| Course | HA425 Operational Analysis and Quality Improvement |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Process map analysis |
| Length | About 900 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 HA425 Unit 2
Nine Handoffs and Two That Stall: A Process Map Analysis of an Ambulatory Patient's Path Through a Composite Community Hospital Emergency Department, Timed From Tracking-Board Stamps and Read for What Triggers Each Move
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HA425: Operational Analysis and Quality Improvement
Unit 2 Process Map Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The department, the thirty visits and every timing are composite and bracketed for the writer's own data; stamps were checked against observation as described.
Method
The path studied is the ambulatory patient who needs a treatment room and testing, the largest group in the department and the one that waits longest. Timings come from tracking-board stamps for [30] composite weekday evening visits, arrivals between 17:00 and 21:00. Because stamps are entered when someone remembers, the writer observed two evenings and compared [24] handoffs with the stamps; most stamps were within [five] minutes of the observed time, and the three outliers were all late provider stamps. Reviewing how improvement teams use process maps, Antonacci and colleagues saw the most value where staff who do the work help draw them and where the map guides action instead of sitting in a report (Antonacci et al., 2018), so the charge nurse and the unit clerk reviewed the draft.
The Map
The map is a deployment flowchart with seven rows, one for each role: greeter and registrar, triage nurse, charge nurse, primary nurse, provider, laboratory and imaging, and unit clerk. The patient's path crosses between rows nine times. Each crossing is a numbered handoff with its median wait:
1. Greeter to triage nurse: [6] minutes.
2. Triage nurse to charge nurse, room requested: [4] minutes.
3. Charge nurse to primary nurse, room assigned: [58] minutes.
4. Primary nurse assessment begins: [9] minutes.
5. Primary nurse to provider: [14] minutes.
6. Provider orders to specimens drawn and imaging done: [12] minutes.
7. Results available to provider re-evaluation: [50] minutes.
8. Provider decision to nurse discharge: [18] minutes.
9. Discharge to exit: [7] minutes.
Total median wait between handoffs: [178] minutes, of a median stay of about [3.5] hours, measured from arrival to departure as national emergency department benchmarking definitions describe (Welch et al., 2011). Two of nine handoffs, the wait for a room and the wait for someone to notice results, hold [108] minutes, more than all the others together.
Classifying the Handoffs by Trigger
Each handoff was classified by what triggers it. Pulled by a signal: handoffs 1, 2, 4 and 6 move when a person sees a clear signal, such as a new name on the triage list or a new order in the queue. Pushed by a person: handoffs 5, 8 and 9 move when one person tells another. Waiting on capacity: handoff 3 moves only when a room is clean and staffed. Waiting on attention: handoff 7 moves only when the provider notices that results are back.
Why Handoff 3 Stalls
The room wait is a capacity problem. On weekday evenings the department staffs [24] rooms until 19:00 and [20] after, while arrivals stay high until about 21:00. The charge nurse cannot assign a room that does not exist. This handoff will be studied with a capacity model in Unit 4.
Why Handoff 7 Stalls
The results wait is a signal problem. Laboratory results appear on the tracking board as a small icon in a column that providers rarely check. Providers learn results are back when a nurse mentions it or when they finish another patient and look. On the observed evenings, results sat unseen for a median of [50] minutes. No one owns the job of telling the provider.
What the Map Shows That the Average Hides
The department's median length of stay looks like one number, but the map shows it is made of a few long waits and many short ones. Improvement efforts aimed at triage speed, which staff often suggest, would address handoffs that already move in minutes.
What Staff Said About the Two Stalls
The charge nurse described handoff 3 as "the hour when I have names and no rooms." Two providers said they would welcome a page when results return but worried about more interruptions. The unit clerk noted that she sees results arrive on her screen first but has no instruction to tell anyone.
Measures for Each Stall
For handoff 3: room-wait median by hour of arrival. For handoff 7: minutes from final result to provider re-evaluation. Both can be taken from existing stamps, which allows a run chart before and after any change (Langley et al., 2009).
Limits
Thirty visits on weekday evenings may not represent weekends or mornings. Stamps may lag actual events, though the check against observation suggests the error is small for most handoffs. Admitted patients follow a different path and are not mapped here.
Questions for the Next Units
1. Is the room shortage after 19:00 a capacity mismatch or a flow problem in rooms already occupied?
2. Would a results alert or a nurse-led results check shorten handoff 7 without adding work?
3. Do the two stalls interact, with patients waiting for results occupying rooms that new patients need?
Conclusion
The map located the waiting. Two handoffs, one limited by rooms and one by attention, account for most of the time between handoffs, and they call for different fixes: capacity for one, a better signal for the other.
