Performance addressed, cause left to professionals: MMHA 6220 Week 9's EAP referral case example shows a supervisor referring a struggling nurse without diagnosing her. Searches like "mmha 6220 week 9 assignment example", "mmha6220 week 9 sample" and "mmha 6220 week 9 example" land here.
What a finished MMHA 6220 Week 9 EAP referral case looks like
Only documented behavior appears at the start: dates of late documentation, late arrivals confirmed by visit logs, and the scheduler's account of the call. It then contrasts two paths, a kindly suggestion that the nurse contact the program and a formal supervisory referral linked to performance expectations, and chooses the second because the performance problem is real and patients are affected. The meeting is outlined in order: the documented concerns, the expected standard, the program described as confidential and voluntary, and a follow-up date focused on work. The Employee Assistance Professionals Association's account of EAP core technology is cited for the supervisor's limited role, consultation, referral and follow-up on performance, never assessment. A confidentiality section explains what the supervisor will and will not learn. Outcomes follow for both paths, performance recovering or not.
How a MMHA 6220 Week 9 example is structured
Beginning with documented behavior sets the case's discipline: nothing the supervisor suspects about the nurse's life appears in the analysis. The two referral paths are compared openly because the choice between them is the real decision, and the formal path is chosen for a reason stated in the facts, missed deadlines affecting patients. The meeting outline follows the order the conversation takes, keeping performance and the referral in the same meeting yet clearly separate. Core technology is cited where it limits the supervisor's role, which is its practical value here. Confidentiality is split out on its own since most supervisors assume they will hear more than they will. Two outcomes end the case, each tied to performance, so the referral never replaces accountability or becomes a substitute for it.
Behavior, not suspicion
Late documentation, late arrivals and one tearful call, each dated and sourced. Nothing about the nurse's private life enters the analysis.
Suggestion or supervisory referral
A kind suggestion leaves the performance problem unaddressed. The case chooses a formal referral tied to expectations, because patients are affected.
One meeting, two threads
Concerns and standards come first, then the program described as confidential and voluntary. The follow-up date concerns work, not treatment.
What core technology limits
Supervisors consult, refer and follow up on performance. Assessment stays with the program's professionals, where the association's description places it.
What the supervisor will learn
Attendance at most, and only with the nurse's written consent. The case sets that expectation before the referral is made.
Where marks go in MMHA 6220 Week 9
EAP cases turn on the supervisor's restraint, and one in which the supervisor speculates about depression or substance use has failed the central test however compassionate its tone. Documented behavior earns the first and largest share, since every later step depends on it. The choice between referral paths is credited when argued from the facts, with patient impact justifying the formal route. The meeting outline is weighed for separating accountability from support. Accurate treatment of confidentiality carries its own credit, and overstating what a supervisor will learn is a frequent error. Citing core technology earns where it defines roles. Outcomes tied to performance show that the referral supplements expectations rather than replacing them. Diagnostic language anywhere in the case draws deductions.
Get a MMHA 6220 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Share the employee scenario your section provides, with the prompt and the rubric, and the referral case is argued from those facts. The first custom sample comes free, within 24 to 48 hours. The nurse and her supervisor are fictitious, as is their agency, and no health or employee assistance record belonging to anyone is involved.
MMHA 6220 Week 9 questions, answered
What is the difference between a self-referral and a supervisory referral?
A self-referral is the employee contacting the program independently, perhaps after a suggestion. A supervisory referral is made formally, linked to documented performance concerns, and may involve confirmation of attendance with the employee's consent. The sample chooses a supervisory referral because the nurse's performance affects patients and needs a structured follow-up that a suggestion would not provide.
What is EAP core technology?
The Employee Assistance Professionals Association describes a set of core functions that define an employee assistance program, including consultation with supervisors, confidential assessment, referral and follow-up. The sample uses that description to set limits: the supervisor consults, refers and follows up on performance, while assessment stays with the program's professionals. That division is what keeps the supervisor from diagnosing.
Can the supervisor ask the program what is wrong?
No. In the sample, the supervisor may learn whether the nurse attended, and only with her written consent. The content of sessions stays confidential. Supervisors who expect more tend to overstep, which is why the case sets that expectation before the referral. Performance follow-up continues on its own track, measured against the same documented standards as before.