| Course | DDHA 8303 Research Methods for Healthcare Administrators |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 1 |
| Paper type | Doctoral discussion post with two replies |
| Length | About 640 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 8303 Week 1
Week 1 Discussion: Questions Research Can and Cannot Answer
"The Remote Coders Are Rushing": Sorting One Director's Complaint Into the Part a Study Could Settle and the Part It Never Will
Here is the complaint as I heard it at a revenue cycle meeting last month: "Since coding went home, our DRG downgrades from payer audits have gone up, and I think the remote coders are rushing." The speaker directs health information management at a composite five-hospital system I will call Halvorsen Health, where 41 of 64 inpatient coders moved to fully remote work in two waves during 2024. She wants to know whether to bring them back.
Part of her complaint is empirical. Whether downgrades rose, by how much, and whether the rise is concentrated among remote coders are facts that exist whether or not anyone looks. So is the question of timing: if downgrades rose in the months after each wave moved home, and not among coders who stayed onsite, that pattern would be observable in records Halvorsen already keeps. A study could also check rival explanations, such as a new payer audit program or a change in documentation software that arrived the same year. Walshe and Rundall (2001) argue that health care managers rarely use research evidence in this way, partly because management questions are seldom framed so that evidence can reach them. This one can be framed that way.
Another part is not empirical at all. Even if a study found that remote coders were 2% less accurate, someone would still have to decide whether that cost outweighs what remote work buys, which at Halvorsen includes filling coding vacancies in about half the time it took before. How much accuracy is worth how much retention is a question about priorities. Rousseau (2006) describes evidence-based management as combining the best available evidence with judgment about the organization's goals and values, and this complaint shows why both are needed. "Rushing" is also partly normative: it implies a standard of care that the director has not stated and that coders might define differently.
Published evidence will not settle Halvorsen's case either. Allen et al. (2015), reviewing the telecommuting literature, found that its effects on performance depend heavily on the type of work and the extent of telecommuting, so a general finding cannot tell this director what happened to her coders. A local study could answer whether accuracy changed. It could not tell her whether to accept the change.
Reply to Priya
Priya, you sorted your clinic's complaint about no-show rates almost entirely into the empirical pile, on the grounds that the rate is a number. I would move one piece back. You wrote that your manager wants to know whether the no-show rate is "too high." The rate itself is empirical, and you could compare it with similar clinics. Whether it is too high depends on what the clinic is willing to spend to lower it and which patients it is willing to lose by overbooking. That threshold is a management decision. Walshe and Rundall (2001) would probably say that the research can tell your manager what a given threshold would cost, but not where to set it.
Reply to Delia
Delia, your sorting of the staff complaint about the new badge readers seems right to me, and I would add one consideration you left out: the complaint might be partly about trust. Staff said the readers "slow everyone down," which is empirical and easy to time. But if the underlying grievance is that leaders installed them without asking, a timing study could show the readers are fast and leave the complaint untouched. Allen et al. (2015) make a related point about telecommuting, finding that its outcomes depend on the conditions around an arrangement and not only on the arrangement itself. Your study could answer the speed question cleanly, but it might be answering the wrong question.
References
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as "evidence-based management"? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256-269. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208679
Walshe, K., & Rundall, T. G. (2001). Evidence-based management: From theory to practice in health care. The Milbank Quarterly, 79(3), 429-457. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.00214
The Walden DDHA 8303 Week 1 instructions
The opening thread asks you to take a real question from your workplace and decide which parts of it research can answer. Begin with the question phrased the way a manager actually said it, before any method vocabulary. Then separate the empirical elements, facts that exist whether anyone measures them, from the normative ones, which turn on priorities or values. Explain why each element belongs where you put it. Use two or three current sources to support the distinction itself rather than to decorate the post. Say plainly that some part of the decision will remain a management call. Keep the post short and precise. In your replies, respond directly to how a classmate sorted their own question and add something they missed.
How this DDHA 8303 Week 1 example is built
The first paragraph quotes the director's complaint and gives the setting: five hospitals, 64 coders, two moves in 2024. The second paragraph lists what is empirical, including whether downgrades rose, when, among whom and what else changed that year, and cites Walshe and Rundall on why management questions rarely reach evidence. The third paragraph identifies the normative part, how much accuracy is worth how much retention, and notes that rushing implies an unstated standard, drawing on Rousseau. The fourth explains why published telecommuting evidence cannot answer the local question. The reply to Priya argues that whether a no-show rate is too high is a threshold choice. The reply to Delia suggests the badge reader complaint may really concern trust.
Where the marks sit in the DDHA 8303 Week 1 rubric
Instructors reading this thread look first for a clear line between what evidence can settle and what it cannot. Posts that treat the whole question as researchable, or dismiss research entirely, miss the point of the week. Credit rises when the sorting is specific, element by element, rather than general. Sources should do work: a citation that explains why management questions resist evidence counts for more than one that defines research. Honesty about the limits of any study is valued at the doctoral level. Brevity is part of the expectation, so a long essay may lose ground for focus. Replies earn their share by engaging a peer's sorting directly and contributing a new consideration, and all citations need APA formatting that matches the list.
Common DDHA 8303 Week 1 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A common mistake is choosing a question that is too abstract, such as whether leadership matters, which makes sorting impossible. Pick a complaint someone actually voiced. Another is calling anything with a number in it empirical, when the judgment about what number is acceptable is still a value choice. Watch for loaded words in the complaint, like rushing or lazy, that smuggle in a standard. Do not promise that a study would resolve everything. In replies, avoid restating the classmate's post; move one element or add one consideration and give a reason. If you want a post built on a complaint from your own organization, we can prepare one that fits your prompt and your classroom's length.
Get a DDHA 8303 Week 1 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 1 prompt and the discussion rubric your classroom posts, and the desk returns a finished example inside 24-48 hours, with the first custom sample costing nothing. Requests are written from a described or composite unit, since internal complaint logs an employer holds remain that employer's property and are never reconstructed here.
More DDHA 8303 papers and DHA samples
- DDHA 8303 Week 2: Researchable Problem Statement
- DDHA 8303 Week 3: Article Appraisal
- DDHA 8303 Week 4: Research Question Set
- DDHA 8303 Week 5: Design Justification
- DDHA 8303 Week 6: Single-Site Claims Post
- DDHA 8303 Week 7: Sampling Plan
- DDHA 8303 Week 8: Instrument Appraisal
- DDHA 8303 Week 9: Ethics Protocol
- DDHA 8303 Week 10: Analysis Plan
- DDHA 8303 Week 11: Methodology Section
- DDHA 8203 Week 1: Clinic Constraint Post
- DDHA 8113 Week 1: Authority Versus Influence Post
- DDHA 8103 Week 1: Harm Despite Controls Post
- DDHA 8006 Week 1: Practice Problem Discussion Post
DDHA 8303 Week 1 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DDHA 8303 Week 1 sample paper?
This page carries the full researchable questions post and both replies, with references, free of charge.
What complaint does the DDHA 8303 Week 1 example sort?
A director's claim that payer DRG downgrades rose after coding went remote because remote coders are rushing.
Which part of the complaint can research settle?
Whether downgrades or accuracy actually changed, when, among which coders and whether other changes that year explain it.
Which part is left as a management decision?
Whether any accuracy loss is worth the faster hiring and retention that remote work brings, and what counts as rushing.
Why can published telecommuting studies not answer the question?
Their effects vary with the type of work and the amount of remote time, so a general finding cannot say what happened to these coders.