| Course | HA255 Human Resources for Health Care Organizations |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Performance documentation |
| Length | About 880 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Health Care Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HA255 Unit 7
Two Tubes With the Wrong Name in Six Weeks: A Performance Documentation Packet for a Phlebotomist at a Composite Outpatient Laboratory, Holding a Coaching Note, a Written Warning, a Sixty-Day Improvement Plan and an Appraisal Excerpt
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HA255: Human Resources for Health Care Organizations
Unit 7 Performance Documentation
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The laboratory, the employee identifier, the dates and every event are composite; the packet shows the form of performance documentation and is not legal advice.
Cover Memo
To: Personnel file, Employee [P-0417], Phlebotomist II, Outpatient Laboratory From: [Name], Laboratory Supervisor Date: [date] This file holds four documents covering [March 4] to [August 30]: a coaching note dated [March 6], a written warning dated [April 15], a performance improvement plan from [April 15] to [June 14] and an excerpt from the annual appraisal dated [August 30].
Document 1: Coaching Note
Date: [March 6] Event: On [March 4], a tube drawn at station 2 was labeled with the name of the patient drawn before. The error was caught at accessioning when the tube's label did not match the requisition, and the patient was recalled for a redraw. Standard: Laboratory procedure LAB-PRE-012 requires two identifiers, the patient's full name and date of birth, confirmed by the patient and checked against the requisition before labeling, and labeling in the patient's presence. Federal laboratory rules require written policies for specimen collection and labeling, and the procedure is how this laboratory meets them (42 C.F.R. § 493.1242, 2024). Discussion: The employee said the station was busy and labels for two patients had been printed together. We reviewed the procedure step by step and agreed that labels will be printed one patient at a time. Expectation: Follow LAB-PRE-012 on every draw. Support: A refresher on the procedure was completed on [March 8]. Employee comment: [left for the employee] Signatures: supervisor and employee, with the note that a signature means receipt, not agreement. Each document records what happened, when and which written standard it breached, so the file can be read by someone who never met the employee.
Document 2: Written Warning
Date: [April 15] Event: On [April 11], a tube was labeled with the name of a patient waiting in the chair beside station 2. The error was caught at accessioning; the patient was recalled. Prior steps: Coaching note of [March 6] and refresher of [March 8]. Standard: LAB-PRE-012, as above. Consequence: This is a written warning under the progressive discipline policy. A further identification error during the improvement plan may lead to a final warning or termination. Specimen labeling errors are a recognized patient safety problem across laboratories, and errors at the point of collection are the most common source (Wagar et al., 2008), which is why the laboratory treats a second error within six weeks as serious.
Document 3: Sixty-Day Performance Improvement Plan
Period: [April 15] to [June 14] Goal: Zero identification or labeling errors on all draws. Actions:
1. Labels printed one patient at a time, applied at the chair, after the patient states name and date of birth.
2. Weekly direct observation of [five] draws by the lead phlebotomist, using a checklist.
3. A weekly ten-minute meeting with the supervisor to review the checklist and any near misses.
4. Station 2 moved away from the waiting chair to reduce confusion between patients.
Measures: Labeling errors caught at accessioning; observation checklist scores. Outcome options: plan completed successfully; extended once by up to [30] days; or ended with further action. Feedback on a task is most helpful when it points to the task and how it is done rather than to the person, which is why the weekly meetings use the checklist rather than general comments (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).
Plan Results
Weeks 1 to 8: no labeling errors; [40] of [40] observed draws fully compliant. The plan was closed as completed on [June 14].
Document 4: Annual Appraisal Excerpt
Date: [August 30] Patient identification: Met expectations after a performance improvement plan in [April] to [June]; no errors since [April 11]. Productivity: Exceeds expectations; average of [42] draws per shift. Customer service: Meets expectations; two written compliments from patients. Development goal: Train as a station lead for the new self-labeling printer system in the coming year.
The Employee's Response
The employee added a written comment to the warning stating that the printer at station 2 often fed two labels at once and that the chair beside the station made it hard to tell which patient was next. The supervisor confirmed both points with the lead phlebotomist, which led to actions 1 and 4 in the improvement plan. The comment stays in the file beside the warning. Under the laboratory's policy, the employee could also have asked the laboratory director to review the warning within [ten] business days; no review was requested.
