I would first suggestion recognizing that the QMS, the DMR(s) and the DHF(s) all serve different purposes, and have different constraints, so I wouldn't presume that there is a common organizational methodology for them. There are features that they may share (i.e. the concept of 'revision history') and elements may be subject to common processes (e.g. 'change control') but they are IMO quite different things.
QMS: Typically these are arranged in a hierarchy, with something like a Quality Policy (that rarely changes) at the top, with subordinate system policies below it, each with their own subordinate work instructions (that can include forms and/or templates). The QMS and its structure is established (at the top, by executive management) and employees train on the diverse parts as their job requires. Elements of the QMS are subject to change control... there is required training, but there should be no material impact when QMS elements change. Superseded QMS elements are never used again.
DMR: This is the recipe for making your marketable device. These are product structures with the apex of the structure being the finished good. Work instructions (and inspection procedures) will be part of the product structure; these are NOT part of the QMS... rather they are (generally) required by the QMS. The elements of the DMR are subject to revision control as 'things' change... could be acceptance criteria, could be supplier information, could be part swaps, could be process changes... these are 'design changes' so the DMR structure has to be established in such a way that supports design changes. Superseded DMR changes have to be available for review, because products with them are still going to be in the field! Changes to DMR almost always have material impact.
DHF: The DHF is essentially the recorded narrative of how a device got to market in the first place. Elements of a DHF are NOT subject to change... it is true that a new revision of some DHF element (think:, 'Rev B of a development plan') could be approved, but the 'Rev A' doesn't get tossed. If you want a 'neutral third party' (would be a NRTL, NB, or a regulator) you are essentially sending them the DHF for review. The DHF is 'alive', but it preserves the entire history of the life, whereas the QMS and DMR are pretty much only snapshots of the currently 'alive' system/good. There needs to be a system that controls how information gets into the DHF, but there is no formal need to consider life-cycle activities for the records inside a DHF.