| Course | DDHA 9901 Practice-Based Problem Identification |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 11 |
| Paper type | Doctoral discussion post with two replies |
| Length | About 570 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 9901 Week 11
Week 11 Discussion: Reflecting on the Case You Built
What Would Retire My Problem: The Finding That Would Prove Late Discharge Summaries Are Not a Shortfall, and the Conclusion I Now Hold Most Loosely
My problem would be retired by one finding: a matched record showing that most summaries the logs count as late actually reached the practices in time by a route I did not measure. The most likely route is the regional health information exchange. If independent practices routinely pulled summaries from the exchange before follow-up visits, my 52% figure would undercount delivery, and the shortfall against the two-day contract term might disappear. I did not measure exchange queries, because Larchmont, the composite system in my case, does not log them in a way I could obtain this term. A query log from the exchange, matched to discharges, would settle it either way. A second finding would weaken the case without retiring it: an audit showing that many discharges with no primary care clinician recorded belonged to patients who genuinely had none, which would shrink the group of summaries that should have gone somewhere.
The conclusion I hold most loosely is the cost estimate. Its range spans roughly a fourfold difference between low and high, and almost all of that spread comes from two assumptions I could not measure: how many minutes practice staff spend chasing a summary and how many minutes a clinician spends reconstructing a hospital stay at the visit. Writing the estimate taught me how easily an assumed number becomes a fact once it sits in a table. The Maryland work on completion delays and readmissions (Hoyer et al., 2016) tempted me to add a large readmission cost. I left it out because their measure was completion, not delivery, and that restraint is the decision I am most confident about.
What changed most was my sense of where the problem lives. I began the term expecting to show that hospitalists were slow. The signature data showed the opposite, and the problem turned out to sit in registration data and in the gap between groups that each do their own part correctly. Kripalani et al. (2007) describe information failures at discharge as occurring at many points; I now think the most important one here is the point where nobody is responsible.
Reply to Wen
Wen, your falsifying condition, that the overtime increase you documented came from a single unit's leave cluster, is well chosen, because it is checkable in the payroll register you already have. I would add one more. You compared this year's overtime with last year's, and last year included a hiring freeze that ended in March. If overtime fell during the freeze for reasons unrelated to staffing need, your comparison year may be the anomaly rather than this one. Were et al. (2009) remind me, in my own area, that missing fields can shape a finding as much as present ones; in yours, a missing explanation for last year could.
Reply to Ama
Ama, I agree that your benchmark comparison is the conclusion you should hold most loosely, since the peer distribution came from hospitals with different patient mixes. But I would hold your cost estimate even more loosely. You valued each missed medication reconciliation at the cost of an adverse drug event, which assumes every miss produces harm. The share that does is the key unknown. Stating your estimate as a range across a few plausible shares would make it far easier to defend.
References
Hoyer, E. H., Odonkor, C. A., Bhatia, S. N., Leung, C., Deutschendorf, A., & Brotman, D. J. (2016). Association between days to complete inpatient discharge summaries with all-payer hospital readmissions in Maryland. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 11(6), 393-400. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2556
Kripalani, S., LeFevre, F., Phillips, C. O., Williams, M. V., Basaviah, P., & Baker, D. W. (2007). Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians: Implications for patient safety and continuity of care. JAMA, 297(8), 831-841. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.297.8.831
Were, M. C., Li, X., Kesterson, J., Cadwallader, J., Asirwa, C., Khan, B., & Rosenman, M. B. (2009). Adequacy of hospital discharge summaries in documenting tests with pending results and outpatient follow-up providers. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 24(9), 1002-1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1057-y
Reading the DDHA 9901 Week 11 instructions
The closing thread asks you to reflect critically on the case you built. Do not summarize the term. Name, in operational terms, the specific finding that would retire your problem, such as a record showing the condition has already changed, a definitional discovery or a comparison revealing your benchmark came from an incomparable population. Identify the conclusion you now hold most loosely and explain what weakened it. Describe how your understanding of the problem changed. Keep to three paragraphs. In replies, help classmates sharpen their falsifying conditions or point to a weaker conclusion than the one they chose. This reflection prepares you for the questions a committee will ask. Be as specific as you would be if you had to go and collect the falsifying evidence yourself next week.