Notes on Writing the Packet
Each document uses the same structure: date, event, standard, discussion or consequence, support and signatures. None describes the employee's attitude or character. Events are written as facts that a coworker could have observed, and each one is tied to a written procedure that the employee had received. The system issue, two labels printed together and a chair placed too close to the station, is recorded alongside the individual's responsibility.
References
42 C.F.R. § 493.1242 (2024). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/section-493.1242
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Wagar, E. A., Stankovic, A. K., Raab, S., Nakhleh, R. E., & Walsh, M. K. (2008). Specimen labeling errors: A Q-Probes analysis of 147 clinical laboratories. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 132(10), 1617-1622. https://doi.org/10.5858/2008-132-1617-SLEAQA
What the HA255 Unit 7 assignment asks for
Unit 7 typically asks students to prepare a set of performance documents for an employee with a specific performance problem. Instructions often include a coaching or counseling record, a formal warning under progressive discipline, a performance improvement plan with measurable goals and an appraisal or follow-up entry. Many prompts emphasize objective language, links to written standards and fair process, including the employee's chance to respond. Make sure each document is dated in sequence. Expect to cite at least one source on feedback or performance management and any regulation behind the standard, in APA style. Keep the employee and setting composite, and present the documents as they would appear in a personnel file, signed and dated.
Inside the HA255 Unit 7 example
The sample opens with a cover memo listing four documents and the dates they cover. The coaching note, signed by both parties, records the first mislabeled tube, the two-identifier procedure and the federal laboratory rule behind it, and the highlighted sentence says each document can be read by someone who never met the employee. The written warning cites a Q-Probes study of labeling errors, with a margin note on prior notice. The sixty-day plan lists four actions and measures, citing feedback research. Eight weeks of results follow, then the appraisal excerpt with a margin note on closing the episode, the employee's written response about the printer and the chair, and notes on how the packet was written.
HA255 Unit 7 rubric: what earns full points
Performance documentation rubrics in HA 255 usually give points for objective description, links to standards, progressive steps, measurable improvement goals, employee participation, evidence and professional format. Objectivity points depend on recording behavior and dates instead of attitude. Standards points go to naming the written procedure breached. Progression points reward showing each step built on the last. Goal points require targets and measures in the improvement plan. Participation points go to the employee's comment and signature lines. Evidence points need a source on feedback or performance management. Format points cover headings, signatures and dates. Packets that also record system causes beside individual responsibility often score highest, because they show the supervisor looked beyond the employee.
HA255 Unit 7 help from the desk
Students often lose points by writing documents full of judgments, such as careless or unmotivated, which would not survive review. Another gap is a warning with no earlier coaching, so the employee had no notice. Some improvement plans set goals like do better with no measure or date. Others leave out the employee's response. Write each document as facts a coworker could have seen, name the written standard, refer back to earlier steps, set measurable goals and leave room for the employee to comment. Then check whether anything in the work setting contributed, since a fair file records that too, and the fix may prevent the next error.
Get an HA255 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Describe the performance problem in your Unit 7 scenario, or paste the case as given, with the instructions and rubric. The documentation is drafted in that sequence, notes, warning, plan or appraisal as your section asks, and no real employee appears in it. It arrives in 24-48h, and a first custom sample costs nothing. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HA255 papers and BS in Health Care Administration samples
- HA255 Unit 1: Personnel Roles Discussion Post
- HA255 Unit 2: Telemetry Nurse Job Description
- HA255 Unit 3: Sonographer Recruitment Plan
- HA255 Unit 4: CNA Structured Interview Guide
- HA255 Unit 5: Respiratory Therapist Onboarding Plan
- HA255 Unit 6: Behavioral Health Staffing Plan
- HA255 Unit 8: Compensation Analysis
- HA255 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- HA255 Unit 10: Personnel Case Analysis
HA255 Unit 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HA255 Unit 7 sample paper?
The complete HA255 Unit 7 performance documentation packet is shown on this page, following a phlebotomist at a composite outpatient laboratory from coaching note to appraisal, with three sources. Your own case can be documented in the same order.
What is progressive discipline?
A series of steps, such as coaching, a written warning, a final warning and termination, that increase in seriousness if a problem continues.
What should a performance improvement plan include?
A specific goal, actions and support, measures, a time period and the possible outcomes at the end of the plan.
Does an employee's signature mean they agree with a warning?
No. A signature usually means the employee received the document; the employee can add written comments.
How many documents does the HA255 Unit 7 packet need?
Many instructors ask for three to five, commonly a coaching note, a warning, an improvement plan and an appraisal entry.