| Course | HI550 Organizational Development and Management for Health Information |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Change readiness analysis |
| Length | About 1,160 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 5
Who Loses the Corridor: A Unit 5 Change Readiness Analysis of Six Groups Facing a Records Consolidation
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HI550: Organizational Development and Management for Health Information
Unit 5 Change Readiness Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Quillan Health, its staff groups and every survey result are composite; the sources cited are real.
The Change in Two Sentences
Over the next nine months, Quillan Health will move all inpatient and outpatient coding for its three hospitals into a single remote team under the system director of health information, and all release of information into one office at the regional medical center. Site health information staff who remain will handle chart completion, scanning and front-counter service, and the community hospital's HIM supervisor will become the system's coding quality lead.
Why Loss Comes Before Readiness
Bridges and Bridges (2016) treat the change as the dated event on a project plan and the transition as the slower inner work of giving up an old arrangement. Their first question about any change is who is losing what. That question is asked first here because a readiness rating without it tends to measure enthusiasm for the slide. Readiness itself is treated, following Armenakis et al. (1993), as a set of beliefs: that the present way cannot continue, that the proposed one can succeed, and that the people being asked will come out of it no worse, and Weiner (2009) adds the group's shared confidence that it can carry the change out. Each of those can be looked for in evidence.
Evidence Gathered So Far
Four sources inform the ratings: attendance and questions at two information sessions held in May; three pulse survey items asked of all department staff in April, before any announcement, on trust in leadership, workload and confidence in the record system; notes from four exit interviews over the past year; and one grievance filed at the community hospital in June about remote work assignments.
The Readiness Grid
Each group is described by what the change asks of it, what it removes, the evidence of readiness, a rating and the response the plan owes.
1. Regional inpatient coders. Asked to join a remote team under the HIM director. Removes: very little; they already work remotely and gain a health information reporting line in place of revenue cycle. Evidence: full attendance at both sessions, questions about workload rather than about the change, and the highest pulse scores on trust in leadership. Rating: ready. Response: involve two of them in designing the shared work queue.
2. Community hospital coders at Hollis. Asked to work remotely in a system team. Removes: the physician they can catch in a corridor. Hollis coders resolve many documentation questions by walking to a surgeon's office, and their low rate of open queries depends on it. Evidence: partial attendance, pointed questions about who would answer their questions, and the June grievance. Rating: partial. Response: a named physician liaison at Hollis and a direct message channel to surgeons before the move.
3. The critical access hospital's records technician. Asked to give up release work to the central office. Removes: her place behind the only records counter in town, and the townspeople who ask for her by name. Evidence: she attended one session and asked nothing; her pulse responses were the lowest in the department on confidence; and an exit interview from her predecessor named isolation as the reason for leaving. Rating: low on every indicator. Response: define her new role before anything moves.
4. The community hospital's HIM supervisor. Asked to become a quality lead. Removes: a department of nine people she built, and with it her standing among site managers. Evidence: she has supported the change publicly and privately asked whether her pay grade survives. Rating: partial. Response: settle the grade and title in writing before the announcement.
5. Physicians at all three sites. Asked to answer queries from people they will no longer meet. Removes: the informal clarification route at Hollis. Evidence: no attendance, since the sessions were for department staff, and query response times already falling. Rating: partial, with low confidence in the evidence. Response: briefing through the medical staff office and a query format that takes under a minute to answer.
6. Revenue cycle leadership. Asked to release control of the regional coders. Removes: direct authority over the group that drives unbilled days. Evidence: agreement in steering meetings, with a request that unbilled days be reported weekly during the transition. Rating: ready, conditionally. Response: the weekly report it asked for.
The group with the least to lose is the most ready, and the one person with the most to lose has said nothing at all.
What the Ratings Mean for the Rollout
The ratings point to an order. Coding should consolidate first, beginning with the regional coders, who are ready and whose transition is mostly administrative. Hollis coding should follow only after the physician liaison and message channel exist, so that their loss is answered before it is felt. The supervisor's new title and grade should be settled before either move is announced.
Release of information should move last, and only after the critical access technician's new role has been defined with her. That role could include chart completion and scanning for the site, remote backup for outside record indexing across the system, and continued front-counter service, so that people in town still see a familiar face even if their requests are processed elsewhere. Moving release work before that role exists would remove the most visible part of her job with nothing to replace it.
Weiner (2009) notes that readiness is a shared state that can change quickly when people see colleagues succeed. If the regional coders' move goes well, it becomes evidence for the Hollis coders, which is a second reason to begin with them.
