| Course | HI550 Organizational Development and Management for Health Information |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Organizational structure analysis |
| Length | About 1,130 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Health Informatics |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HI550 Unit 3
Praised for Closing Early: A Unit 3 Organizational Structure Analysis of Four Reporting Lines and the Measures That Steer Them
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HI550: Organizational Development and Management for Health Information
Unit 3 Organizational Structure Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Quillan Health, its reporting lines and every rate are composite; the sources cited are real.
The Puzzle
Quillan Health says it wants complete, accurate records coded promptly. At the regional medical center, inpatient coders final-code records with a physician query still open in 9.4 percent of cases. At the community hospital in Hollis, where coders work under the same rules and the same encoder, the rate is 3.1 percent, because coders there usually wait for the answer. The regional coders are not less careful people. Their reviews reward exactly what they do. This analysis explains the difference by structure: who reports to whom, and what each leader is measured on.
Part One: The Formal Chart
Health information work at Quillan Health runs along four lines.
1. Regional inpatient coders answer to a coding manager, and she answers to the revenue cycle vice president.
2. Community hospital coders report to the Hollis site HIM supervisor, who reports to the system director of health information.
3. Clinical documentation specialists, who send queries to physicians, report to a documentation manager under the chief nursing officer.
4. The critical access hospital's single records technician reports to that hospital's administrator.
The system HIM director holds a dotted line to the regional coding manager, which in practice means she is copied on reports but writes no reviews. Mintzberg (1979) described how organizations group work by function or by market and how the choice shapes who coordinates with whom. Quillan grouped coding by the revenue it releases, documentation by the clinical staff who perform it and the smallest site by geography. Each choice made sense when made. Together they leave four groups who touch the same record answering to four different leaders.
Part Two: The Same Boxes With Their Measures
Written beside each box, the measure its line leader reviews each month:
1. Revenue cycle vice president: discharged-not-final-billed days for the regional center, with a target of four.
2. System HIM director: coding accuracy from the quarterly audit at Hollis, with a target of 95 percent, and release turnaround.
3. Chief nursing officer: number of queries sent per documentation specialist per week.
4. Critical access administrator: no health information measure at all; the technician's review covers attendance and responsiveness to the administrator.
Not one of the four lines is measured on whether a query was answered before the record was coded, the single behavior that ties all four together.
Part Three: Measure, Behavior, Evidence, Gap
Each line receives the same four steps.
Regional inpatient coders. Measure: unbilled days. Behavior: records are final-coded with queries open when the record ages past three days. Evidence: the encoder's query report shows 9.4 percent of final-coded records with an open query, against 3.1 percent at Hollis, and the coding manager's reviews cite unbilled days as the first accomplishment. Gap: the system wants codes that reflect the physician's answer; the line rewards codes that release the bill.
Community hospital coders. Measure: accuracy. Behavior: coders hold records until queries close, even when that adds days. Evidence: Hollis unbilled days average 6.2, well above the regional target, and accuracy averages 96.1 percent. Gap: smaller than at the regional center, but in the opposite direction; held records delay revenue that the system also needs.
Documentation specialists. Measure: queries sent. Behavior: many short, low-yield queries, including some on diagnoses already clear in the record. Evidence: physicians answered 71 percent of queries within two days last year and 54 percent this year, while queries per specialist rose by a third. Physicians interviewed described query fatigue. Gap: the system wants queries that change the record when the record is unclear; the line rewards volume.
Critical access technician. Measure: none in health information. Behavior: she answers the administrator's requests first, including reports for the hospital board, and indexes outside records when the counter is quiet. Evidence: outside records at the site wait an average of nine days, against four at the larger hospitals. Gap: the system wants timely, complete records at every site; the only person who reviews her has no reason to ask about them.
In a paper still assigned to management students fifty years on, Kerr (1975) described firms that pay for one kind of conduct, wish aloud for a different kind, and then fault employees for following the pay. All four rows fit his description. The regional coders are hoped to wait for answers and paid in praise to close records. The documentation specialists are hoped to improve records and counted on activity. The analysis uses Kerr as a lens for each row, not as a summary at the top, because the argument is most persuasive when the reader has already seen the evidence.
The Smallest Change
A full redesign is beyond this unit, and the worst mismatch can be addressed with one move. Regional inpatient coders should move from the revenue cycle line into the health information line, under the system HIM director, with a paired measure: unbilled days and the open-query closure rate, reviewed together. Neither number alone can be met by sacrificing the other. Health information management practice places coding quality with the department that owns the record, while revenue staff own the claim once the code is set (Oachs & Watters, 2020).
The change has a cost, and it falls on the revenue cycle vice president. She loses direct control of the group whose speed most affects her own unbilled measure, and she can expect unbilled days at the regional center to rise by perhaps a day while queries are answered. In return, she gains fewer denials on records coded before the physician clarified them, which her own team currently reworks. A second, smaller adjustment would help as well. If the regional coders moved, the coding manager would join the HIM director's staff meetings, where site supervisors already compare audit results, and the paired measure would be reported on the same page for all three hospitals. Seeing Hollis and the regional center side by side would make the trade between speed and accuracy visible every month rather than once a year in a review. The documentation specialists' measure should change next, from queries sent to queries that changed the record, but that is a second step and belongs to the nursing line's own planning.
