HLTH 3105 Week 10 Proposal Ownership Critique Post Example

Interprofessional Teamwork in Healthcare Walden University Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This HLTH 3105 Week 10 peer critique example tests a classmate's proposal for a discharge readiness checklist on a surgical unit with one question: does the fix have an owner? Walden HLTH 3105 late-term feedback in the BS in Healthcare Administration earns full credit for asking whether a proposal names a role, a trigger and a visible sign that it worked. The critique finds that completion by the discharge team means no owner, and proposes assigning each of the eight items to one role, citing Starmer and colleagues. It finds no start time and proposes triggering the checklist when the expected discharge date is entered. It finds that measuring checklist completion shows boxes, not outcomes, and proposes counting booked follow-up appointments or pharmacy calls, citing Kripalani and colleagues. A follow-up separates doing from confirming for patient understanding, citing the IPEC competencies.

CourseHLTH 3105 Interprofessional Teamwork in Healthcare
WeekWeek 10
Paper typePeer critique discussion post
LengthAbout 540 words, 3 pages
FormatDiscussion post, APA 7 citations
SchoolWalden University
ProgramBS in Healthcare Administration
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for HLTH 3105 Week 10

1

Week 10 Discussion: Peer Critique of Keisha's Proposal

Does the Fix Have an Owner? Testing Keisha's Proposed Discharge Checklist for a Named Role, a Trigger and a Visible Sign It Worked

Keisha, your proposal to add a discharge readiness checklist to the electronic record on your surgical unit addresses a real problem: patients leaving without follow-up appointments or with prescriptions that cannot be filled. The checklist's eight items are well chosen. My critique asks one question of each part of the proposal, the question I have learned to ask this term: does the fix have an owner? I test it for three things, a named role, a trigger and a visible sign that it worked, and say what would close each gap I found.

A named role. Your proposal says the checklist "will be completed by the discharge team." That is the gap I would close first. On most units, the discharge team is four or five roles, and a task owned by a team is owned by no one. In my own unit's analysis this term, a task that both the nurse and the case manager assumed the other owned, calling the family with the discharge time, failed three times in one month. I would assign each of your eight items to one role: for example, the bedside nurse owns medication teaching and the IV removal item, the case manager owns follow-up appointments and equipment, and the pharmacist owns the prescription authorization item. Structured handover programs reduce omissions partly by assigning each action to a named person (Starmer et al., 2014).

A trigger. Your proposal does not say when the checklist starts. If it begins on the day of discharge, items like prior authorization will be discovered too late. I would trigger it when the expected discharge date is entered, usually a day ahead, so it can be reviewed at a daily huddle.

A visible sign that it worked. Your proposal measures checklist completion. That shows the boxes were checked, not that patients left better prepared. I would add one outcome you can already count: how many patients leave with their next appointment already booked, or the number of calls from pharmacies about unfillable prescriptions in the week after discharge. Research on transitions of care finds that missing follow-up plans and information gaps are common after discharge (Kripalani et al., 2007), so one of those is the right thing to watch.

My critique: the checklist is good; it needs an owner for each item, a start time and one outcome measure. Which of the eight items do you think would be hardest to assign to a single role?

What this page is doingThe critique tests the proposal against three specific criteria, cites the writer's own experience and sources and says what would close each gap.
2

Reply From Keisha and My Response

Keisha, you said the hardest item to assign is "patient and family understand the plan," because everyone contributes to it. I agree, and I do not think it can belong to one role in the doing. But it can belong to one role in the checking. The bedside nurse could own confirming understanding with a teach-back at the end, even if the case manager, pharmacist and physician each taught part of the plan. The IPEC competencies describe shared responsibility for patient-centered care alongside clear roles (Interprofessional Education Collaborative, 2023), and a single person confirming the result is one way to have both.

