinical case management [57, 70], and different case management models (i.e., strengths-based case management, generalist case management, rehabilitation).

Our findings suggest that interventions aimed to increase primary care accessibility and case management effectively reduce ED visitation [31]. Though mostly uneven in methodological rigour, studies indicate that pre-admission review for hospitalisation is highly effective in reducing hospital admissions. The implementation of utilisation management interventions increased out-patient visits, possibly reflecting the link of frequent hospital users to other services. Overall, studies that focused on interventions during the patient stay in the hospital (e.g., concurrent review) and interventions at the discharge stage of the patient journey (e.g., discharge planning) effectively reduce the LOS. However, the limited evidence showed that mandatory radiology consultation interventions were ineffective in reducing inpatient imaging use. As a good outcome, introducing the clinical information systems (e.g., physician’s order entry system) reduced LOS. Such automated access to patient records improved the efficiency of information exchange among physicians across the continuum of care. Clinical decision support systems, which consisted of interruptive best practice alerts at the physician’s order entry system, also significantly improved blood utilisation. We found that interventions directed towards supply, such as physician profiling, were associated with decreased LOS without adversely affecting physician satisfaction. However, such reductions were also observed among control groups in ED visit numbers [30, 70, 73, 74], hospital admissions [66, 70, 73] and LOS [70]. Case or care management and utilisation review interventions were consistently reported to reduce hospital costs, and no studies reported increases in hospital costs following the intervention.

There were several limitations to this review. First, there is marked heterogeneity among reviewed studies. Second, in an attempt to focus on the literature concerning the general adult frequent user populations, studies were excluded that did not examine a general population (e.g., pediatric, individuals with asthma, cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) or focused on a specialised out-patient care setting.


To ensure the delivery of efficient and effective health care, to reduce the misuse of inpatient and outpatient services, the use of utilisation management strategies in hospitals is unavoidable. The use of relevant strategies and interventions allows for avoiding unintended consequences emanating from the financial incentives and disincentives on health care professionals’ decisions around care and service delivery.

Availability of data and materials

The data are openly available upon request from the corresponding author.



