| Course | DDHA 9902 Practice-Based Problem Analysis, Findings, and Recommendations |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 5 |
| Paper type | Findings statement |
| Length | About 570 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Healthcare Administration (DHA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DDHA 9902 Week 5
Six Numbered Findings on Late Discharge Summaries, Each Tied to the Step That Produced It and Stripped of Every Judgment
Student Name
Walden University
DDHA 9902: Practice-Based Problem Analysis, Findings, and Recommendations
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Six Numbered Findings on Late Discharge Summaries, Each Tied to the Step That Produced It and Stripped of Every Judgment
How to Read These Findings
The findings below report what the analysis showed about summaries leaving Larchmont, the invented two-hospital setting of this project. Each finding is a single claim in the past tense, naming what was observed, in which group or period and against what comparison, followed by the identifier of the analytic step that produced it. Findings that the plan's decision rules classed as absences or inconclusive are listed with the same weight as the others. No finding contains a judgment about whether a result is good or bad, or a proposal for what to do; those belong to the recommendations and to the reader. The labels were reserved in the analysis plan before any data were examined, as Nosek et al. (2018) recommend for analyses meant to be trusted.
Findings
F1. Fax-only practices accounted for 239 of the 571 summaries that missed the two-business-day window in June through August 2026, or 42%; for each of these, no fax was confirmed inside the window. (Step S1)
F1a. The remaining late summaries were distributed as follows: signature later than the window, 86 (15%); secure message returned as undeliverable, 63 (11%); addressed to a practice the patient did not visit, at least 41 (7%), counted only where a follow-up visit was on record; cause not assignable, 142 (25%). (Step S1)
F2. On-time delivery reached 68% for discharges whose practice used secure messaging and 33% for discharges whose practice relied on fax, a gap of 35 points; widening the window to three business days left a 29-point gap. (Step S2)
F3. On-time delivery stood at 53% for the larger hospital and 49% for the smaller one; the 4-point gap was under the 10 points the plan required. (Step S3)
F4. On-time delivery stood at 38% when patients left on a Friday, 56% when they left from Monday through Thursday and 41% for the 74 who left on a weekend; the Friday gap was 18 points. (Step S4)
F5. Thirty-day readmission among 412 Medicare accountable care patients with complete claims stood at 12.8% after on-time summaries and 15.9% after late ones; the 95% confidence interval around that gap included zero. (Step S5)
What Was Left Out of the Findings
Several statements that appeared in earlier drafts were removed because they were not findings. "Fax is unreliable" was a judgment; F1 and F2 report what happened on the fax path without characterizing it. "Hospitalists sign too late" was both a judgment and an overstatement of F1a, in which late signing accounted for 15% of untimely summaries. "Timely summaries reduce readmissions" was a causal claim that F5, an exploratory and inconclusive comparison, cannot support. Maryland data linking slow completion to readmission (Hoyer et al., 2016) belong in a discussion section, not among this project's findings.
Reach of Each Finding
Findings F1, F1a, F3 and F4 rest on the full set of eligible discharges and on complete signature and transmission logs, except that the fax log covers only June through August. F1a's wrong-practice count rests on partial visit data. F2 rests on current, not historical, registration status. F5 rests on the Medicare subset. The 25% undetermined share in F1a is best read as a measure of where these sources fail to agree, a dimension of quality that Weiskopf and Weng (2013) treat as distinct.
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
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600-2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114
Weiskopf, N. G., & Weng, C. (2013). Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: Enabling reuse for clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20(1), 144-151. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000681
What the DDHA 9902 Week 5 instructions ask for
The findings statement is the deliverable the analysis course turns on. Write each finding as a single numbered claim in the past tense, naming what was observed, in which group or period and against what comparison, followed by the label of the analytic step that produced it. Leave out evaluative words such as "concerning" or "unacceptable," and leave out proposals; those belong to the reader and to the recommendations. Include absences and inconclusive results as findings. Add a brief framing paragraph and a note on the reach of each finding, including which rest on partial data. Consider listing statements you removed from earlier drafts and why. Read each finding aloud and strike any word that tells the reader how to feel about the number.
Inside the DDHA 9902 Week 5 example
The statement opens by explaining how to read the findings and noting that labels were reserved in advance. Six numbered findings follow: the fax path's share of late summaries, the distribution of other causes with a note on partial visit data, the gap between messaging routes with the three-day check, the absence of a hospital difference, the Friday gap and the inconclusive readmission comparison, each tagged with its step. A section lists three statements removed from drafts, a judgment, an overstatement and a causal claim, and places Hoyer and colleagues' evidence in the discussion. A final section explains which findings rest on full data and which on subsets.
Where the marks sit in the DDHA 9902 Week 5 rubric
Findings statements are graded on discipline. Markers check that each finding is a single past-tense claim with a group, period, comparison and step label. Evaluative language and proposals cost credit, as do causal claims the analysis cannot support. Including absences and inconclusive results with equal weight demonstrates integrity. Notes on the reach of each finding show awareness of data limits. A record of removed statements, where included, shows judgment. Graders also check that numbers match the analysis draft exactly, because a findings statement that drifts from its source analysis undermines everything built on it later, and they favor statements a busy reader could finish over a cup of coffee.
DDHA 9902 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost marks
The most frequent problem is a finding that sounds like a conclusion, such as "fax is unreliable." Rewrite it as what was observed: how many, in which group, against what. Another is leaving out absences because they seem unimportant; they often matter for decisions. Check each finding against its step, and make sure the numbers match. Remove words that judge. Save causes and recommendations for later. If your findings keep turning into recommendations, we can help you separate the two. Number the findings exactly as the plan reserved them, even if one turns out to be an absence. Then read the list once as a skeptical executive would, and remove any sentence that tells that reader what to conclude.
Get a DDHA 9902 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Send the prompt, the rubric and the analysis draft the findings have to come from, and a numbered statement with back-references and no evaluative language returns in 24-48 hours, free the first time. Findings drawn from a live project's own evidence are written by its author, not here.
More DDHA 9902 papers and DHA samples
- DDHA 9902 Week 1: Analysis Choice Post
- DDHA 9902 Week 2: Analysis Plan
- DDHA 9902 Week 3: Data Description
- DDHA 9902 Week 4: Analysis Draft
- DDHA 9902 Week 6: Findings Critique
- DDHA 9902 Week 7: Recommendation Set
- DDHA 9902 Week 8: Implementation Memo
- DDHA 9902 Week 9: Limitations Section
- DDHA 9902 Week 10: Findings and Recommendations Paper
- DDHA 9902 Week 11: Dissemination Brief
- DDHA 9901 Week 5: Benchmark Comparison
- DDHA 9500 Week 5: Peer Critique
- DDHA 8006 Week 5: Claim-Based Literature Appraisal
- DDHA 8801 Week 5: Positioning Statement
DDHA 9902 Week 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DDHA 9902 Week 5 sample paper?
The numbered findings statement on late discharge summaries is free to read here.
How are findings written in the DDHA 9902 Week 5 example?
As single numbered past-tense claims naming what was observed, the group or period, the comparison and the step behind each.
Which findings are absences or inconclusive?
The hospital comparison, which fell below the plan's threshold, and the exploratory readmission comparison.
What statements were removed from earlier drafts?
A judgment that fax is unreliable, an overstatement about hospitalist signing and a causal claim about readmissions.
Why are evaluative words left out?
Because judging whether a result is good or bad belongs to the reader and to the recommendations, not to the findings.