| Course | DDHA 8006 Doctor of Healthcare Administration Foundational Concepts |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 6 |
| Paper type | Doctoral discussion post |
| Length | About 590 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Healthcare Administration (DHA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DDHA 8006 Week 6
Week 6 Discussion: Initial Post and Replies
Closing the Loop Is an Administrative Duty, Not a Clinical Courtesy
My claim this week is contestable on purpose: closing the specialty referral loop is an administrative duty of the referring organization, and treating it as a clinical courtesy left to individual clinicians is why it so often fails. By closing the loop I mean confirming that a referred patient was seen and that the specialist's findings reached the referring clinician.
The usual view, at least in the primary care group I am using as a composite, Tallgrass, is that referral follow-up is part of good clinical practice. The physician who refers should notice when a report does not arrive and act. That view is reasonable but, I think, wrong as a design principle. A primary care physician with 2,000 patients and dozens of open referrals cannot reliably notice an absence. Noticing that something did not happen is one of the hardest tasks for a busy person, and systems that depend on it fail predictably.
My warrant, the reasoning that connects evidence to the claim, has three parts. First, referral failures occur at stages that clinicians do not control, such as scheduling and the transmission of reports, which Mehrotra et al. (2011) documented across the referral process. Second, even in a large academic system with electronic ordering, many referrals went unclosed (Patel et al., 2018), which suggests that technology plus clinical diligence is not enough. Third, the stages that fail are ones that administrative systems, such as tracking queues, assigned staff and agreements with specialist practices, are built to manage. If the failures are systemic and the tools are administrative, the duty should be administrative.
This does not remove clinical responsibility. The physician still decides to refer and acts on what comes back. But the duty to know which referrals are open, and to chase them, should belong to the organization, with named staff and a measure.
I expect two objections. One is cost: tracking every referral takes staff time. The other is that clinicians may disengage if follow-up becomes someone else's job. I would like classmates to test the warrant: does the evidence that failures are systemic really support moving the duty, or could the same evidence support better clinical tools instead?
Reply to Andrea
Andrea, you challenged my warrant directly, arguing that the same evidence could support giving clinicians better alerts rather than moving the duty. That is the strongest objection, and I want to take it seriously. If an alert told a physician when a report was overdue, the noticing problem would be solved. My concern is what happens next. The physician would then need to call the specialist's office, contact the patient and reschedule, which are administrative tasks. Alerts move the noticing to a machine but leave the chasing with the busiest person in the chain. Kim-Hwang et al. (2010) found that clinicians valued electronic referral mainly for communication, not for taking on more follow-up work. Would your alert design include someone other than the physician to act on it?
Reply to Marcus
Marcus, your point that administrative ownership could cause clinicians to stop caring about follow-up is fair, and I do not have strong evidence against it. What I can offer is a design answer: the administrative team closes routine loops, but any referral marked urgent, or any report with an abnormal finding, is escalated to the physician. That keeps clinicians engaged where their judgment matters. Has your organization seen disengagement after shifting other tasks, such as prior authorizations, to staff.
References
Kim-Hwang, J. E., Chen, A. H., Bell, D. S., Guzman, D., Yee, H. F., & Kushel, M. B. (2010). Evaluating electronic referrals for specialty care at a public hospital. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(10), 1123-1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1402-1
Mehrotra, A., Forrest, C. B., & Lin, C. Y. (2011). Dropping the baton: Specialty referrals in the United States. The Milbank Quarterly, 89(1), 39-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00619.x
Patel, M. P., Schettini, P., O'Leary, C. P., Bosworth, H. B., Anderson, J. B., & Shah, K. P. (2018). Closing the referral loop: An analysis of primary care referrals to specialists in a large health system. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 33(5), 715-721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4392-z
Reading the DDHA 8006 Week 6 instructions
Discussion posts in this week usually ask you to state a contestable claim about administrative practice and make your reasoning visible. Define your terms so the claim cannot be misread. Present the usual view fairly before arguing against it. Lay out your warrant, the reasoning that connects evidence to claim, in numbered or clearly separated parts. Say what the claim does not mean, to prevent easy misreadings. Anticipate objections and invite classmates to test the warrant specifically, not just the conclusion. In replies, engage the strongest objection on its merits, concede what the evidence cannot show and offer a design or test rather than repeating your claim. Avoid polite agreement; the assignment rewards replies that change or sharpen someone's argument.
Inside the DDHA 8006 Week 6 example
The post defines closing the loop and states the claim. It describes the usual view that follow-up is clinical diligence and explains why noticing absences fails as a design principle. The warrant has three parts, citing Mehrotra and colleagues on stages outside clinicians' control and Patel and colleagues on unclosed referrals despite electronic ordering. A paragraph clarifies that clinical responsibility remains. Two objections are anticipated, and classmates are asked to test the warrant. The reply to Andrea weighs physician alerts against administrative follow-up, citing Kim-Hwang and colleagues. The reply to Marcus concedes limited evidence on disengagement and proposes escalation rules.
DDHA 8006 Week 6 rubric: what earns full marks
Posts this week are judged on argument quality. A claim that is genuinely contestable, with terms defined, earns the foundation. A visible warrant, connecting evidence to claim in separate steps, earns the core credit. Fair statement of the opposing view shows balance. Clarifying what the claim does not mean prevents straw-man readings and is often credited. Replies are assessed on whether they examine the warrant, concede limits and offer constructive responses rather than restating the original position. Citations should support each step of the warrant. Brief, well-organized paragraphs are expected. Posts that state a safe, uncontestable claim usually earn lower marks. Responding to a classmate's alternative with evidence rather than preference, as the reply on alerts does, tends to separate the top band from the middle one.
DDHA 8006 Week 6 help: mistakes that cost marks
Argument posts often state a position everyone already agrees with. Pick a claim someone in your organization would dispute. Write down why you believe it, in steps, and attach evidence to each step. Say what you are not claiming. Ask classmates to attack a specific step. In replies, take the hardest objection seriously and say what the evidence cannot settle. If you need help turning a workplace opinion into a contestable claim with a clear warrant, our writers can help you draft a post that invites real debate. Brevity matters in replies too: a few tight paragraphs ending in a concrete request, such as a number from their unit or the setting their source studied, give the classmate something to answer.
Get a DDHA 8006 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Send the thread prompt, the number of replies required and the rubric your section applies to them, and an initial post with matching responses comes back written to those terms. The first custom one is free and returns inside 24 to 48 hours, aimed at the specific question your classroom posed rather than a generic version of it.
More DDHA 8006 papers and DHA samples
- DDHA 8006 Week 1: Practice Problem Discussion Post
- DDHA 8006 Week 2: Scholarly Voice Exercise
- DDHA 8006 Week 3: Bounded Problem Statement
- DDHA 8006 Week 4: Annotated Bibliography
- DDHA 8006 Week 5: Claim-Based Literature Appraisal
- DDHA 8006 Week 7: Doctoral Position Paper
- DDHA 8006 Week 8: Practice Inquiry Ethics Analysis
- DDHA 8006 Week 9: Evidence to Practice Application
- DDHA 8006 Week 10: Doctoral Peer Critique
- DDHA 8006 Week 11: Reflective Synthesis
DDHA 8006 Week 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DDHA 8006 Week 6 sample paper?
The contestable-claim post sits on this page in full, followed by both replies to classmates, free to read.
What claim does the DDHA 8006 Week 6 post make?
That closing the referral loop is an administrative duty of the referring organization, not a courtesy left to clinicians.
What is the post's warrant?
Failures occur at stages clinicians do not control, electronic ordering alone leaves loops open and the failing stages are ones administrative systems manage.
How does the first reply handle the alert objection?
It notes that alerts solve noticing but leave the chasing work with the busiest person, and asks who would act on the alert.
How does the second reply answer the disengagement concern?
It concedes limited evidence and proposes escalating urgent referrals and abnormal findings to physicians.