| Course | HA540 Health Care Operations and Quality Assessment |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Supply chain decision analysis |
| Length | About 860 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Master of Health Administration (MHA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HA540 Unit 9
The Cheapest Scope Is the One Already on the Shelf: A Supply Chain Decision Analysis Comparing Three Duodenoscope Options for a Composite Hospital Endoscopy Unit on Three-Year Total Cost of Ownership and Weighted Criteria
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HA540: Health Care Operations and Quality Assessment
Unit 9 Supply Chain Decision Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The unit, the prices and every score are composite and bracketed for the writer's own data; no vendor or product is named.
Background
Duodenoscopes are used for cholangiography and treatment of the bile ducts, about [720] procedures a year at this unit. Their elevator mechanism is hard to clean, and contamination has been found even after correct reprocessing. A nationwide study found gut bacteria on about one in six duodenoscopes sampled after cleaning (Rauwers et al., 2018). Regulators and manufacturers have since moved toward designs with disposable parts or fully disposable scopes, whose cost per procedure is much higher (Bang et al., 2019). The question for the unit is which design to buy as its current scopes age.
Options
A. Keep the current reusable duodenoscopes with fixed caps. B. Move to single-use duodenoscopes for every procedure. C. Buy reusable duodenoscopes with disposable caps, and use single-use scopes for patients at highest risk, such as known carriers of resistant organisms, about [five] percent of cases.
Total Cost of Ownership, Three Years, [2,160] Procedures
Total cost of ownership counts every cost of using a product over its life, not just its price (Ellram, 1995). Option A: cleaning labor and supplies [2,160] × [$114] = [$246,240]; repairs and service [$114,000]; surveillance cultures and scopes held out of use [$63,000]. Total [$423,240]. Option B: [2,160] × [$2,950] = [$6,372,000]. No cleaning, repair or surveillance cost. Total [$6,372,000]. Option C: four scopes [$192,000]; disposable caps [2,052] × [$185] = [$379,620]; cleaning [2,052] × [$114] = [$233,928]; service [$72,000]; surveillance [$27,000]; single-use scopes for high-risk patients [108] × [$2,950] = [$318,600]. Total [$1,223,148]. Option C costs about [$370] more per procedure than keeping the current scopes, and about [$2,380] less than going fully disposable.
How the Cost Lines Were Built
Cleaning cost per procedure comes from a time study of [ten] cleaning cycles, valued at technician wages with benefits plus detergent, disinfectant and test strips. Repair and service costs are the past three years' invoices for the current scopes, which are aging and costlier to keep each year. Surveillance cost includes culture fees and the procedures delayed while a scope waits for results. Purchase prices and cap prices are quotes from two vendors, averaged and rounded. Volume assumes procedures stay flat; a [ten] percent rise would add about the same share to every option's variable cost and would not change the ranking.
What the Clinicians Said
The two endoscopists who perform most of these procedures tested both reusable models with disposable caps on a bench and in [six] cases each. They found the scope handling similar to their current scopes and preferred one model's image quality. Both opposed fully disposable scopes for routine use, citing cost and a stiffer feel in the hand, but supported them for high-risk patients. Their views shaped the workflow score.
Weighted Criteria
Weights, agreed before any scoring: infection risk [35] percent, cost [30], supply risk [20], fit with current workflow and equipment [15]. Infection risk carries the most weight because a single outbreak can harm patients and close the service. Scores, one to five: Option A: infection [2], cost [5], supply [3], workflow [4]. Weighted [3.40]. Option B: infection [5], cost [1], supply [2], workflow [3]. Weighted [2.90]. Option C: infection [4], cost [3], supply [4], workflow [4]. Weighted [3.70].
Sensitivity
If the committee lowered infection risk to [25] percent and raised cost to [40], the current scopes would edge ahead, [3.70] against [3.60] for the recommended mix, close to a tie. The recommendation therefore depends on how much the committee values infection risk, which the analysis states openly. If the price of single-use scopes fell by half, Option B's cost score would rise only to [2], because it would still cost several times more than C.
Supply Risk
Single-use scopes come from [one] manufacturer in this market, so a production problem would halt the service. Option C uses scopes from [two] manufacturers whose caps are not interchangeable, but each maker supplies its own caps from more than one plant. Hospitals learned during recent shortages that a single source can fail without warning.
Recommendation
Option C, with three conditions: a supply clause guaranteeing cap delivery or allowing substitution; single-use scopes held on consignment for high-risk patients; and a review at [12] months comparing culture results and costs with the forecast.
Implementation
Train [14] nurses and technicians on cap removal and the new cleaning steps; retire the oldest two current scopes first; keep two in service until the new scopes have passed acceptance cultures.
Limits
Prices are composite estimates. Infection risk scores are judgments based on published contamination rates, not local outbreak data.
Conclusion
The cheapest option is cheap because it leaves the risk in place. Option C buys most of the safety of disposable scopes at a fraction of the cost.
References
Bang, J. Y., Sutton, B., Hawes, R., & Varadarajulu, S. (2019). Concept of disposable duodenoscope: At what cost? Gut, 68(11), 1915-1917. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318227
Ellram, L. M. (1995). Total cost of ownership: An analysis approach for purchasing. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 25(8), 4-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600039510099928
Rauwers, A. W., Voor in 't holt, A. F., Buijs, J. G., de Groot, W., Hansen, B. E., Bruno, M. J., & Vos, M. C. (2018). High prevalence rate of digestive tract bacteria in duodenoscopes: A nationwide study. Gut, 67(9), 1637-1645. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315082
What the HA540 Unit 9 assignment asks for
Unit 9 in HA 540 typically asks students to analyze a supply chain or purchasing decision for a health care organization. Instructions usually require background on the product category, options compared on total cost of ownership rather than price alone, weighted criteria set before scoring, a sensitivity analysis, attention to supply risk and a recommendation with contract terms or review conditions. Build costs line by line, naming the source of each figure. Set and justify weights before you score any option, so the result cannot be tuned. Test how the answer changes if weights or prices move. Consider supplier concentration, since a single source can fail. Cite research on the product and on total cost of ownership in APA style, and avoid naming vendors unless your instructions require it.
Inside the HA540 Unit 9 example
The sample gives background on why duodenoscopes are hard to clean, citing a nationwide contamination study. Three options are defined. Total cost of ownership is built for each, with cleaning, repair, surveillance, purchase and per-use costs shown. A section explains where each cost line came from, with a margin note on naming sources. Clinicians' bench tests shape the workflow score. A highlighted line puts the recommended mix at about 370 dollars more per procedure than the current scopes. Weights are set first, with a margin note on why. Scores give the mix 3.70. A sensitivity section shows the current scopes would edge ahead if cost were weighted more. Supply risk, a recommendation with three conditions, implementation and limits follow.
Reading the HA540 Unit 9 grading rubric
HA 540 supply chain rubrics usually award points for clear background, a full total cost of ownership, transparent weighted criteria, sensitivity analysis, attention to supply risk, a justified recommendation, sources and presentation. Background points go to explaining why the decision matters. Cost points require every cost category, with arithmetic shown. Criteria points reward weights set and justified before scoring. Sensitivity points depend on testing whether the answer changes under other assumptions. Supply points go to considering single-source risk. Recommendation points reward conditions and a review date. Analyses that recommend a costlier option and show exactly what the extra money buys usually impress graders most, because the committee can see the decision rests on value and not on price.
HA540 Unit 9 help from the desk
Supply chain papers often lose points by comparing unit prices only, leaving out training, repair, waste and surveillance costs. Others set weights after scoring, which looks like working backward from a preferred answer. Some ignore supply risk entirely. Start with why the category matters and define the options. Build total cost of ownership line by line and name each source. Set weights first and justify them in a sentence each. Score each option, then test how the answer moves if weights or prices change. Look at how many suppliers exist and what would happen if one failed. Recommend an option with contract conditions and a review date, and say what the extra cost, if any, buys.
Get an HA540 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Describe the supply decision in your Unit 9 prompt: the product or service, the options, any prices or volumes provided, and who in the scenario makes the call. Add the rubric. Ownership costs itemized and criteria weighted before scoring, the first analysis is free, written to the assignment's instructions and returned within 24-48h. 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 HA540 papers and MHA samples
- HA540 Unit 1: Focused Factory Endoscopy Post
- HA540 Unit 2: Endoscopy Arrival Process Map
- HA540 Unit 3: Endoscopy Recovery Flow Analysis
- HA540 Unit 4: Endoscopy Lean Value Stream Case
- HA540 Unit 5:
- HA540 Unit 6: Post-Sedation Discharge FMEA
- HA540 Unit 7: Room Turnover PDSA Cycle Plan
- HA540 Unit 8: Sedation Regulatory Readiness Review
- HA540 Unit 10: Quality Improvement Proposal
- HA535 Unit 9: Leadership Data Presentation
- HA530 Unit 9: Technician Retention Strategy
- HA520 Unit 9: Hospital Revenue Cycle Review
- HA515 Unit 9: Cross-Department Change Plan
HA540 Unit 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HA540 Unit 9 sample paper?
The complete HA540 Unit 9 supply chain decision analysis is here, comparing three duodenoscope options for a composite endoscopy unit on cost and weighted criteria.
What does the HA540 Unit 9 analysis recommend?
Reusable duodenoscopes with disposable caps, plus single-use scopes for the highest-risk patients.
What is total cost of ownership?
All costs of using a product over its life, including purchase, use, maintenance and disposal, not just price.
Why weight infection risk most in HA540 Unit 9?
A single outbreak can harm patients and close the service, so the committee valued it above cost.
How long is the HA540 Unit 9 analysis?
About six pages built on a cost table and a weighted criteria table.