| Course | HI550 Organizational Development and Management for Health Information |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Performance management memo |
| Length | About 860 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 HI550 Unit 6
The Edit That Was Off: A Unit 6 Performance Management Memo Separating a Coder's Share of an Accuracy Gap From the Department's
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HI550: Organizational Development and Management for Health Information
Unit 6 Performance Management Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Quillan Health, the coder R., the manager and every audit figure are composite; the sources in the rationale are real.
Memorandum
To: R., Outpatient Coder, Remote Coding Team
From: Outpatient Coding Manager, Health Information Services
Copy: Employee file
Date: October 14
Re: Coding accuracy review for the third quarter, following our conversation on October 13
The Standard and the Result
The department's accuracy standard for outpatient coders is 95 percent. Your third-quarter audit reviewed 140 records and found 16 errors, for accuracy of 88.6 percent. When we met yesterday, I said I would put the results and our plan in writing so that we are both working from the same page.
Where the Errors Fell
Errors by record type:
1. Interventional radiology procedures: 11 errors in 31 records.
2. Emergency department visits: 3 errors in 52 records.
3. Clinic visits and diagnostic imaging: 2 errors in 57 records.
Outside interventional radiology, your accuracy for the quarter was 95.4 percent, which meets the standard.
The Department's Share
During the merger, the encoder edit that flags incomplete component coding on interventional radiology records was disabled at the regional medical center and not restored until August 22. The audit period ran from July 1 to September 30, so for the first seven weeks of the quarter the warning that every outpatient coder relies on for these records was not there. Six of your eleven radiology errors fall inside that window and are of exactly the kind the edit catches. I have removed those six from the count used for any follow-up. With them removed, your accuracy is 92.5 percent on 134 records. I have also asked the systems team to notify coders whenever an edit is turned off, so this does not happen again.
Your Share
Five radiology errors fall after August 22, when the edit was working. All five involve procedures with three or more components where one component code was left out, usually the imaging guidance or the radiological supervision code. That pattern is specific and fixable, and it is the part of the gap that belongs to you.
What Changes Starting With Your Next Shift
1. For every interventional radiology record with three or more components, check each component against the department's reference sheet before final coding.
2. For the next two weeks, route those records to second-level review before they are billed. The lead coder will return each one with a short note.
3. Keep a short list of any record where you are unsure and bring it to our weekly check-in.
Support From the Department
The lead coder will hold a thirty-minute session with you this week on component coding for interventional radiology, using three of your own records. You will also receive the updated reference sheet, which now includes the vascular access procedures that were added after the merger.
Re-Audit
Your radiology records will be re-audited on November 25, using thirty records from the weeks after the training session. Other record types will be audited on the normal quarterly schedule.
What This Memo Is and Is Not
This memo documents a performance conversation and a plan. It is not a disciplinary action and does not go to anyone other than your file. If radiology accuracy remains below standard at the re-audit, the next step would be a formal performance improvement plan under the department's policy, which I would discuss with you before putting in place. I expect that the training and review will make that unnecessary, and I will tell you as soon as the re-audit results are in.
Rationale for the Course
The memo's order follows the argument of Blumberg and Pringle (1982) that work performance depends on opportunity as well as on capacity and willingness. Opportunity covers the tools, information and conditions an employee works under, and a disabled edit is a clear case of reduced opportunity. Removing the errors it caused before assigning responsibility is both fair and accurate. The remaining errors are then a capacity question, since the coder applies other rules correctly and the gap lies in one procedure family; willingness is not in doubt, and the memo does not suggest it is.
The memo is written to keep feedback on the task rather than on the person. Pooling hundreds of comparisons, Kluger and DeNisi (1996) showed that in about a third of cases feedback made performance worse, chiefly when it pulled the employee's attention toward who they are and away from what the work needed, and that it helped most when it named particular features of the task that could be corrected. That is why the memo describes component codes and dates instead of carefulness or commitment. Health information management guidance also recommends that productivity and quality standards be documented, communicated and applied consistently to all coders (Oachs & Watters, 2020), which the memo does by stating the standard, the sample size and the re-audit date.
References
Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C. D. (1982). The missing opportunity in organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review, 7(4), 560-569. https://doi.org/10.2307/257222
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Oachs, P. K., & Watters, A. L. (Eds.). (2020). Health information management: Concepts, principles, and practice (6th ed.). AHIMA Press.
