SAS Dashboard: Working Backwards PR/FAQ (0-to-1)

Organization: Sentinel Advisory Services (SAS)
Grounding: docs/planning/0-to-1-product-plan.md (the product this PR describes)
Related: vision and later increments: docs/planning/product-vision-and-roadmap.md; architecture options: docs/planning/0-to-1-tech-stack-architecture-evaluation.md
Document type: Amazon-style Working Backwards press release and FAQ for the first slice only. Internal planning artifact. Not a press release to distribute, not a customer leave-behind, not a claim that the product has launched.

Written as if the first Epic + 3M hospital is live on the product. It does not name a pilot, invent metric formulas, set a price, or pick hosting. Open items stay open in the Internal FAQ.

Press release

Sentinel Advisory Services launches SAS Dashboard: one mid-cycle view for the hospital CFO and HIM director

Monthly Executive and Acute Care Coding views, fed from Epic and 3M 360 Encompass extracts, with one SAS catalog, sold the same way to the next hospital, not rebuilt as a custom analytics project.

UNITED STATES: Sentinel Advisory Services (SAS) today introduced SAS Dashboard, a resellable product for hospitals that run Epic for acute care and Solventum 3M 360 Encompass for coding and CDI.

Hospital finance and HIM leaders still assemble mid-cycle performance by hand. Coding productivity lives in 3M. Unbilled dollars live in Epic. Denial reasons live in a remit file. Definitions of DNFB, DNFC, CMI, and “coding versus clinical validation” rarely match. The CFO sees cash delay without seeing what in coding or documentation caused it. The HIM director sees charts per hour without seeing the dollar consequence. Each hospital that asks an advisory team for “a dashboard” tends to get a unique workbook that cannot be sold again.

SAS Dashboard’s first release puts those leaders on the same two monthly views, from the same extracts, using one SAS-owned metric catalog:

• An Executive view of mid-cycle performance over a trailing six months: DNFB, CMI, CC/MCC capture, and coding versus clinical-validation denials, against targets the hospital provides.
• An Acute Care Coding manager view of inpatient and outpatient coding operations over the same period: DNFC, minutes per chart, and coding quality / audit accuracy.

Hospitals send files they already produce: Epic financial / unbilled reports or warehouse extracts, 3M 360 Encompass productivity, CMI, and quality reports, and a claim/remittance file. SAS maps those files into a canonical contract. The hospital configures facility names, targets, calendar, column maps, denial-code rows, and named users. It does not get a forked DNFB formula or a unique layout. A second Epic + 3M hospital goes live on the same catalog and the same two views with configuration and an extract adapter.

“CFOs should not wait on a spreadsheet to see whether coding and documentation are delaying cash,” said the Product Owner at Sentinel Advisory Services. “HIM directors should not coach from a different number than the one in the board pack. SAS Dashboard is one catalog and two views. We will not rebuild it for each hospital.”

“I need DNFB, CMI, and denials on the same page as DNFC and minutes per chart, and I need to believe they come from the same month of extracts,” said a hospital CFO evaluating the product. “If the next facility in our system has to start over with a consulting dashboard, that is not a product.”

“If my quality scorecard is a one-off tile, we are back to silos inside SAS’s own tool,” said a HIM / Coding Director evaluating the product. “Give me the standard Acute Care Coding view, map our files, and let me set the targets.”

SAS Dashboard is offered as a paid pilot of the product at the first Epic + 3M facility, with the explicit test that a second such hospital can be onboarded without a rebuild. Where the hospital logs in (its own workspace or a SAS-hosted workspace) is agreed with that hospital’s IT and security team. Metric numerators are written in a workshop against the hospital’s fields and then owned by SAS as catalog versions, not as a private formula set.

The first release does not include a Quality reporting suite, professional-fee coding, a CDI operations dashboard, an encounter-level coder worklist, other EMRs, live FHIR feeds, or a peer-benchmark network.

Hospitals that run Epic and 3M 360 Encompass and want a connected mid-cycle view should contact Sentinel Advisory Services at sentineladvisory.com.

