| Course | HI501 Health Informatics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Structured data trade-off memo |
| Length | About 870 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Health Informatics |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HI501 Unit 3
Counting Goals-of-Care Conversations Without Losing What Was Said: A Unit 3 Structured Data Trade-Off Memo to a Data Governance Committee
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HI501: Health Informatics
Unit 3 Structured Data Trade-Off Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Harlow Ridge Health, its committee and its figures are composite; the sources cited are real.
Memo
To: Data Governance Committee, Harlow Ridge Health From: Informatics Fellow, Clinical Informatics Re: How to record goals-of-care conversations so they can be counted
Recommendation
Add a three-field coded header to the existing goals-of-care note, keep the narrative below it unchanged, and review completion and content after 90 days. The header would take a physician about 40 seconds per conversation, roughly 37 physician minutes a day across the two hospitals, and would let the system answer the question it cannot answer today.
Situation
The palliative care steering group has set an aim: every inpatient with a serious illness and an expected survival under a year should have a documented conversation about goals of care by the third hospital day. Hospitalists, oncologists and palliative care physicians already hold these conversations, about 55 a day across both hospitals, and they document them carefully. But they document them in free text inside progress notes, under headings that vary by physician. A quality analyst spent two weeks reading charts to estimate that 38 percent of eligible patients had a conversation recorded, and nobody trusts the figure enough to repeat it monthly.
Options
Option 1, narrative only. Cost: nothing new. Counting: impossible without manual chart review. The record keeps every nuance of what patients said, and the steering group cannot measure its aim. Option 2, a fully structured note. A template replaces the narrative with discrete fields for participants, prognosis shared, goals selected from a list, fears, trade-offs and code status. Cost: about two to three minutes of physician time per conversation, or about two physician hours a day. Counting: complete. Loss: the patient's own words, which physicians say are the most useful part when a colleague reads the note at 3 a.m. Option 3, narrative now, extraction later. Physicians keep writing free text, and the informatics team builds a language processing tool to find conversations in notes. Cost: no physician time, but months of build and validation work by an analyst and a data scientist. Counting: probable, with error rates that must be measured and explained to the committee. Option 4, a coded header above the narrative. Three fields sit at the top of the existing note: conversation held, with date; health care agent or surrogate named, yes or no; and the goal of care that best summarizes the plan, chosen from four categories. The narrative stays exactly as it is below. Cost: about 40 seconds per conversation. Counting: complete for the three fields, with the narrative preserved for clinical reading. The question for the committee is not structure against narrative but which three facts the system must be able to count, and who should spend the seconds to record them.
What Coding Loses
Structure buys countability and costs expressiveness, a tension informatics researchers have described for as long as records have been electronic (Rosenbloom et al., 2011). A coded goal such as "comfort-focused care" says what the plan is but not why the patient chose it, what they fear or what trade-offs they would accept. Best practice in serious illness communication puts those elements at the center of the conversation (Bernacki & Block, 2014), and they are exactly what a list cannot hold. That is why Option 4 keeps the narrative untouched. The header records that the conversation happened, who would speak for the patient and the broad direction of care. The narrative records the person. Coding also invites a second loss: a field that can be completed without a conversation. A physician in a hurry could tick "conversation held" after a brief code status check. The 90-day review should therefore compare a sample of headers with their narratives, a check on whether recorded data mean what the reader assumes they mean (Weiskopf & Weng, 2013).
Who Spends the Seconds
The added time falls on the physicians who hold the conversations, not on nurses or unit clerks. At 40 seconds for 55 conversations a day, that is about 37 minutes spread across perhaps 30 physicians, a little over a minute each. Option 2 would cost each of them several minutes a day and would likely be resisted or completed carelessly. Option 3 spends no clinician time but moves the cost to the informatics team and delays the first count by months.
Risks and Review
Two risks need watching. The first is header-narrative mismatch, addressed by the sample review. The second is that the four goal categories may be too coarse; if more than 15 percent of headers choose "other," the categories need revision. After 90 days the committee should receive completion rates by service, the mismatch rate from a sample of 50 notes and the count of eligible patients with a documented conversation by day three, the number the steering group needs.
Decision Requested
Approve the three-field header for build in the next release, with the 90-day review reported to this committee.