Emergency Department ED


Length of Hospital Stay


Non-Controlled Before-and-After


  1. Brownlee S, Chalkidou K, Doust J, Elshaug AG, Glasziou P, Heath I, et al. Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. Lancet (London, England). 2017;390(10090):156–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Soria-Aledo V, Carrillo-Alcaraz A, Flores-Pastor B, Moreno-Egea A, Carrasco-Prats M, Aguayo-Albasini JL. Reduction in inappropriate hospital use based on analysis of the causes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):361.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Panis LJGG, Gooskens M, Verheggen FWSM, Pop P, Prins MH. Predictors of inappropriate hospital stay: a clinical case study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15(1):57–066.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McDonagh MS, Smith DH, Goddard M. Measuring appropriate use of acute beds. A systematic review of methods and results. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2000;53(3):157–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Zarei E, Asghar Ghods A, Khabiri R, Raeisdana N, Ansari M, Hoshmand Motlagh N, et al. Predictors of Inappropriate Hospital Stay: Experience From Iran, vol. 7; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zhi M, Ding EL, Theisen-Toupal J, Whelan J, Arnaout R. The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15-year meta-analysis. PloS one. 2013;8(11):e78962.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bhatia RS, Kumar V, Picard MH, Weiner RB. Comparison of the 2008 and 2011 appropriate use criteria for stress echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiography. 2013;26(4):339–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Campbell J. Inappropriate admissions: thoughts of patients and referring doctors. J Royal Soc Med. 2001;94(12):628–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Commission P: Impacts of advances in medical technology in Australia. Productivity Commission, Government of Australia Research Reports 2005.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Tan L, Ong K. The Impact of Medical Technology on Healthcare Today. Hong Kong J Emerg Med. 2002;9(4):231–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Stadhouders N, Kruse F, Tanke M, Koolman X, Jeurissen P. Effective healthcare cost-containment policies: a systematic review. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2019;123(1):71–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Schwierz C. Cost-containment policies in hospital expenditure in the European Union. In: Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sari AA, Doshmangir L, Sheldon T. A systematic review of the extent, nature and likely causes of preventable adverse events arising from hospital care. Iran J Public Health. 2010;39(3):1.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Doshmangir L, Hasanpoor E, Abou Jaoude GJ, Eshtiagh B, Haghparast-Bidgoli H. Incidence of Catastrophic Health Expenditure and Its Determinants in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(6):839–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Doshmangir L, Yousefi M, Hasanpoor E, Eshtiagh B, Haghparast-Bidgoli H. Determinants of catastrophic health expenditures in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cost Effective Resource Allocation. 2020;18(1):1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Joudyian N, Doshmangir L, Mahdavi M, Tabrizi JS, Gordeev VS. Public-private partnerships in primary health care: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Liu X. Policy tools for allocative efficiency of health services: World Health Organization; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hurley E, McRae I, Bigg I, Stackhouse L, Boxall A, Broadhead P: The Australian health care system: the potential for efficiency gains. A review of the literature Background paper prepared for the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission Canberra: Australian Government 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Aldhizer GR, Juras P. Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of healthcare delivery systems. CPA J. 2015;85(1):66.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Thomas B, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1(3):176–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Rittenberg E, Teich JM, Fiskio J, Ma’luf N, et al. A randomized trial of a computer-based intervention to reduce utilization of redundant laboratory tests. Am J Med. 1999;106(2):144–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bree RL, Kazerooni EA, Katz SJ. Effect of mandatory radiology consultation on inpatient imaging use: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1996;276(19):1595–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Buckley MS, Kane-Gill SL, Patel SA. Clinical and economic evaluation of an evidence-based institutional epoetin-utilization management program. Clin Therapeutics. 2013;35(3):294–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Calsolaro V, Antognoli R, Pasqualetti G, Okoye C, Aquilini F, Cristofano M, et al. 30-Day Potentially Preventable Hospital Readmissions In Older Patients: Clinical Phenotype And Health Care Related Risk Factors. Clin Intervent Aging. 1851;2019:14.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cardiff K, Anderson G, Sheps S. Evaluation of a hospital-based utilization management program. In: Healthcare management forum: 1995. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Sage CA; 1995. p. 38–45.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chiang C, Lee C, Tsai T, Li C, Lee W, Wu K. Dynamic internet-mediated team-based case management of high-frequency emergency department users. Hong Kong J Emerg Med. 2014;21(3):161–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Copeland TP, Franc BL. High-cost cancer imaging: opportunities for utilization management. J Cancer Policy. 2017;12:16–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cox WK, Penny LC, Statham RP, Roper BL. Admission intervention team: medical center based intensive case management of the seriously mentally ill. Care Manag J. 2003;4(4):178–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Crane S, Collins L, Hall J, Rochester D, Patch S. Reducing utilization by uninsured frequent users of the emergency department: combining case management and drop-in group medical appointments. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25(2):184–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. DeHaven M, Kitzman-Ulrich H, Gimpel N, Culica D, O’neil L, Marcee A, et al. The effects of a community-based partnership, Project Access Dallas (PAD), on emergency department utilization and costs among the uninsured. J Public Health. 2012;34(4):577–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Echols RM, Kowalsky SF. The use of an antibiotic order form for antibiotic utilization review: influence on physicians’ prescribing patterns. J Infect Dis. 1984;150(6):803–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. El-Othmani MM, Sayeed Z, J’nise AR, Abaab L, Little BE, Saleh KJ. The joint utilization management program—implementation of a bundle payment model and comparison between year 1 and 2 results. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(11):2532–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fateha B. Evaluation of the utilization management programme at Salmaniya Medical Complex, Bahrain. EMHJ-Eastern Mediterranean Health J. 2002;8(4-5):556–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ferrazzi S, Waltner-Toews D, Abernathy T, McEwen S. The effects of prehospital advanced life support drug treatment on patient improvement and in-hospital utilization. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2001;5(3):252–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Fowkes F, Evans K, Hartley G, Nolan D, Roberts C, Davies E, et al. Multicentre trial of four strategies to reduce use of a radiological test. Lancet. 1986;327(8477):367–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Goodnough LT, Shieh L, Hadhazy E, Cheng N, Khari P, Maggio P. Improved blood utilization using real-time clinical decision support. Transfusion. 2014;54(5):1358–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Grimmer-Somers K, Johnston K, Somers E, Luker J, Ann Alemao L, Jones D. A holistic client-centred program for vulnerable frequent hospital attenders: cost efficiencies and changed practices. Aust New Zealand J Public Health. 2010;34(6):609–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Grover CA, Close RJ, Villarreal K, Goldman LM. Emergency department frequent user: pilot study of intensive case management to reduce visits and computed tomography. Western J Emerg Med. 2010;11(4):336.