About Sentinel Advisory Services
Sentinel Advisory Services advises healthcare revenue-cycle leadership on mid-cycle performance: clinical documentation, coding, and the cash consequences. SAS Dashboard is its resellable product for that work. Further focus areas and later increments are described internally in the product vision and roadmap; they are not part of this launch.

Customer FAQ

Answers a hospital CFO, VP Revenue Cycle, HIM director, or CIO would ask. Where the 0-to-1 plan still has an open question, the answer says so.

Who is this for?

A hospital (or a single facility inside a system) that already runs Epic for acute care and Solventum 3M 360 Encompass for coding/CDI. The people who use the first release are the CFO or VP Revenue Cycle and the HIM / Coding Director, sitting down together.

It is not for medical-group professional-fee coding, not a coder’s daily worklist, and not a Quality / star-ratings submission tool.

What problem does it solve?

Mid-cycle numbers live in different tools and in a monthly spreadsheet. This product is one catalog and two views so those two leaders can decide (where cash is delayed, which denial category to work, where to staff or coach) without waiting on a hand-built file.

What do we actually see?

Two monthly screens, trailing six months:

1. Executive: Mid-Cycle Performance: DNFB, CMI, CC/MCC capture, coding vs clinical-validation denials, versus your targets.
2. Acute Care Coding: Inpatient & Outpatient Coding Operations: DNFC, IP and OP minutes per chart (if your extract has both), coding quality / audit accuracy.

There is no encounter-level “why was this account flagged?” list in this release. There is no CDI query-rate dashboard. There is no peer median unless you supply a benchmark file.

How is this different from Epic reports, 3M reports, or the spreadsheet we already have?

Those sources are the inputs. SAS Dashboard is the connected story with one definition of each named metric, owned by SAS, mapped from your files. Epic Cogito does not include the 3M coding/CDI operational picture. 3M operational reports do not include Epic unbilled dollars and remit denials. The spreadsheet is the thing this product is meant to retire for these metrics.

Will you customize the dashboard for our HIM director?

No. You configure: facility name, targets, calendar, file/column maps, denial-code mapping into SAS’s coding vs clinical-validation buckets, and who may view the two screens.

You do not get a forked DNFB or DNFC formula, extra tiles, a unique layout, or a third dashboard “just for us.” If your operational definition cannot be expressed as the SAS catalog plus those parameters, either SAS issues a catalog version sold to every hospital, or this product is not a fit.

What data do we send?

Files you already produce, on a weekly or monthly drop (SFTP or a secure share): Epic unbilled / hospital billing extracts or standard financial reports; 3M 360 Encompass productivity, CMI, and quality reports; a claim/remittance file for denials. SAS maps them into a canonical extract. A new Epic API or FHIR app is not required for this release.

Exact file inventory is agreed with your team before go-live. Whether those files are aggregate KPIs, a limited data set, or PHI is a legal question on the actual files. This FAQ does not decide that.

Where do we log in? Do you host our data?

To be agreed with your IT and security team. The product is the SAS catalog and the two views, not a particular vendor login. It may run in your tenant on a SAS-owned, copyable model, or in a SAS-hosted workspace. SAS does not build a unique dashboard in your Power BI (or equivalent) that cannot be given to the next hospital.

A BAA, minimum necessary, and access logging apply as soon as real patient or limited-data-set rows move. Encryption, MFA, SSO, SOC 2, HITRUST, and region follow your security bar, which is not assumed here.

How long until we see our numbers?

After a hospital is named and a data path exists: about 30 days to catalog one-pagers, extract mapping, and security paperwork; about 60 days to a first six-month load and a live review against your spreadsheet; about 90 days to a scripted refresh and a written “what this is / is not.” The calendar does not start until you can send files.

What does it cost?

A paid pilot of the product (or a subscription that starts at the pilot). It is not unpaid product R&D and not an unscoped consulting add-on that implies a custom build. The specific fee is not set in this document.

Can the rest of our health system use it?

The first deployment is one facility, even inside a system. A second Epic + 3M facility is the same two views and the same catalog, with a new adapter and configuration. A multi-hospital roll-up, other EMRs (Cerner, Meditech, and others), and self-serve onboarding are not this release.

