INHE 3001 Week 4 Referral Map Example

Course	INHE 3001 Integrative Health Care Models
Week	Week 4
Paper type	Referral map
Length	About 590 words, 5 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	BS in Integrative Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for INHE 3001 Week 4

Four Handoffs, Every Arrow Labeled: A Referral Map for One Patient Moving Between Oncology and an Employed Acupuncture Service

Student Name

Walden University

INHE 3001: Integrative Health Care Models

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doing"Every arrow labeled" is the map's standard: an arrow without an authorizer, a record and an acceptance condition is only a drawing.

Four Handoffs, Every Arrow Labeled: A Referral Map for One Patient Moving Between Oncology and an Employed Acupuncture Service

The Patient Path

The map follows one fictional patient, 54 and in chemotherapy for a breast tumor, at the community hospital whose integrative oncology service was described in Week 1. Her oncologist suggests acupuncture for persistent nausea between cycles. Her path crosses four handoffs: oncologist to the service's intake nurse, intake nurse to the acupuncturist, acupuncturist back to the oncologist, and, at the end of treatment, the service to a community acupuncturist. A diagram would show four arrows. The table below gives the labels each arrow must carry.

What this page is doingIntroducing one patient and naming every handoff before the table keeps the map concrete.

The Map

Table 1

Handoffs with authorizer, record that travels and acceptance condition

Handoff	Who authorizes	Record that travels	What must be true before acceptance \|
1. Oncologist to intake nurse	Oncologist, by electronic order	Order with diagnosis, treatment regimen, blood counts and reason for referral	Order complete; platelet count above the service's threshold for needling \|
2. Intake nurse to acupuncturist	Intake nurse, after screening	Screening note: bleeding risk, port location, lymphedema risk side, patient goals	Screening shows no exclusion; appointment fits around infusion schedule \|
3. Acupuncturist to oncologist	Acupuncturist, after each visit	Visit note in shared record: points avoided, patient-reported nausea score, any adverse event	Oncologist or nurse reviews note before next infusion \|
4. Service to community acupuncturist	Patient chooses; service supplies letter with consent	Summary letter: course of treatment, response, precautions still relevant	Community practitioner licensed in the state and accepts the precautions listed \|

Thresholds and screening items are set by the service's own protocol; this map records where each is checked, not what the clinical values should be.

Why the Labels Matter

An arrow without labels hides the three things most likely to fail. Without a named authorizer, nobody is responsible for starting the step. Without a defined record, the receiving clinician starts from nothing. Without an acceptance condition, a handoff can happen that should not, such as needling a patient whose counts have dropped since the order was written. Research on information transfer in conventional care shows how often the record fails to travel: a systematic review found that discharge summaries were available at the first visit after a hospital stay in only 12% to 34% of cases (Kripalani et al., 2007). Integrative services face the same risk, often with weaker links between systems.

The Weakest Arrow

Handoff 4 is the weakest. The first three stay inside one hospital, one record and one set of policies. The fourth leaves the organization. The community acupuncturist has no access to the hospital record, so the summary letter is the only bridge, and it depends on the patient carrying it or consenting to its being sent. If the patient's cancer care continues after acupuncture moves to the community, the oncologist may never learn what is happening. On the continuum from parallel to integrative practice, handoff 4 moves the patient back toward the parallel end (Boon et al., 2004).

What this page is doingIdentifying the weakest arrow, and why, turns the map from a description into an argument.

What the Map Suggests for the Service

Two changes would strengthen handoff 4. The letter could ask the community practitioner to send a brief note back to the oncologist at set intervals, and the service could keep a short list of community practitioners willing to do so. Neither change requires new systems; both make the last arrow carry a record in both directions, which is what the first three already do. Coordination of this kind is what separates integrative care from complementary care used alongside conventional treatment (National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health [NCCIH], 2021).

References

Boon, H., Verhoef, M., O'Hara, D., & Findlay, B. (2004). From parallel practice to integrative health care: A conceptual framework. BMC Health Services Research, 4, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-4-15

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

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. (2021). Complementary, alternative, or integrative health: What's in a name? https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/complementary-alternative-or-integrative-health-whats-in-a-name

What the INHE 3001 Week 4 instructions ask for

Referral map assignments ask students to trace a patient through the handoffs of an integrative care model, usually as a diagram with explanation. Prompts commonly ask who makes each referral, what information goes with it and where breakdowns are likely. Some ask students to recommend improvements. Instructors judge the map by its labels rather than its appearance. Maps that show arrows between boxes without saying who authorizes each step, what record travels or what conditions apply tend to earn less credit than plain maps whose every arrow carries that information and whose weakest link is identified. Some prompts ask for a diagram and accept a table where diagram tools fall short, as long as every arrow is labeled.

How the INHE 3001 Week 4 example is put together

The map introduces one fictional patient and names her four handoffs before the table. The table gives each handoff its authorizer, the record that travels and the acceptance condition, and a note explains that clinical thresholds come from the service's protocol. A section explains why each label matters, citing a systematic review on information lost at hospital discharge. Another section identifies the fourth handoff as the weakest, because it leaves the hospital's record, and places it on the parallel-to-integrative continuum. A final section proposes two changes that would make the last handoff carry a record in both directions. The patient is fictional, and the map deliberately leaves clinical values to the service's own protocol. Each handoff is numbered so the prose can refer back to it.

Reading the INHE 3001 Week 4 rubric

Instructors generally reward complete labels, and three labels on every handoff secure the main share. Grounding the importance of labels in evidence about lost records earns credit. Naming the weakest handoff, with a reason, is often what lifts a map into the top range, because it turns description into analysis. Practical improvements that do not need new systems show realism. Keeping clinical values in the service's protocol rather than inventing them shows appropriate restraint for a nonclinical course. Accurate citations for the framework, the discharge communication review and the federal definition complete the work. Numbered handoffs and a single fictional patient keep the map easy to follow and check.

INHE 3001 Week 4 help from the desk

Choose one patient path and list every handoff. For each, write who authorizes it, what record goes with it and what must be true before the next person accepts. Put the labels in a table if your diagram tool cannot hold them. Find the handoff most likely to fail and explain why. Suggest a small change that would strengthen it. Avoid inventing clinical thresholds; point to where they are set. If your map has arrows but no labels, we can produce a sample map for your service. Check every arrow against a real record your service produces.

Get a INHE 3001 Week 4 example written to your instructions

Send the mapping prompt, the rubric and any template or software your classroom requires, and a finished INHE 3001 referral map with its narrative comes back inside 24-48 hours, the first sample free. Where your prompt fixes a setting or a patient population, the sample maps that path rather than the generic one described above.

More INHE 3001 papers and BS in Integrative Health samples

INHE 3001 Week 4 questions, answered

Where can I find a free INHE 3001 Week 4 sample paper?

Read the four-handoff referral map on this page, with every arrow labeled.

What three labels does each handoff carry?

Who authorizes it, what record travels and what must be true before acceptance.

Which handoff is weakest?

The last one, to a community acupuncturist outside the hospital's record.

Why do labels matter?

Without them nobody owns the step, the receiver starts from nothing and unsafe handoffs can happen.

How could the weakest handoff be strengthened?

By asking the community practitioner to report back and keeping a list of practitioners willing to do so.