HI550 Unit 6 instructions, in plain terms
In the sixth unit you are usually asked to write a performance management document for an employee in a health information scenario and explain the reasoning behind it. Prompts commonly expect memo format, a clear statement of the standard and the result, specific expectations, support offered and a follow-up date. Many instructors also want a short rationale linking the memo to course concepts on performance or feedback. Two pages for the memo is a common length, with the rationale on a separate page. Check whether the scenario hides a system factor, such as a tool failure or unclear policy, and address it before the employee's part. Write expectations as behavior someone could observe. State what the memo is and is not, and what would follow if performance does not improve.
How the HI 550 Unit 6 example is put together
The memo carries a standard header with the date of the conversation it records and a copy only to the employee file. The first section states the standard, the sample size and the result. A short list sorts the errors by record type, and the highlighted line notes that accuracy outside radiology met the standard. The department's share comes next: the edit was off for seven weeks of the quarter, six errors fall in that window, and they are removed from the count. The employee's share follows, five missed component codes after the edit returned. Three numbered actions begin with the next shift. Support, the re-audit date and a closing statement on what the memo is round out the document. The rationale then explains the order through opportunity, capacity and willingness, and keeps feedback on the task, citing Kluger and DeNisi.
HI550 Unit 6 rubric: what earns full points
Performance memos in this course are commonly graded on fairness and accuracy, clarity of expectations, support and follow-up, application of course concepts and professional writing. Fairness and accuracy often carry the most points: the memo must state facts correctly and account for anything outside the employee's control. Expectations score when an auditor could watch them happen. Support and a follow-up date each earn credit, since a memo without them reads as a warning rather than a plan. The rationale is assessed on whether it explains choices in the memo, not on how many theories it names. Tone, format and APA citations in the rationale complete the rubric. Memos that blame the employee for a system failure, or that use vague words such as careless, lose significant points.
HI550 Unit 6 help: mistakes that cost points
A common reason these memos are returned is that they skip the system factor the scenario includes. Another is writing expectations as attitudes, such as be more careful, instead of actions. Some memos omit the sample size, which makes the accuracy figure hard to judge. Others mix discipline with coaching and confuse the employee about what the document means. Arithmetic mistakes in accuracy figures undermine the whole memo, so recompute them. Keep theory out of the memo itself and put it in the rationale. If your scenario involves a different role, such as a release specialist or a scanning technician, send the facts and the prompt, and a memo and rationale can be written to fit.
Get an HI550 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
If the employee scenario includes audit figures, pass them along; if it does not, the memo will say what evidence it rests on. Add the memo format your section expects and the rubric. The first sample is free and due inside 24-48h; in it, the employee's share of the gap is separated from the department's before any action is set. 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 5: Change Readiness Analysis
- HI550 Unit 7: Team Development Proposal
- HI550 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- HI550 Unit 9: Communication Plan
- HI550 Unit 10: Change Management Plan
- HI545 Unit 6: Corrective Action Plan
- HI540 Unit 6: Resource and Budget Plan
- HI530 Unit 6: Data Dictionary Excerpt
- HI520 Unit 6: Multi-Table Join Query
HI550 Unit 6 questions, answered
Should a performance memo cite management theory?
The memo itself usually should not; an employee reading a note about her accuracy does not need a citation. Many HI550 prompts ask for a short rationale alongside it, and that is where theory belongs. The example appends a paragraph explaining why opportunity was examined before capacity, citing the source there and leaving the memo in plain workplace language.
What if the scenario gives no hint that the system contributed?
Ask the question anyway and record the answer, even if the answer is that nothing external played a part. A memo stating that tools, workload and instructions were checked and found adequate is more defensible than one that never mentions them. The example happens to find a real contribution, but the check matters whether or not it finds one.
Can the memo be written about my own employee?
Only as a de-identified composite, and generally not with real audit results from your workplace. Performance documentation is confidential personnel information, and a course paper is the wrong place for it. Build a scenario that reflects the kind of problem you manage, change identifying details, and state in the rationale that the case is illustrative.
Where can I find a free HI550 Unit 6 sample paper?
The full Unit 6 memo and its course rationale are on this page, separating a disabled encoder edit from the coder's own five errors.
Should the memo mention that the department made a mistake?
Yes. Naming the system factor and removing its effect before assigning the employee's share is what makes the memo fair and accurate, and graders usually look for it.