What is this not?

Not a coder assignment tool. Not a CDI query workflow. Not a replacement for 3M or Epic. Not a quality reporting submission tool. Not a claims editor. Not a custom dashboard studio. Not professional-fee coding. Not live intra-day refresh.

Internal FAQ

For SAS leadership, product, and delivery. Does not invent answers the 0-to-1 plan still leaves open.

Why write a PR if nothing has launched?

To test whether the 0-to-1 brief is sellable in the buyer’s language. If this PR needs Quality, Profee, encounter worklists, or “we’ll customize DNFB,” the slice is too big or the offer is not a product. This file is not for journalists or as a leave-behind until a named hospital, pricing, and legal path exist.

What is in v1, in one sentence?

The 0-to-1 plan’s beachhead decisions: monthly Executive + Acute Care Coding views at one Epic + 3M hospital; SAS catalog; file extracts; resale via config + adapter. Options and trade-offs for those decisions are in the 0-to-1 plan §3.

What would make this PR false?

• Shipping a unique workspace whose measures cannot be copied to hospital 2.
• Putting mock-up numbers (5.2 DNFB, peer median 1.61) in customer material as if they were real.
• Listing peer benchmarks as a feature without a source file from the hospital.
• Promising daily-while-inpatient refresh, encounter drill-through, CDI operations, Quality, or another EMR in the same breath as this launch.
• Filling numerators from the deck instead of a workshop on real fields.

Who is the economic buyer?

Open (0-to-1 plan). The PR assumes a CFO and HIM director use it together. Do not rewrite the PR around SAS’s own consultants as the primary user.

Who is the first hospital?

Open. There is no named pilot. SAS waits to build until a hospital pilot is selected. Do not invent one in quotes or datelines. The customer quotes are personas, not references.

Who owns product, catalog, and privacy at SAS?

The Product Owner can ask a hospital for files and owns catalog delivery. The Technical Owner is SAS privacy/security owner. The hospital still owns configuration (targets, maps, users).

SAS-hosted or hospital tenant?

Open. The PR states both are possible and that the model must be SAS-owned and copyable either way. Do not pick a cloud or a BI tool in the PR.

What is the price?

Open, within the offer: paid pilot or subscription starting at the pilot; not an unscoped engagement build.

Who owns metric definitions?

SAS owns the catalog (versioned). The hospital owns configuration. The first workshop fills catalog v1 against real fields; it does not transfer ownership of numerators to that hospital.

What if the CFO’s spreadsheet uses a different DNFB clock?

Treat as: configuration parameter if many hospitals need it (product change); catalog version if SAS changes the standard; no-fit if they require a private formula. Do not silently fork.

When is hospital 2 required?

The 0-to-1 plan’s done-when test includes a credible hospital-2 onboarding path (same views, same catalog, adapter + config). The PR’s “sold the same way to the next hospital” is that test. It is not a promise that two paying hospitals exist on launch day.

Why no peer benchmarks in the PR?

The vision mock-ups show peer medians with no source. Until SAS has a legal right to a benchmark file (or the hospital supplies one), “peer median” is not a product feature. Targets the hospital provides are.

How does this relate to the vision deck?

The deck is the long-term narrative (four focus areas, three view levels, many source systems). This PR is only what the 0-to-1 plan ships. Later increments (encounter drill-through, CDI manager view, daily refresh, Profee, Cerner, Quality, multi-site packaging) stay in docs/planning/product-vision-and-roadmap.md and out of the launch story.

What still has to be true before this PR could ever go external?

A named Epic + 3M hospital; a data-sharing path and extract inventory; BAA / vendor-risk path as required by the actual files; a price; a written catalog v1 from the workshop; and a security bar (MFA, SSO, SOC 2, HITRUST, region) the hospital will accept. Product SME, catalog owner, and SAS privacy owner are already named. Until a pilot is selected, this document stays internal Working Backwards. SAS waits; it does not build a fake-data demo.

Product definition: docs/planning/0-to-1-product-plan.md. This PR/FAQ must not outrun that brief.