| Course | HI305 Management of Health Information |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Productivity standard proposal |
| Length | About 850 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 HI305 Unit 4
220 Pages an Hour, Measured Not Rumored: A Unit 4 Productivity Standard Proposal for Document Imaging Built From a Two-Week Time Study, With an Accuracy Floor That Comes First
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HI305: Management of Health Information
Unit 4 Productivity Standard Proposal
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hospital, the sample and the timings are composite; the methods and sources cited are real.
The Problem With the Current Target
The department's specialists have long been told to reach 300 pages an hour. No one can find where the figure came from. Two specialists who come close are also the two with the highest indexing error rates in the last quarterly review. A standard that cannot be traced to measured work invites exactly this, because people reach it by skipping the steps that are slowest and least visible. Productivity standards in health information management should come from a sample of the department's own work, measured under normal conditions (Oachs & Watters, 2020).
The Time Study
Over two weeks, the supervisor and the quality analyst observed 64 batches across both shifts and all five specialists. Each batch was timed from the start of preparation to the end of indexing, and the page count was recorded. Batches were selected by taking every fourth batch from the arrival log, which kept the sample from favoring easy batches. The study excluded breaks, meetings and equipment downtime, so it measures productive time only. Results: the 64 batches held 18,560 pages and took 83.6 productive hours, a rate of 222 pages per productive hour. The middle half of batches ran between 196 and 248 pages an hour. Batches with barcoded cover sheets ran about 260 an hour; batches indexed by hand ran about 185. Large outside records, of which there were three in the sample, ran at about 140. The team was being asked to work a third faster than the work allows. The specialists who came closest were doing it by indexing less carefully.
The Proposed Standard
The proposal sets two standards together. The accuracy standard comes first: no more than five documents in a thousand filed to a wrong patient, visit or document category, measured by the quality analyst's weekly random review of 2 percent of each specialist's work. The productivity standard is 220 pages per productive hour, averaged over a pay period, and it applies only when the accuracy standard is met. A specialist who reaches 260 pages an hour with 98.7 percent accuracy has not met the standard. The productivity figure sits just below the measured rate because the sample, though careful, slightly underrepresents large outside records, which run slowly. Adjustment for mix is built in: batches flagged as outside records of more than 100 pages are credited at 1.5 pages for each page, so a specialist assigned to them is not penalized.
Why Accuracy Comes First
Lateness costs days; misfiling costs trust. When a consent or an outside result lands under the wrong name, clinicians may act without it, and a stranger's details now sit where they do not belong, a safety risk and a privacy problem together. Measures that reward speed alone predictably draw effort away from quality, the trap Kerr (1975) named in his study of reward systems that pay for the wrong behavior. Pairing the two standards, with accuracy as a gate, tells the team which matters more without saying that speed does not matter.
What the Specialists Said
The proposal was shared with the five specialists before it went to the director. Their main concern was the old target: two said they had been worried for years that they were seen as slow, and both were relieved to see the measured figure. A third asked whether the accuracy review would be fair, since the quality analyst sometimes disagrees with an indexing choice that the specialist could defend. The proposal now includes a review step: a specialist can ask the supervisor to look at any document marked as an error, and the supervisor's decision is final. Standards that staff believe are fair are more likely to be met without shortcuts, and the conversation itself produced one improvement the supervisor had not considered.
How the Standard Will Be Used
The standard will be used for coaching and planning first and for evaluation second. For the first quarter, each specialist receives a weekly report of pages per productive hour and accuracy, and the supervisor meets with anyone below either standard to look at the work together. Only after a full quarter will the standards appear in annual reviews. The planning use is immediate: at 220 pages per hour, the workload of about 41,600 pages a week requires about 189 productive hours, which confirms the staffing gap the workload analysis found (McWay, 2020).
Review
The standard will be restudied in twelve months or sooner if the work changes, such as units beginning to scan their own forms at the bedside or the end of paper from one of the new sources. A standard that outlives the work it was built on becomes another rumor.
References
Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769-783. https://doi.org/10.2307/255378
McWay, D. C. (2020). Today's health information management: An integrated approach (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning.
Oachs, P. K., & Watters, A. L. (Eds.). (2020). Health information management: Concepts, principles, and practice (6th ed.). AHIMA Press.
