| Course | HI300 Information Systems for Health Care |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Audit trail review |
| Length | About 860 words, 6 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 7
Fourteen Entries, Three Questions: A Unit 7 Audit Trail Review of Who Opened a Labor and Delivery Nurse's Own Chart When She Was Admitted to Her Own Unit
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HI300: Information Systems for Health Care
Unit 7 Audit Trail Review
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The patient, the staff and every log entry are composite; the regulations and sources cited are real.
Why This Review
When an employee is a patient in her own workplace, the risk of curious access by coworkers is high, and many hospitals review such records routinely. Under 45 C.F.R. § 164.308, a hospital must look at its system activity on a regular schedule, and access logs are the main thing it looks at. Audit logs record who opened which part of a record, when, from where and what they did, and they are increasingly used both for privacy review and for studying clinical work (Rule et al., 2020). The review covers the patient's three-day stay and the two weeks after discharge.
How Each Entry Was Read
Each entry was compared with three sources: the patient assignment sheet for each shift, the access matrix for the user's role and the documentation the user created. An entry is explained when the user was assigned to the patient, covering for someone who was, or performing a task the role requires, such as coding after discharge. An entry is a question when none of those explains it. A question is not an accusation. Many questions have ordinary answers, and the letter that asks them says so.
The Fourteen Entries
Entries 1 to 6 belong to the three nurses assigned to the patient across her labor, delivery and postpartum shifts, each opening the record during her own shift and each creating documentation within minutes. Explained. Entries 7 and 8 belong to the attending obstetrician and the anesthesiologist who placed her epidural, each with notes and orders at the times logged. Explained. Entry 9 is the NICU nurse who attended the delivery, opening the mother's record ten minutes before the birth. Explained by the matrix, which grants NICU view access from the delivery call. Entry 10 is the postpartum charge nurse, who opened the record at the start of a shift with the rest of the census. Explained. Entry 11 is the HIM coder, who opened the record four days after discharge in the coding queue. Explained. Entry 12 is a labor nurse who was working on the unit but assigned to other patients. She opened the patient's tracing at 02:14 on the night of the delivery for three minutes and created no documentation. Question. Entry 13 is a scheduler in the outpatient obstetric clinic, who opened the delivery summary nine days after discharge. Schedulers book postpartum visits, but they usually work from the appointment request, not the summary. Question. Entry 14 is a user in the hospital's finance department who opened the face sheet and the delivery summary on the day of discharge. Question. Entry 12 may be the most innocent of the three. A nurse watching a colleague's tracing at two in the morning on a busy unit may have been asked to keep an eye on it. That is why the letter asks rather than tells.
The Three Questions
Each question goes to the user's manager in the same neutral form: the date, the time, the part of the record opened and a request to explain the business reason within five working days. The letter does not suggest an answer or describe what would happen next. If the reason is legitimate, such as a charge nurse asking entry 12 to watch the tracing during a delivery in another room, the review records the explanation and closes. If no reason is given, the privacy officer turns to the sanctions rules this hospital keeps and enforces, as required under the same federal section (45 C.F.R. § 164.308).
What the Review Suggests About the System
The review took four hours for fourteen entries, mostly because the assignment sheets are on paper and had to be matched by hand. Two improvements would make the next review faster and fairer. First, the perinatal system could store the patient assignment so the log shows whether the user was assigned at the time. Second, the hospital could flag employee patients automatically for review, so the process does not depend on someone remembering to ask. Neither change replaces judgment, and both reflect the point that privacy failures are partly system design problems rather than only individual ones (Sittig & Singh, 2010). A log shows that a record was opened; it never shows why, and audit studies caution that access data needs context before conclusions are drawn (Rule et al., 2020).
Outcome
At the time of writing, two of the three managers have replied. The night nurse in entry 12 was asked by the charge nurse to watch the tracing while the assigned nurse was in the operating room, which the charge nurse confirmed. The finance user was preparing a routine self-pay estimate for the employee's deductible, a task her role includes. The clinic scheduler's manager has not yet replied, and that question remains open.