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Haldiman L, Zia H, Singh G. Improving appropriateness of blood utilization through prospective review of requests for blood products: the role of pathology residents as consultants. Lab Med. 2014;45(3):264–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hegney D, Buikstra E, Chamberlain C, March J, McKay M, Cope G, et al. Nurse discharge planning in the emergency department: a Toowoomba, Australia, study. J Clin Nurs. 2006;15(8):1033–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Holsinger D, McCabe J, Warren K. The collaborative method: An effective performance improvement tool for reducing inappropriate admissions. J Healthcare Q. 2008;30(4):6–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Horwitz SM, Busch SH, Balestracci KM, Ellingson KD, Rawlings J. Intensive intervention improves primary care follow-up for uninsured emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12(7):647–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hwang J-I, Park H-A, Bakken S. Impact of a physician’s order entry (POE) system on physicians’ ordering patterns and patient length of stay. Int J Med Inform. 2002;65(3):213–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Jambunathan J, Van Dongen CJ. Use of RN case management and costs and utilization of outpatient mental health services: a pilot study. Issues Mental Health Nurs. 1995;16(5):407–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Joo JY. Community-based case management, hospital utilization, and patient-focused outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries. Western J Nursing Res. 2014;36(6):825–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kennedy L, Neidlinger S, Scroggins K. Effective comprehensive discharge planning for hospitalized elderly. Gerontologist. 1987;27(5):577–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kim MJ, Lee E. How to reduce excessive use of the health care service in Medical Aid beneficiaries: Effectiveness of community-based case management. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(7):2503.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Koehler BE, Richter KM, Youngblood L, Cohen BA, Prengler ID, Cheng D, et al. Reduction of 30-day postdischarge hospital readmission or emergency department (ED) visit rates in high-risk elderly medical patients through delivery of a targeted care bundle. J Hospital Med. 2009;4(4):211–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Konger RL, Ndekwe P, Jones G, Schmidt RP, Trey M, Baty EJ, et al. Reduction in unnecessary clinical laboratory testing through utilization management at a US government veterans affairs hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016;145(3):355–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kurant DE, Baron JM, Strazimiri G, Lewandrowski KB, Rudolf JW, Dighe AS. Creation and use of an electronic health record reporting database to improve a laboratory test utilization program. Appl Clin Inform. 2018;9(3):519.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Latour CH, de Vos R, Huyse FJ, de Jonge P, Van Gemert LA, Stalman WA. Effectiveness of post-discharge case management in general-medical outpatients: a randomized, controlled trial. Psychosomatics. 2006;47(5):421–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Leung AC, Yau DC, Liu CP, Yeoh CS, Chui TY, Chi I, et al. Reducing utilisation of hospital services by case management: a randomised controlled trial. Australian Health Rev. 2004;28(1):79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mahendran R, Hendriks M, Thambyrajah V, Vellayan T, Maarof M. Case Management in a Psychiatric Hospital: Review of Outcomes and Resource Utilisation. Hong Kong J Psychiatry. 2006;16(1):3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Moher D, Weinberg A, Hanlon R, Runnalls K. Effects of a medical team coordinator on length of hospital stay. CMAJ. 1992;146(4):511.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Murphy SM, Neven D. Cost-effective: emergency department care coordination with a regional hospital information system. J Emerg Med. 2014;47(2):223–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Okin RL, Boccellari A, Azocar F, Shumway M, O’Brien K, Gelb A, et al. The effects of clinical case management on hospital service use among ED frequent users. Am J Emerg Med. 2000;18(5):603–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Peña JRA. Utilization management in the blood transfusion service. Clin Chimica Acta. 2014;427:178–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Phillips GA, Brophy DS, Weiland TJ, Chenhall AJ, Dent AW. The effect of multidisciplinary case management on selected outcomes for frequent attenders at an emergency department. Med J Aust. 2006;184(12):602–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Pillow MT, Doctor S, Brown S, Carter K, Mulliken R. An emergency department-initiated, web-based, multidisciplinary approach to decreasing emergency department visits by the top frequent visitors using patient care plans. J Emerg Med. 2013;44(4):853–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Pope D, Fernandes CM, Bouthillette F, Etherington J. Frequent users of the emergency department: a program to improve care and reduce visits. Cmaj. 2000;162(7):1017–20.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Reinius P, Johansson M, Fjellner A, Werr J, Öhlén G, Edgren G. A telephone-based case-management intervention reduces healthcare utilization for frequent emergency department visitors. Eur J Emerg Med. 2013;20(5):327–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Restuccia JD. The effect of concurrent feedback in reducing inappropriate hospital utilization. Med Care. 1982;20(1):46–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Roland M, Lewis R, Steventon A, Abel G, Adams J, Bardsley M, et al. Case management for at-risk elderly patients in the English integrated care pilots: observational study of staff and patient experience and secondary care utilisation. Int J Integrated Care. 2012;12:e130.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Rosenberg SN, Allen DR, Handte JS, Jackson TC, Leto L, Rodstein BM, et al. Effect of utilization review in a fee-for-service health insurance plan. New England J Med. 1995;333(20):1326–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Sandberg M, Kristensson J, Midlöv P, Jakobsson U. Effects on healthcare utilization of case management for frail older people: A randomized controlled trial (RCT). Arch Gerontol Geriatrics. 2015;60(1):71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Schraeder C, Fraser CW, Clark I, Long B, Shelton P, Waldschmidt V, et al. Evaluation of a primary care nurse case management intervention for chronically ill community dwelling older people. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(11c):407–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Shah R, Chen C, O’Rourke S, Lee M, Mohanty SA, Abraham J. Evaluation of care management for the uninsured. Med Care. 2011;49:166–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Shea S, Sideli RV, DuMouchel W, Pulver G, Arons RR, Clayton PD. Computer-generated informational messages directed to physicians: effect on length of hospital stay. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1995;2(1):58–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Shumway M, Boccellari A, O’Brien K, Okin RL. Cost-effectiveness of clinical case management for ED frequent users: results of a randomized trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26(2):155–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Silver H, Tahhan H, Anderson J, Lachman M. A non-computer-dependent prospective review of blood and blood component utilization. Transfusion. 1992;32(3):260–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Skinner J, Carter L, Haxton C. Case management of patients who frequently present to a Scottish emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2009;26(2):103–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Sledge WH, Brown KE, Levine JM, Fiellin DA, Chawarski M, White WD, et al. A randomized trial of primary intensive care to reduce hospital admissions in patients with high utilization of inpatient services. Disease Manag. 2006;9(6):328–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Spillane LL, Lumb EW, Cobaugh DJ, Wilcox SR, Clark JS, Schneider SM. Frequent users of the emergency department: can we intervene? Acad Emerg Med. 1997;4(6):574–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Stokes-Buzzelli S, Peltzer-Jones JM, Martin GB, Ford MM, Weise A. Use of health information technology to manage frequently presenting emergency department patients. Western J Emerg Med. 2010;11(4):348.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Styrborn K. Early discharge planning for elderly patients in acute hospitals—an intervention study. Scand J Soc Med. 1995;23(4):273–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Sweeney L, Halpert A, Waranoff J. Patient-centered management of complex patients can reduce costs without shortening life. Am J Manag Care. 2007;13(2):84-92. PMID: 17286528.