What the HI305 Unit 4 assignment asks for
The fourth unit usually asks you to propose a productivity standard for one HIM function and justify it with data. You are expected to explain how the standard was derived, typically through a time study or work sampling, and to describe the sample so a reader can judge whether it represents normal work. Many prompts ask how quality will be protected, since a speed standard alone invites shortcuts. Expect to address fairness, such as how difficult work is credited, and how the standard will be introduced and reviewed. Some instructors want the standard connected to staffing, showing how many hours the workload needs at that rate. Cite a management source on standards and, if possible, a source on measurement and incentives. Proposals that pick a round number without data rarely earn full credit.
How the HI 305 Unit 4 example is put together
The proposal starts with the problem: a target nobody can trace, met only by the two least accurate specialists. The time study section explains how batches were chosen, what was excluded and the results, including the range and the rates for barcoded, hand-indexed and large records. A highlighted line notes that the old target asked for a third more speed than the work allows. The proposed standard section sets accuracy first and pages per hour second, with the 1.5 credit for large records. A section explains why accuracy is the gate, citing Kerr on rewarding the wrong behavior. Feedback from the specialists added an appeal step. The use section puts coaching before evaluation and links the rate to staffing, and a closing section sets a restudy date.
Where the points sit in the HI305 Unit 4 rubric
Productivity proposals are typically graded on derivation, balance and implementation. Derivation points reward a sample that is described, sized and selected without bias, and a standard that follows from it. Balance is weighted heavily in this course: a speed standard with no quality measure, or with quality as an afterthought, loses points. Implementation credit goes to a plan for introducing the standard fairly, such as coaching before evaluation, and for a review date. Instructors also reward attention to work mix, so that people assigned difficult batches are not penalized. Clear arithmetic and an explanation of why the standard sits where it does earn their own share. APA citations to a management text and a source on measurement round out the rubric.
Common HI305 Unit 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The weakest proposals choose a number because it sounds right or matches another hospital, with no time study behind it. Others measure only the fastest workers or the easiest batches, which sets a standard most staff cannot meet. A frequent gap is ignoring quality, so the standard rewards speed at the cost of misfiled documents. Some proposals apply the standard to evaluations immediately, which staff experience as a threat rather than a target. Missing review dates are another common deduction. We can build the standard for the function in your assignment from the data or scenario provided, with an accuracy gate and an introduction plan. Send the time study or volumes your instructor gave you, the current target if one exists and any template required.
Get an HI305 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
If your Unit 4 prompt supplies timing data, send it; if it supplies none, say which function the standard should cover, coding, release of information or scanning. Attach the instructions and rubric too. A proposal with its derivation shown returns in 24-48h, free as a first sample, with each figure labeled as measured or composite. 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 HI305 papers and BS in Health Information Management samples
- HI305 Unit 1: Discussion Post
- HI305 Unit 2: Job Description
- HI305 Unit 3: Workload Analysis
- HI305 Unit 5: Staffing Schedule
- HI305 Unit 6: Orientation Plan
- HI305 Unit 7: Department Procedure
- HI305 Unit 8: Budget Worksheet
- HI305 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- HI305 Unit 10: Operations Improvement Plan
- HI300 Unit 4: Interface Analysis
- HI255 Unit 4: Approach and Device Drill
- HI135 Unit 4: Privacy Notice Comparison
- HI253 Unit 4: Case Coding Set
HI305 Unit 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HI305 Unit 4 sample paper?
The full Unit 4 productivity standard proposal is on this page, setting 220 pages per productive hour for document imaging with an accuracy gate of 99.5 percent.
How is a productivity standard derived?
From a measured sample of normal work. The sample times 64 batches chosen systematically across shifts and specialists, then sets the standard near the measured rate.
Why pair speed with accuracy?
A speed target alone rewards skipping careful steps. Making accuracy a gate means fast work only counts when it is also correct.
How do you keep a standard fair for hard work?
Credit difficult items at a set factor. The sample counts each page of a large outside record as 1.5 pages.
When should a new standard affect evaluations?
After a coaching period. The sample reports results weekly for a quarter before the standard appears in annual reviews.