Limits
The open-query rates come from one quarter, and the comparison between hospitals assumes similar case mix, which the regional center's higher acuity may weaken. The analysis rests on the measures leaders report reviewing; informal expectations may differ.
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
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Prentice-Hall.
Oachs, P. K., & Watters, A. L. (Eds.). (2020). Health information management: Concepts, principles, and practice (6th ed.). AHIMA Press.
The Purdue Global HI550 Unit 3 instructions
Unit 3 typically asks you to analyze the organizational structure around health information work and explain how it affects performance. Expect to present a chart, either from a case or from your own organization, and to connect reporting lines to what people actually do. Most prompts look for a theory or framework, and instructors often welcome a classic source if it fits. Six pages is a common length. A figure or table that pairs each reporting line with its measure makes the argument easier to follow. Use specific evidence of behavior, such as rates, report contents or interview findings, not impressions. Many sections ask for a recommendation, but a full redesign is rarely expected; choose the smallest change that addresses the worst problem. Say who would bear the cost of that change.
How the HI 550 Unit 3 example is put together
The paper opens with the puzzle and two rates, 9.4 percent of regional records coded with an open query against 3.1 percent at the community hospital. Part one describes the formal chart, four lines answering to revenue cycle, the HIM director, the chief nursing officer and a site administrator, and draws on Mintzberg to explain how each grouping arose. Part two writes the measure beside each box, and the highlighted sentence notes that no line is measured on answering queries before coding. Part three gives each line the same four steps with evidence, from query reports to physician response times. Kerr's argument appears after the evidence, not before it. The final section moves regional coders into the HIM line with a paired measure and names what the revenue cycle executive loses and gains. A limits paragraph notes case mix differences.
HI550 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points
Structure analyses are generally scored on the accuracy of the structural description, the strength of the link between structure and behavior, the use of theory and the recommendation. Most points go to the link: whether the paper shows, with evidence, that a reporting line or measure produces the behavior described. Theory earns credit when it explains the evidence rather than standing alone in an introduction. The recommendation is judged on feasibility and on whether its trade-offs are acknowledged. Figures and tables count when they carry the argument. APA format, citations and clear organization account for the remainder. Analyses that describe a chart without connecting it to any observed conduct lose heavily, and so do recommendations that redraw the whole organization without saying who pays.
Common HI550 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A frequent reason this paper loses points is that it describes the organization chart and stops there. Another is citing a structure framework in the introduction and never using it again. Some students infer behavior from the chart instead of observing it, which reverses the logic the unit wants. Recommendations are often too large, a full reorganization, or too vague, better communication. Old sources are acceptable when they still explain the case, but pair them with current evidence. If your own organization has a different arrangement, such as outsourced coding, gather the chart, the measures each leader reviews and the prompt, and a custom analysis can be built around your lines.
Get an HI550 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Is the chart one the course supplies, or your own organization's with names removed? Share whichever version applies, the rubric, and any measures you know line leaders are reviewed on. No fee applies to the first custom sample, which lands in 24-48h and ties each reporting line to the conduct it produces. 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 HI550 papers and MS in Health Informatics samples
- HI550 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- HI550 Unit 2: Department Assessment
- HI550 Unit 4: Staffing and Workload Plan
- HI550 Unit 5: Change Readiness Analysis
- HI550 Unit 6: Performance Management Memo
- HI550 Unit 7: Team Development Proposal
- HI550 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- HI550 Unit 9: Communication Plan
- HI550 Unit 10: Change Management Plan
- HI545 Unit 3: Compliance Policy Draft
- HI540 Unit 3: Work Breakdown Structure
- HI530 Unit 3: Code Set Mapping Table
- HI520 Unit 3: Normalization Exercise
HI550 Unit 3 questions, answered
Is Kerr's article too old to cite in a graduate paper?
It dates from 1975 and is still cited because the problem it describes has not changed. Pairing it with a current source on healthcare incentive design strengthens the paper, but the example keeps Kerr as the main lens since the question it asks, what is actually rewarded, fits a structure analysis precisely. Some rubrics limit sources to recent years, so confirm that before leaning on it alone.
What counts as evidence of behavior in a structure analysis?
Anything that records conduct rather than intention: query rates, turnaround reports, audit results, the order in which requests were completed, meeting minutes. The example uses composite figures of that kind for every row. Interviews help when they explain a number, but a paper resting on what staff say they do is weaker than one resting on what records show.
Should the analysis propose a full new structure?
Only if the prompt asks for one. The example proposes a single change aimed at the worst mismatch and prices it in authority as well as money, because a narrow move with its costs stated is easier to defend than a new chart. Where your assignment wants a complete redesign, each new line should still be paired with the measure its leader will watch.
Where can I find a free HI550 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page holds the full Unit 3 analysis, including four reporting lines, the measure beside each and a single recommended change with its cost.
How do I show that structure causes a behavior?
Pair each reporting line with the measure its leader reviews, then show evidence that people under that line act in the way the measure rewards, ideally compared with a group under a different line.