References
Bernacki, R. E., & Block, S. D. (2014). Communication about serious illness care goals: A review and synthesis of best practices. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(12), 1994-2003. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5271
Rosenbloom, S. T., Denny, J. C., Xu, H., Lorenzi, N., Stead, W. W., & Johnson, K. B. (2011). Data from clinical notes: A perspective on the tension between structure and flexible documentation. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 18(2), 181-186. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2010.007237
Weiskopf, N. G., & Weng, C. (2013). Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: Enabling reuse for clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20(1), 144-151. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000681
HI501 Unit 3 instructions, in plain terms
The third unit usually asks for a memo to a decision-making body about whether a type of clinical information should be captured as structured data. Expect to describe what exists now, set out several options, and compare them on what they cost, who bears that cost, what they make countable and what they lose. Memo form matters: the recommendation comes first, followed by background, options, analysis and the decision requested. Many instructors want costs expressed in the time of a specific role rather than general effort. You should also address risks such as fields completed carelessly. Cite a source on the tension between structure and narrative and one from the clinical domain your memo concerns. Keep the organization composite. Three to five pages is typical, and plain language suits a committee audience.
How this HI501 Unit 3 example is built
The memo opens with its recommendation and the time cost in one paragraph. A situation section explains why the steering group cannot measure its aim. Four options are presented in the same frame of cost, countability and loss, and the highlighted sentence reframes the question as which facts must be countable and who spends the seconds. A section on what coding loses draws on research about structured and flexible documentation and on best practice in serious illness communication, then explains why the narrative stays untouched. A second loss, a field ticked without a real conversation, leads to a sample comparison of headers and narratives. Another section divides the time cost across about 30 physicians. Risks, the measures for a 90-day review and a one-sentence decision request close the memo.
HI501 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points
Trade-off memos tend to be graded on the analysis of options, the quality of the recommendation, use of evidence and memo conventions. Option analysis carries the most weight: each choice should be compared on the same criteria, with costs and losses stated concretely. Students lose points by presenting structure as simply better than narrative, or the reverse, without naming what each gives up. Recommendation points reward a clear choice justified by the analysis, with a review plan. Evidence points come from citing work on documentation structure and the clinical practice involved. Expect credit for anticipating misuse of a new field and proposing a check. Memo conventions, including a recommendation up front and a decision request at the end, form a smaller block, and APA citations and concise writing finish the marks.
Common HI501 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A common misstep in Unit 3 is arguing for structured data because it can be counted, without asking what clinicians will lose or who will spend the time. Another is listing options without comparing them on the same terms, which leaves the committee unable to choose. Some memos bury the recommendation at the end, against the format the assignment expects. Time costs are often stated as minor or significant instead of in minutes for a named role. Many students forget that a new field can be filled in without the underlying work, so the count becomes misleading. Memos that run long with background lose a committee reader quickly. For help with your own memo, send the type of information in question, how it is recorded now and the committee it goes to, and the options can be priced in the time of whoever would record them.
Get an HI501 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Tell the desk which data element your Unit 3 memo concerns and who reads it, then attach the prompt, rubric and whatever memo layout the instructor prefers. The sample prices each option in a named person's seconds and says what stays in narrative. Expect it within 24-48h, with nothing billed for a first custom sample. 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 HI501 papers and MS in Health Informatics samples
- HI501 Unit 1: Discussion Post
- HI501 Unit 2: Capture Workflow Analysis
- HI501 Unit 4: Decision Support Rule Design
- HI501 Unit 5: Usability Walkthrough
- HI501 Unit 6: Adoption Evaluation
- HI501 Unit 7: Workflow Redesign Proposal
- HI501 Unit 8: Patient Engagement Analysis
- HI501 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- HI501 Unit 10: Informatics Project Brief
HI501 Unit 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HI501 Unit 3 sample paper?
The complete Unit 3 memo is on this page, recommending a coded header for goals-of-care conversations.
What does structured data cost compared with narrative?
Clinician time and expressiveness. The sample's header costs about 40 seconds and keeps the narrative so nothing the patient said is lost.
Why not make the whole note structured?
A fully structured note would take two to three minutes per conversation and replace the patient's own words, the part clinicians value most.
How do you stop a new field from being ticked without the real work?
Compare a sample of coded entries with their narratives during review, as the sample plans at 90 days.
How should a memo to a governance committee be organized?
Recommendation first, then situation, options, analysis, risks and the decision requested.