What Would Change the Ratings
The ratings are a snapshot and are expected to move. The Hollis coders' rating would rise to ready if the physician liaison is in place and the first month of remote queries shows response times holding near the current level. The supervisor's rating depends almost entirely on one document, the confirmation of her grade, and should be revisited the week it is signed. The critical access row is the hardest to move, because its evidence is mostly absence: no questions, low survey scores, a predecessor who left. A conversation in which the technician helps shape her own role, followed by a second pulse survey, is the only way to learn whether that row has changed. Physicians' readiness will be clearer after the first month of queries from remote coders, measured by response time and by how often a query is answered with a request to talk instead.
Limits
The pulse survey had a 68 percent response rate, and the smallest groups cannot be reported without identifying individuals, so their ratings rest on fewer sources. Readiness should be reassessed before each phase begins.
References
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600601
Bridges, W., & Bridges, S. (2016). Managing transitions: Making the most of change (4th ed.). Da Capo Lifelong Books.
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
The Purdue Global HI550 Unit 5 instructions
Unit 5 often asks you to judge how prepared people are for one specific change in records work. You will likely need to identify the groups affected, gather or describe evidence of their readiness, rate it, and explain what the ratings mean for implementation. Many prompts name a model or let you choose one, and Bridges' transition model is a popular pairing with a readiness framework. Seven pages and a summary grid is a common format. Name what each group loses in terms it would recognize rather than in project language. Base ratings on evidence and say where evidence is thin. Avoid reading silence or low attendance as agreement. The analysis should end with practical consequences, such as the order in which groups are brought into the change.
How the HI 550 Unit 5 example is put together
A two-sentence statement of the change opens the paper, followed by a short section explaining why loss is examined before readiness and how readiness is defined. The evidence section lists four sources gathered before and after the announcement. The grid then runs through six groups, from regional coders to revenue cycle leadership, giving for each what the change asks, what it removes, the evidence, a rating and the response owed. The highlighted sentence contrasts the most ready group with the one person who has said nothing. A rollout section turns the ratings into a sequence: coding first, the Hollis coders after their physician liaison is named, release work last once the technician's new role exists. A further section explains what would change each rating, and a limits paragraph notes the survey response rate.
Where the points sit in the HI550 Unit 5 rubric
Readiness analyses are usually marked on identification of stakeholders, use of evidence, application of theory and implications for implementation. Evidence carries a large share: ratings without support, or ratings based on assumptions, score poorly. Theory is rewarded when it shapes the analysis, as the loss question does here, rather than being summarized at the start. Stakeholder coverage is judged on whether all affected groups appear, including those outside the department such as physicians. The implications section earns credit when it gives a concrete sequence or set of actions. Clear organization, a readable grid and correct APA format complete the points. A common deduction comes from treating every group as equally resistant or equally ready.
HI550 Unit 5 help from the desk
The most frequent problem in this paper is rating readiness by impression. Another is describing losses in management terms, such as role realignment, instead of what a person actually gives up. Some students skip groups outside the department, which leaves the rollout exposed. Silence is often mistaken for support. Many papers end with general advice about communication rather than a specific order of steps. Make sure every group in the grid has a response, not only a rating. If your change is different, perhaps an outsourcing decision or a new encoder, describe the groups involved and the prompt, and a readiness analysis can be prepared for your case.
Get an HI550 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Describe the change and every group it touches, names removed, and include the rubric; a supplied case is fine too. The free first sample follows in 24-48h with a row for each group you list and each loss stated from that group's side, in terms its members would accept. 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 3: Org Structure Analysis
- HI550 Unit 4: Staffing and Workload Plan
- 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 5: Billing Risk Assessment
- HI540 Unit 5: Schedule and Critical Path
- HI530 Unit 5: Interoperability Brief
- HI520 Unit 5: Basic Query Set
HI550 Unit 5 questions, answered
Is Bridges' transition model a readiness framework?
Not strictly, and the example says so. Bridges wrote about the psychological transition people go through, beginning with an ending. The analysis borrows only his question about who is losing what, because readiness ratings rest on it, and pairs it with plain evidence indicators. If your course assigns a formal readiness instrument, that instrument can replace the indicators without disturbing the loss column.
What if a group gains from the change?
Record the gain and still ask about losses, since most groups experience both. The regional coders in the example gain a health information reporting line and lose an incentive tied to unbilled days. A row showing only gains usually means the analysis has not looked closely enough, and graders tend to notice when every group appears pleased.
How can readiness be measured before a change is announced?
Indirectly: existing survey items on trust and workload, turnover patterns, how earlier changes landed, and questions staff raise when rumors start. The example uses pulse items asked before the announcement and says which were designed for this purpose. What should be avoided is a readiness score invented after the fact to justify a sequence already chosen.
Where can I find a free HI550 Unit 5 sample paper?
A complete Unit 5 readiness analysis appears here, rating six groups on evidence and turning the ratings into a rollout order.
How can I rate readiness if I do not have survey data?
Use other observable evidence, such as attendance and questions at meetings, grievances, turnover or exit interviews, and admit openly when a group's row rests on too little to rate with confidence.