Inside the DDHA 9901 Week 11 example
The first paragraph identifies the regional exchange as an unmeasured route that could show summaries arriving in time, explains how an exchange query log would settle it and adds a second, weaker challenge about patients without a clinician. The second paragraph names the cost estimate as the loosest conclusion, explains that its spread comes from assumed minutes and describes resisting a readmission cost borrowed from a completion study. The third paragraph describes the shift from expecting slow hospitalists to finding a problem in registration data and an ownerless gap, citing Kripalani and colleagues. One reply adds a hiring freeze as a second falsifying condition for a classmate. The other points to an unsupported harm assumption as a classmate's weakest point.
Where the marks sit in the DDHA 9901 Week 11 rubric
Reflection posts are graded on candor and specificity. Markers expect a falsifying condition stated in operational terms that could actually be checked, not a general admission that more research is needed. Identifying the weakest conclusion, with reasons, shows intellectual honesty. Describing a genuine change in understanding earns more than a list of lessons learned. Summary of the term is discouraged. Replies are evaluated on whether they sharpen a classmate's reflection with a specific condition or a better candidate for the weakest conclusion. Citations should support particular points, and the post should remain brief. Graders also value posts that show the writer would genuinely welcome the falsifying evidence rather than fear it.
DDHA 9901 Week 11 help: mistakes that cost marks
Many reflection posts list what the writer learned, which reads like a course evaluation. Instead, ask what evidence would make your case collapse, and be specific about where it would come from. Pick the conclusion you would least like to defend in front of a committee, and say why. Describe how your view of the problem changed, especially if early assumptions proved wrong. Keep it to three paragraphs. In replies, offer a classmate one concrete challenge. If you want help preparing for the questions a committee will ask about your case, we can draft a reflection with you.
Get a DDHA 9901 Week 11 example written to your instructions
Send the reflection prompt and the rubric your classroom scores against, and a closing post carrying a falsifying condition, a loosened claim and both replies returns inside 24-48 hours, free the first time. Private reflections recording what happens inside an actual workplace are not composed for anyone at this desk.
More DDHA 9901 papers and DHA samples
- DDHA 9901 Week 1: Complaint Testing Post
- DDHA 9901 Week 2: Context Memo
- DDHA 9901 Week 3: Problem Statement
- DDHA 9901 Week 4: Evidence Log
- DDHA 9901 Week 5: Benchmark Comparison
- DDHA 9901 Week 6: Cost Estimate
- DDHA 9901 Week 7: Stakeholder Map
- DDHA 9901 Week 8: Provenance Critique
- DDHA 9901 Week 9: Scope Boundary
- DDHA 9901 Week 10: Identification Paper
- DDHA 9500 Week 11: Revision Plan
- DDHA 8801 Week 11: Alliance Case
- DDHA 8703 Week 11: Decision Brief
- DDHA 8006 Week 11: Reflective Synthesis
DDHA 9901 Week 11 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DDHA 9901 Week 11 sample paper?
The closing reflection post and its two replies are free to read here.
What finding would retire the problem in the DDHA 9901 Week 11 example?
Evidence that practices retrieved most summaries through the regional exchange before follow-up visits.
Which conclusion does the writer hold most loosely?
The cost estimate, because its spread depends on two assumptions about minutes that were never measured.
Why was a readmission cost left out?
The available study linked readmissions to completion delays, not to delivery, so borrowing it would invent precision.
How did the writer's view of the problem change?
From expecting slow hospitalists to finding a gap in registration data and a path no group owned.