What this page is doingThe follow-up answers the classmate's hardest case by separating who does the work from who confirms it.
3

References

Interprofessional Education Collaborative. (2023). IPEC core competencies for interprofessional collaboration: Version 3. https://www.ipecollaborative.org/ipec-core-competencies

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

Starmer, A. J., Spector, N. D., Srivastava, R., West, D. C., Rosenbluth, G., Allen, A. D., Noble, E. L., Tse, L. L., Dalal, A. K., Keohane, C. A., Lipsitz, S. R., Rothschild, J. M., Wien, M. F., Yoon, C. S., Zigmont, K. R., Wilson, K. M., O'Toole, J. K., Solan, L. G., Aylor, M., . . . Landrigan, C. P. (2014). Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. New England Journal of Medicine, 371(19), 1803-1812. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1405556

Reading the HLTH 3105 Week 10 instructions

By this point the critique task is to put a classmate's improvement proposal under test. Credit what is strong first and specifically. Then test the proposal against clear criteria, such as whether it names a single owner, a trigger that starts it and a visible sign that it worked. For each gap you find, explain why it matters, using your own experience or a source, and say what would close it. Finish by asking the classmate which part they find hardest. In follow-up replies, help solve the problem the classmate raises rather than repeating your critique.

Inside the HLTH 3105 Week 10 example

The opening credits the checklist's purpose and items and states the three tests. The owner section shows that a team-owned task is unowned, links to the writer's own family-call problem and proposes owners for each item, citing Starmer and colleagues. The trigger section proposes starting the checklist when the expected discharge date is entered so it can be reviewed at a huddle. The outcome section replaces completion with booked follow-up appointments or pharmacy calls, citing Kripalani and colleagues. A highlighted line summarizes the critique, and a question asks which item is hardest to assign. The follow-up separates teaching by many roles from confirmation by the nurse through teach-back, citing the IPEC competencies.

Where the marks sit in the HLTH 3105 Week 10 rubric

Faculty usually reward critiques that apply clear criteria to a proposal and say exactly what would close each gap. General comments, such as saying a proposal is good but needs more detail, earn little. Credit increases when the critique credits the proposal's strengths, draws on the writer's own course work or sources and proposes measurable outcomes. Faculty value questions that help the classmate improve the hardest part. Follow-ups that solve the classmate's problem, rather than restating the critique, show collaborative skill. A respectful tone, economy of words and accurate references count as well. Faculty also watch whether proposed outcome measures can be collected with data the unit already has, since a fix that needs a new data system is unlikely to be tested.

HLTH 3105 Week 10 help from the desk

Critiques often praise a proposal and add one vague suggestion, or list every possible flaw without priority. Others measure a proposal by whether it would be completed rather than whether it would work. Some forget to say how the gaps could be fixed. Apply the same three questions to any proposal: who owns it, what starts it and how will we know it worked. Write one sentence on each gap and one on the fix. Ask the classmate where they are stuck. Our writers can help you write a peer critique for this course that tests a proposal for ownership, trigger and outcome and proposes fixes. Keep your critique to the proposal's structure, not its author.

Get a HLTH 3105 Week 10 example written to your instructions

A free HLTH 3105 Week 10 critique comes back within 24-48h of the classmate's post, the prompt and the rubric arriving. Identifying details are removed before drafting, and the post goes no further than your reply. The three tests are applied in whatever order your classroom's feedback structure asks for.

Request this week free All HLTH 3105 weeks Finished samples

More HLTH 3105 papers and BS in Healthcare Administration samples

HLTH 3105 Week 10 questions, answered

Where can I find a free HLTH 3105 Week 10 sample paper?

The critique of the discharge checklist and the follow-up are posted here and can be read free of charge.

What three tests does the HLTH 3105 Week 10 critique apply?

Whether the proposal names a single owner, a trigger that starts it and a visible sign that it worked.

What is wrong with completion by the discharge team?

A task owned by a team of four or five roles is owned by no one, so each checklist item should belong to one role.

What outcome should the checklist measure?

Something patients experience, such as the share leaving with a follow-up appointment booked or pharmacy calls about unfillable prescriptions afterward.

How can patient understanding have one owner?

Several roles teach parts of the plan, but the bedside nurse owns confirming understanding with a teach-back before the patient leaves.