References
45 C.F.R. § 164.308 (2024).
Rule, A., Chiang, M. F., & Hribar, M. R. (2020). Using electronic health record audit logs to study clinical activity: A systematic review of aims, measures, and methods. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 27(3), 480-490. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocz196
Sittig, D. F., & Singh, H. (2010). A new sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19(Suppl 3), i68-i74. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2010.042085
HI300 Unit 7 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 7 commonly supplies an access log or a scenario describing one, and asks which entries need follow-up. You are expected to explain your method, compare each entry with what the user's role and assignment would explain, and decide which entries deserve a question. Many prompts involve a sensitive patient, such as an employee or a public figure. Instructors look for a fair process: a question is not a finding of wrongdoing, and the letter that asks it should be neutral. Expect to cite the Security Rule's requirement to review system activity and the sanctions policy that follows a confirmed violation. Some sections ask what changes to the system would make reviews easier. A table of entries is common, though a numbered narrative works if each entry is addressed.
Inside the HI300 Unit 7 example
The review begins with why it was requested and what the regulation requires, then states the method: each entry compared with the assignment sheet, the access matrix and any documentation created. A paragraph insists that a question is not an accusation. The fourteen entries follow in groups, explained ones first, then the three questions with the facts that raised them. A highlighted line observes that the 02:14 entry may be the most innocent. The next section describes the neutral letter sent to managers and when the sanctions policy applies. A section on the system proposes storing assignments in the log and flagging employee patients automatically, citing audit log research and the sociotechnical view. The outcome reports two explanations received and one still pending.
Where the points sit in the HI300 Unit 7 rubric
Audit reviews in this program are usually graded on method, fairness and accuracy. Method points go to a clear comparison of each entry with role, assignment and documentation. Fairness carries a large share: graders reward reviews that treat questions as questions, send neutral requests and avoid naming conclusions before replies arrive. Accuracy points depend on catching the entries that need follow-up without flagging every one. Instructors also check that the regulation is cited correctly and that the sanctions step is described as a policy, not a threat. Recommendations for better logging or automatic flags earn credit when they follow from what the review found. Organization and APA citations finish the rubric. Reviews that treat every unexplained entry as a confirmed breach tend to score poorly.
Common HI300 Unit 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students most often assume that any access by someone not assigned is a violation, which ignores coverage, charge duties and administrative work. Others explain away every entry, missing the ones a reasonable reviewer would question. Letters that accuse the user or describe consequences before a reply is received are a frequent deduction. Some reviews never state their method, so the grader cannot tell why an entry was cleared. Others skip the step of checking whether the user created documentation, which is often the quickest way to explain an entry. We can review the log or scenario in your assignment entry by entry and draft the neutral letters. Send the log, the scenario, the roles involved and any template, and say whether your instructor wants system recommendations included.
Get an HI300 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Some sections supply a log extract for Unit 7 and others describe a situation in prose. Whichever yours provides becomes the material the review works through entry by entry; send the instructions and rubric along with it. A first sample costs nothing; expect it within 24-48h. Any names in it are coded or invented. 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 1: Discussion Post
- HI300 Unit 2: Requirements List
- HI300 Unit 3: Systems Evaluation
- HI300 Unit 4: Interface Analysis
- HI300 Unit 5: Implementation Checklist
- HI300 Unit 6: User Access Matrix
- HI300 Unit 8: Downtime Procedure
- HI300 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- HI300 Unit 10: System Recommendation Report
- HI255 Unit 7: Bundling Review
- HI253 Unit 7: Physician Query Letter
- HI230 Unit 7: Records Audit
- HI135 Unit 7: Amendment Response Letter
HI300 Unit 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HI300 Unit 7 sample paper?
This page has the complete Unit 7 audit trail review: fourteen entries on an employee patient's record, eleven explained and three sent as neutral questions to managers.
Is every unassigned access a privacy violation?
No. A charge nurse may ask a colleague to watch a patient, and finance or scheduling staff may have job reasons. A review asks before it concludes.
Who should receive an audit question letter?
In the sample, the user's manager, which keeps the process consistent and avoids HIM appearing to accuse the employee directly.
Why review records of employees who are patients?
Coworkers may be curious about a colleague's care, so many hospitals review these records routinely after discharge.
What can an audit log not show?
Why the record was opened. A log shows who, when, where and what, but the reason has to come from assignments, documentation or the user's explanation.