HI300 Unit 10 System Recommendation Report Example

Course	HI300 Information Systems for Health Care
Unit	Unit 10
Paper type	System recommendation report
Length	About 1,110 words, 7 pages double-spaced
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Purdue University Global
Program	BS in Health Information Management
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for HI300 Unit 10

Product C, With Its Seven Clicks: A Unit 10 System Recommendation Report Choosing a Perinatal Documentation System After a Second Test, and Stating Plainly What the Hospital Gives Up

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

HI300: Information Systems for Health Care

Unit 10 System Recommendation Report

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The hospital, the three products, costs and scores are composite; the methods and the sources cited are real.

What this part is doingNaming the trade-off in the title tells the reader at once that the report argues for a choice with a cost rather than for a perfect product.

Executive Summary

The project team recommends that the hospital purchase Product C as its perinatal documentation and fetal surveillance system. Product C meets all eight must requirements the labor and delivery unit wrote before any demonstration, including the two weighted highest: a single shared clock and bedside tracing display during network loss. Product B, the higher scorer in the first evaluation, failed the clock requirement again in a second test. The hospital gives up roughly two minutes per interpretation in charting speed, which the team proposes to recover partly through configuration, and accepts a five-year cost about 9 percent higher than Product B.

Background

The labor and delivery unit, with about 1,900 births a year, documents on paper flowsheets beside fetal monitors that print their own strips. The project team, drawn from nursing, obstetrics, midwifery, registration, HIM and information services, observed two shifts, wrote twelve requirements, weighted them before any demonstration, and scored three products in scripted tests. Product B led with 81 of 100 points, Product C followed with 74 and Product A had 68. Product B failed the shared clock requirement, and Product A met the bedside downtime requirement only through a workstation at the nurses' station. Before any scoring, the team had also settled two tests of its own: a failed must disqualifies a product until a second test proves a fix, and totals five or fewer points apart count as level.

The Second Test

Only the must requirements that had failed or passed with a workaround were retested. The vendor of Product B configured the system to take time from the hospital's server, but the fetal monitors still stamped tracings with their own clocks, and the vendor confirmed that synchronizing the monitors would require a firmware upgrade not available for the hospital's monitor model until next year. During the test, annotations and tracings in two rooms disagreed by more than a minute. Product A demonstrated a bedside downtime view, but it required a separate local server on the unit, adding cost and a second system to maintain. Product C was retested on charting speed after configuration changes and reduced interpretation entry from seven actions to five. Product B is faster at the bedside every day. Product C is right about the time every day. In a record that may be read years later to reconstruct a delivery, the time is the fact that cannot be fixed afterward.

Why the Clock Decides

A labor record is reviewed most closely when an outcome is poor. Reviewers reconstruct what the tracing showed, when the nurse interpreted it, when the physician was called and when the decision to deliver was made. If the tracing and the interpretations carry different times, the record cannot show that sequence reliably. The terms for describing fetal heart rate patterns have been standardized for years precisely so that interpretation and response can be documented and compared (Macones et al., 2008). A system that weakens the timeline weakens the purpose of standard interpretation. The team judged that no amount of charting speed offsets that risk.

What this part is doingGrounding the deciding requirement in how the record is used later shows the grader the recommendation rests on a reason, not only on a score.

Cost

What this part is doingTurning the five-year difference into a yearly figure and a familiar comparison helps a nonfinancial reader judge whether the price of the clock is reasonable.

Five-year costs, including licenses, implementation services, hardware, interfaces and support, are estimated at 1.31 million dollars for Product C and 1.20 million for Product B. Product A's revised cost, with the local server, is 1.27 million. The difference between Products C and B is about 110,000 dollars over five years, or 22,000 dollars a year, roughly the cost of one fewer travel nurse contract for three months. The team considers the difference acceptable for the reason above.

Risks and Mitigations

Charting speed is the main risk. Five actions per interpretation, compared with two for Product B, adds an estimated thirty to forty seconds per entry. On a busy night with eleven interpretations in four hours for one nurse, that is about seven minutes. The mitigations are configuration of default values for the most common interpretations, badge sign-on at every bedside workstation and a review of charting time at thirty and ninety days after go-live. If nurses find the system slow, they will build workarounds, as staff do when a system's design fits the work poorly (Koppel et al., 2008). The ninety-day review will look for them deliberately. Implementation risk is the second. Product C's vendor has fewer installations at hospitals of this size. The team visited one reference site and spoke with another, and both reported a stable system with slow vendor support in the first month. The implementation contract should therefore include on-site vendor support for the first fourteen days.

What the Hospital Gives Up

Choosing Product C means accepting a slower charting experience than the best product offers, a higher cost and a vendor with a smaller customer base. It also means telling the labor nurses, who scored Product B highest on speed, that their strongest preference did not decide the outcome. The team recommends saying this directly at a staff meeting rather than letting it be discovered at go-live. Studies of implementation success repeatedly link adoption to users' sense that their concerns were heard and acted upon (Cresswell et al., 2013).

Alternatives Considered

The team considered two alternatives to an outright choice. The first was to buy Product B and work around the clock problem by asking nurses to check and correct times by hand. That is the same correction nurses make on paper today, and the requirement exists to end it. The second was to delay the purchase a year until the monitor firmware upgrade is available, then retest Product B. Delay would leave the unit on paper for another year of about 1,900 births and push back the perinatal quality reporting that currently takes an HIM analyst two days a month. Neither alternative served the unit better than a slower product that keeps time correctly.

Recommendation

Purchase Product C, with contract terms for fourteen days of on-site vendor support and for a configuration review at ninety days. Present the decision and its trade-offs to the unit's nurses before signing. Assign the unit's nurse educator and the HIM analyst as joint owners of the ninety-day review, so both charting time and record quality are measured. Revisit Product B only if a future monitor upgrade solves the clock problem and the hospital is again in the market.

References

Cresswell, K. M., Bates, D. W., & Sheikh, A. (2013). Ten key considerations for the successful implementation and adoption of large-scale health information technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20(e1), e9-e13. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001684

Koppel, R., Wetterneck, T., Telles, J. L., & Karsh, B.-T. (2008). Workarounds to barcode medication administration systems: Their occurrences, causes, and threats to patient safety. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15(4), 408-423. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2616

Macones, G. A., Hankins, G. D. V., Spong, C. Y., Hauth, J., & Moore, T. (2008). The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: Update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 112(3), 661-666. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181841395

Reading the HI 300 Unit 10 instructions

The final unit usually asks you to recommend one system to leadership and defend the choice. You are expected to summarize the selection process, present the evidence, compare costs and name the risks of the recommended option along with how they will be managed. Many prompts explicitly ask what the organization gives up by choosing one product over another, and graders read that section closely. Expect to write for executives, with an executive summary first and technical detail after. Alternatives considered, including delay, are often required. Cite sources on implementation success and on the clinical reason behind your deciding criterion. Length is commonly four to six pages. A report that recommends the highest scorer without addressing a failed requirement suggests the evaluation was not read carefully.

How this HI300 Unit 10 example is built

An executive summary states the choice, the deciding requirements and the trade-off in four sentences. The background section recaps observation, requirements, weights and first-round scores. The second test section reports what each vendor showed and what remained unsolved. A highlighted line contrasts speed every day with correct time every day. A section on why the clock decides ties the requirement to how labor records are reviewed after poor outcomes. The cost section compares five-year totals and converts the gap into a yearly figure. Risks are paired with mitigations, from default values to fourteen days of vendor support. A section names what the hospital gives up, including the nurses' preference, and alternatives such as delay are rejected before the recommendation and its owners.

Reading the HI300 Unit 10 grading rubric

Recommendation reports are usually graded on evidence, judgment and communication. Evidence marks reward an account of how the products were chosen and data that support the choice. Judgment carries the largest share: graders want the deciding criterion explained, the downside of the choice named honestly and alternatives considered. Risk management earns credit when each risk has a specific mitigation and an owner. Communication counts too, since the audience is leadership; an executive summary that states the decision first and a structure a busy reader can skim are rewarded. Cost analysis is often its own rubric line. Instructors in this course also value attention to the people affected, such as staff whose preferred option was not chosen. APA citations and professional formatting complete the marks.

HI300 Unit 10 help from the desk

The most common weakness is a recommendation that reads like an advertisement, listing the chosen product's strengths and none of its costs. Another is skipping the section on what the organization gives up, which many prompts require. Students also bury the decision at the end instead of stating it first for leadership. Cost comparisons without a time frame or a sense of scale are hard for readers to judge. Risks listed without mitigations or owners read as unfinished. Ignoring staff preferences can cost points when the scenario includes them. We can write the recommendation for the systems and evaluation in your assignment, with an executive summary, costs and an honest trade-off section. Send your earlier units or scenario data, the audience named in the prompt and any required length.

Get an HI300 Unit 10 example written to your instructions

Everything earlier in the course feeds this report, so the evaluation or requirements your earlier units produced matter most, sent next to the Unit 10 instructions and rubric. From that record comes a recommendation with trade-offs and measures, ready in 24-48h; a first sample is free. Without earlier work, a composite evaluation is summarized and labeled as such. 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 HI300 papers and BS in Health Information Management samples

HI300 Unit 10 questions, answered

Where can I find a free HI300 Unit 10 sample paper?

This page holds the finished Unit 10 system recommendation report, choosing a perinatal system after a second test and naming what the hospital gives up.

Should the highest scoring system always be recommended?

No. The sample recommends the second scorer because the leader failed a requirement the unit could not live without, even after a second test.

What goes in an executive summary?

The decision, the main reason, the key trade-off and the cost in a few sentences, so a leader can act without reading the whole report.

How should a report handle staff who preferred another option?

Name the preference and explain the decision to them directly. The sample recommends a staff meeting before the contract is signed.

What alternatives belong in a recommendation report?

Realistic ones, including choosing another product with workarounds and delaying the purchase. Each should be weighed and the reason for rejecting it stated.