References
Antonacci, G., Reed, J. E., Lennox, L., & Barlow, J. (2018). The use of process mapping in healthcare quality improvement projects. Health Services Management Research, 31(2), 74-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951484818770411
Langley, G. J., Moen, R. D., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P. (2009). The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Welch, S. J., Asplin, B. R., Stone-Griffith, S., Davidson, S. J., Augustine, J., & Schuur, J. (2011). Emergency department operational metrics, measures and definitions: Results of the second performance measures and benchmarking summit. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 58(1), 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.08.040
The Purdue Global HA425 Unit 2 instructions
Unit 2 commonly asks students to map a health care process, time its steps and analyze where delays occur. Instructions typically require a process map or flowchart, a description of how data were gathered, identification of delays or waste, an explanation of their causes and questions or measures for later work. Many instructors prefer a deployment or swim-lane format that shows who does each step. Expect to use real or composite timing data, state how the data were checked, support the method with a process mapping or improvement source cited in APA format, and present the department as composite. Treating the map as evidence to analyze, rather than as the finished product, is what separates a strong submission from a drawing with captions.
How the HA 425 Unit 2 example is put together
The sample explains the method, including how stamps were checked against observation, citing a review of process mapping in improvement work, with a margin note on treating the map as evidence. Nine handoffs are listed with median waits, and the total is defined using benchmarking definitions. The highlighted sentence says two handoffs hold more waiting than all the others. A section sorts handoffs by trigger, with a margin note. Separate sections explain the room wait and the results wait, followed by staff comments on both stalls with a third note, what the department's average length of stay hides, measures for each stall on run charts, limits of thirty weekday visits, three questions for the next units and a conclusion that pairs each stall with a different kind of fix.
Where the points sit in the HA425 Unit 2 rubric
Process map rubrics in HA 425 tend to give points for an accurate map, a clear method, timing data, identification of delays, analysis of causes, proposed measures and professional presentation. Map points depend on showing roles and handoffs clearly. Method points go to explaining which path was mapped and how timings were checked. Data points reward real or composite medians for each step. Delay points require locating the longest waits. Cause points go to explaining why those steps stall. Measure points need ways to track each delay. Analyses that classify handoffs by what triggers them often earn top marks, because the classification points directly to different fixes.
HA425 Unit 2 help from the desk
Process map papers often lose points by drawing a detailed map and then describing it step by step without analysis. Another gap is timing data with no explanation of how it was collected or checked. Some papers map every possible path, which buries the main one. Others blame the slowest role without asking what that role is waiting for. Choose one common path, map it by role, time each handoff, check the data against observation and ask what triggers each move. Then explain the two or three longest waits and how you would measure them. Asking staff to review the draft map catches errors and builds support for later changes.
Get an HA425 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Which workflow does your Unit 2 map need to show, and which roles touch it between first contact and the end of the visit? Send that, any timings you have observed, the assignment and its rubric. A first map with analysis is free, follows that prompt, and is back within 24-48h, every handoff numbered and timed. 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 HA425 papers and BS in Health Care Administration samples
- HA425 Unit 1: Operations Ideas in the ED Post
- HA425 Unit 3: Data Analysis
- HA425 Unit 4: Capacity Analysis
- HA425 Unit 5: Root Cause Analysis
- HA425 Unit 6: Quality Measure Review
- HA425 Unit 7: Improvement Proposal
- HA425 Unit 8: Implementation Plan
- HA425 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- HA425 Unit 10: Final Improvement Report
- HA415 Unit 2: Reference Pricing Economic Analysis
- HA255 Unit 2: Telemetry Nurse Job Description
- HA410 Unit 2: Leadership Practices Assessment
- HA400 Unit 2: Drug Shortage Ethics Case Analysis
HA425 Unit 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HA425 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page carries the full HA425 Unit 2 process map analysis of a composite emergency department, timing nine handoffs and explaining the two that stall, with three sources. Your own process can be mapped and timed the same way.
What is a deployment flowchart?
A process map with one row for each role, so each step and handoff shows who does the work.
How do you time steps in an emergency department process?
From tracking-board or record stamps, checked against direct observation because stamps can lag actual events.
Why classify handoffs by trigger?
Because handoffs that wait for capacity, a signal or a person fail in different ways and need different fixes.
How long is the HA425 Unit 2 analysis?
About six pages, with the map on the first two and a timed handoff table below it.