  78. Tadros AS, Castillo EM, Chan TC, Jensen AM, Patel E, Watts K, et al. Effects of an emergency medical services–based resource access program on frequent users of health services. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2012;16(4):541–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Wasfy JH, Bhambhani V, Healy EW, Choirat C, Dominici F, Wadhera RK, et al. Relative effects of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program on hospitals that serve poorer patients. Med care. 2019;57(12):968–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Weilburg JB, Sistrom CL, Rosenthal DI, Stout MB, Dreyer KJ, Rockett HR, et al. Utilization management of high-cost imaging in an outpatient setting in a large stable patient and provider cohort over 7 years. Radiology. 2017;284(3):766–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Wickizer TM. The effects of utilization review on hospital use and expenditures: a covariance analysis. Health Serv Res. 1992;27(1):103.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Wickizer TM, Lessler D. Effects of utilization management on patterns of hospital care among privately insured adult patients. Med Care. 1998;36(11):1545–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Williams D, Chiu E, Harvey K. Does admission to a hospital geriatric psychiatry programme improve benzodiazepine and other drug use? Intern J Geriatric Psychiatry. 1994;9(6):501–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Woodside JR, Bodne R, Tonnesen AS, Frazier J. Intensive, Focused Utilization Management in a Teaching Hospital An Exploratory Study. Qual Assurance Utilization Rev. 1991;6(2):47–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Zemencuk JK, Hofer TP, Hayward RA, Moseley RH, Saint S. What effect does physician “profiling” have on inpatient physician satisfaction and hospital length of stay? BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Beaumont R. Introduction to health Informatics. Types of Health Information Systems; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Beaumont R. Types of Health Information Systems (IS). Introduction to health Informatics; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Lee PR, Lasker RD, Shapiro DW, Bindman AB. Managed care: provider profiling. J Insurance Med (New York, NY). 1992;24(3):179–81.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Shepperd S, Lannin NA, Clemson LM, McCluskey A, Cameron ID, Barras SL. Discharge planning from hospital to home. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(1):CD000313. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(1):CD000313. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;2:CD000313.

  90. Curtis JL, Millman EJ, Struening E, D’Ercole A. Effect of case management on rehospitalization and utilization of ambulatory care services. Hospital Community Psychiatry**. 1992;43(9):895–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors express their gratitude to Tabriz University of Medical Sciences for supporting this study.


This study has no funding source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



LD designed the study, provided the supervision and participated in drafting and finalising the manuscript. Rkh, HJ, MR, Ek extracted the data, performed the analysis and participated in drafting the manuscript. VSG critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leila Doshmangir.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research is a review srudy and has no need to ethics approval.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.



Appendix Table Quality assessment of included studies

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Doshmangir, L., Khabiri, R., Jabbari, H. et al. Strategies for utilisation management of hospital services: a systematic review of interventions. Global Health 18, 53 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: