| Course | DDHA 8103 Advanced Healthcare Quality and Risk Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Policy brief with policy text |
| Length | About 1,070 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Healthcare Administration (DHA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DDHA 8103 Week 9
From One Burn Review to Policy RH-214: A Policy Brief That Argues for Adoption in One Section and Writes the Heat Application Policy in Another
Student Name
Walden University
DDHA 8103: Advanced Healthcare Quality and Risk Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
From One Burn Review to Policy RH-214: A Policy Brief That Argues for Adoption in One Section and Writes the Heat Application Policy in Another
Purpose of This Brief
This brief asks the policy committee of Hollins Ford Health, an invented regional system, to adopt a new policy for superficial moist heat in its twelve outpatient rehabilitation clinics. It has two parts that are meant to read differently. Part one argues for adoption and is written to persuade. Part two is the policy itself, written to be followed, and it contains no argument, no evidence and no history, because a policy that keeps explaining itself is harder to apply at the treatment table.
Part One: The Case for Adoption
The Finding
The division's root cause analysis of a partial-thickness burn found that the existing procedure discouraged patients from lying on hot packs but gave staff no alternative for patients who cannot lie face down. Staff at seven of the twelve clinics filled that gap the same way, by letting those patients lie face up over the pack and padding it with another towel. The analysis traced the burn to that practice and to four related conditions: loose towels that could be added under a patient, a five-minute check reduced to a spoken question, an intake screen that did not ask about sensation where heat would be applied, and an audit that reviewed documentation but never the work. Direct observation before any change found the patient lying on the pack in 31 percent of set-ups.
Why a Policy Rather Than a Reminder
A reminder memo was the division's first response, and it was the wrong instrument. The practice had spread because it solved a real problem for patients and staff, and Amalberti et al. (2006) describe how practices drift toward the edge of safety when the rules offer no workable path for situations that come up every day. A memo restating the old rule would leave the same gap in place. A policy can close it by setting out the permitted positions, naming what happens when none is possible and placing the requirement for fitted covers and visual checks in a document with an owner and a review date. Root cause guidance warns that analyses fail when their actions are weak or never carried through (National Patient Safety Foundation, 2015), and a policy is the vehicle that makes several of this analysis's actions binding at once.
What the Policy Will and Will Not Do
The policy will remove the specific mechanism of the burn by forbidding application under the patient's body. It will make the skin check visual and tie it to staffing. It will require a sensation test of the treatment area before a first application. It will not guarantee that no patient is ever burned, since heat applied to skin carries some risk at any temperature a patient would find useful. It will also not ban moist heat, which the analysis team considered and rejected for reasons set out in its report. Hettinger et al. (2013) place physical changes such as fitted covers above procedural rules in strength, and the policy pairs the two so that the stronger change supports the weaker one.
Costs and Objections
The startup cost of covers, wedges and straps is about $9,400, and observation adds about two staff hours a month per clinic. The main objection raised in consultation was that some patients will lose a treatment they value. The policy answers that by requiring the clinician to record why heat was not given and by asking the quality committee to watch the share of visits that include heat. A second objection was that staffing ratios for heat applications will slow clinics on busy afternoons. The policy accepts that cost as the price of a check that looks at skin.
Part Two: Policy Text
RH-214 Superficial Moist Heat Application, Outpatient Rehabilitation
Purpose. To set requirements for applying moist hot packs in outpatient rehabilitation clinics.
Scope. All moist hot packs heated in clinic heating units at the twelve outpatient rehabilitation clinics. Other heat and cold modalities, and heat used at home, fall outside this policy.
Definitions. Application means one pack placed on one body region for one continuous period. Approved position means face down, side-lying or seated, with the pack resting on the patient. Fitted cover means a commercial cover sized to the pack and issued by the clinic.
Requirements
1. A pack shall be applied only in an approved position. No pack shall be placed beneath any part of a patient's body.
2. A pack shall be used only inside a fitted cover. Towels shall not be added between the cover and the patient.
3. Before a patient's first application to a body region, the clinician shall test and record light touch sensation over that region. Moist heat shall not be applied to a region with reduced sensation.
4. The clinician shall look at the skin under the pack at five minutes and record what was seen. A spoken question does not satisfy this requirement.
5. One staff member shall supervise no more than two active heat applications at the same time.
6. When no approved position is possible, moist heat shall not be applied, and the clinician shall record the reason.
7. Heating unit water temperature shall be read and logged at the start of each clinic day.
Responsibilities
The director of rehabilitation owns this policy. Clinic managers ensure supplies, staffing and training. Clinicians and aides follow the requirements. The quality director arranges observation and reports results.
Monitoring
Each clinic is observed at 20 random applications a month by staff from another clinic. Results, together with the thermal injury rate, are reported monthly to the division's quality committee.
Exceptions
Exceptions require written approval from the director of rehabilitation for a named patient and a stated reason, and are reviewed at the next quality committee meeting.
Review
The owner reviews this policy at twelve months, then at least biennially, and at once after any qualifying thermal injury.
Conclusion
Part one argues that a reminder cannot close the gap the burn exposed and that a policy pairing a positioning rule with fitted covers, visual checks and staffing limits can. Part two states those requirements in seven numbered sentences that an aide can follow without reading part one. The committee is asked to adopt RH-214 as written, effective the first day of next quarter.
References
Amalberti, R., Vincent, C., Auroy, Y., & de Saint Maurice, G. (2006). Violations and migrations in health care: A framework for understanding and management. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 15(Suppl. 1), i66-i71. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2005.015982
Hettinger, A. Z., Fairbanks, R. J., Hegde, S., Rackoff, A. S., Wreathall, J., Lewis, V. L., Bisantz, A. M., & Wears, R. L. (2013). An evidence-based toolkit for the development of effective and sustainable root cause analysis system safety solutions. Journal of Healthcare Risk Management, 33(2), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhrm.21122
National Patient Safety Foundation. (2015). RCA2: Improving root cause analyses and actions to prevent harm. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. https://www.ihi.org/library/tools/rca2-improving-root-cause-analyses-and-actions-prevent-harm
DDHA 8103 Week 9 instructions, in plain terms
The ninth week usually asks for a policy brief that turns a finding into policy. Two kinds of writing are expected, and they should not blend. In the first part, make the case for adoption: summarize the finding, explain why policy is the right instrument, say what the policy will and will not achieve, and address costs and objections. Support the argument with evidence. In the second part, write the policy itself in the format your organization uses, with purpose, scope, definitions, numbered requirements, responsibilities, monitoring, exceptions and a review date. Leave all argument, evidence and history out of the policy text. Use shall or must for requirements. Many instructors ask for the brief to fit within five or six pages, with references only in the first part.
How this DDHA 8103 Week 9 example is built
The brief opens by explaining its two parts and why they read differently. Part one summarizes the root cause finding, including the 31 percent observed rate of patients lying on the pack. A section explains why a reminder memo failed and a policy can close the gap, citing Amalberti and colleagues and published guidance on weak actions. Another sets out what the policy will and will not do, citing Hettinger and colleagues. A short section answers objections on lost treatment and slower afternoons. Part two presents RH-214 with purpose, scope and definitions, seven numbered requirements from approved positions to daily temperature logs, and sections on responsibilities, monitoring, exceptions and review. The conclusion asks the committee to adopt the policy and repeats the separation between the two parts.
Reading the DDHA 8103 Week 9 rubric
Policy briefs are assessed on whether the argument persuades and the policy can be followed. A brief that keeps arguing inside the policy text usually loses marks, since the policy becomes harder to apply. Credit goes to a concise statement of the finding and a clear explanation of why policy is the right tool. Honest limits on what the policy can achieve earn more than broad promises. Instructors reward requirements that are specific, numbered and testable. Responsibilities, monitoring and review dates show the policy will be maintained. Addressing objections shows the writer consulted stakeholders. References belong in the argument and should support each claim there. The policy text should use consistent defined terms. Correct APA format applies to the argumentative portion.
Common DDHA 8103 Week 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The common problem this week is a policy that reads like an essay. Write the argument first, then start a fresh page and write the policy as if the reader has never seen the argument. Each requirement should be one sentence that an inspector could check. Define every term you use more than once. Remove because, therefore and any citation from the policy text. Make sure every requirement has someone responsible for it. Then go back to the argument and check that it answers the objections staff will raise. Share your finding with us and our team will shape it into a two-part brief: a persuasive case up front and a policy staff can follow at the point of care.
Get a DDHA 8103 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Send the finding your section assigned, the prompt, the rubric and any policy template your classroom requires, and a brief split into argument and adoptable text comes back to you. The first custom example is free and arrives inside 24 to 48 hours, formatted to that template rather than to a generic policy outline.
More DDHA 8103 papers and DHA samples
- DDHA 8103 Week 1: Harm Despite Controls Post
- DDHA 8103 Week 2: Event Chronology Analysis
- DDHA 8103 Week 3: Root Cause Analysis
- DDHA 8103 Week 4: Harm Measure Definition
- DDHA 8103 Week 5: Ranked Risk Register
- DDHA 8103 Week 6: Candor Versus Exposure Post
- DDHA 8103 Week 7: Disclosure Letter
- DDHA 8103 Week 8: Improvement Proposal
- DDHA 8103 Week 10: Cost of Harm Memo
- DDHA 8103 Week 11: Board Case on Moist Heat
- DDHA 8006 Week 9: Evidence to Practice Application
DDHA 8103 Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DDHA 8103 Week 9 sample paper?
The two-part brief, including the full text of Policy RH-214, is free to read on this page.
Why does the DDHA 8103 Week 9 example separate argument from policy?
Staff applying a policy need instructions, not reasons; mixing the two makes the requirements harder to find and follow.
Why was a reminder memo not enough?
The unsafe practice spread because the old rule offered no workable option for patients who cannot lie face down, and a memo would leave that gap.
What does requirement 4 of the policy change?
It makes the five-minute check a visual look at the skin and states that a spoken question does not satisfy it.
Does the policy ban moist heat?
No. It sets conditions for safe use and says heat is not given when no approved position is possible.