HI555 Unit 3 Front-End Process Map Example

Course	HI555 Revenue Cycle Management
Unit	Unit 3
Paper type	Front-end process map
Length	About 1,120 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 HI555 Unit 3

The Handoff With No Way Back: A Unit 3 Front-End Process Map of Scheduled Outpatient Surgery Across Four Lanes

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

HI555: Revenue Cycle Management

Unit 3 Front-End Process Map

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Bellcourt Health, its two hospitals, the sample and every rate are composite; the sources cited are real.

What this part is doingAnnotating handoffs rather than steps puts attention where information actually drops out, at the points where work changes hands.

Scope and Method

The map covers scheduled outpatient surgery at Bellcourt Health's two hospitals, the main campus and the smaller north hospital, from the moment a surgeon's office requests a case to the pre-admission registration call two days before surgery. It was drawn as the process runs, not as the scheduling policy describes it. Evidence came from observation of six scheduling sessions across both hospitals, work queue time stamps for 210 consecutive cases over four weeks, and interviews with the lead of each lane. Process mapping earns its place in improvement work when it is drawn alongside the staff who perform each step, instead of being assembled from policies at a desk (Antonacci et al., 2018).

The Map

Lane A, surgeon's office: 1. Surgeon decides on surgery. 2. Office completes the surgical booking request. 3. Office sends the request to surgical scheduling. (Handoff A, request to scheduling.)

Lane B, surgical scheduling: 4. Scheduler receives the request. 5. Scheduler checks surgeon block time and room. 6. Scheduler assigns date, hospital and room. 7. Scheduler creates the case in the scheduling system. 8. Case drops to the authorization work queue. (Handoff B, scheduling to authorization.)

Lane C, authorization team: 9. Specialist checks whether the payer requires authorization for the procedure code and site. 10. Specialist gathers clinical notes from the surgeon's office. (Handoff C, a request back to the office for notes.) 11. Specialist submits the request through the payer portal. (Handoff D, to the payer.) 12. Payer returns approval, denial or a request for more information. (Handoff E, from the payer.) 13. Specialist records the authorization number, the approved procedure, site and date window. 14. Specialist marks the case cleared. (Handoff F, authorization to registration.)

Lane D, pre-admission registration: 15. Registrar calls the patient two days before surgery. 16. Registrar confirms demographics and insurance. 17. Registrar checks that authorization is recorded. 18. Registrar estimates the patient's share. 19. Registrar flags any missing item to scheduling.

The moved case: 20. Surgeon's office or patient asks to change date, hospital or procedure. (Handoff G, request to scheduling.) 21. Scheduler moves the case in the scheduling system. 22. Case returns to pre-admission registration on its new date. (Handoff H, scheduling to registration.) 23. Registrar sees an authorization number and treats the case as cleared. (Handoff I, registration to the operating room schedule.)

Where the two hospitals differ, the north hospital's scheduler also performs step 9 for orthopedic cases, a branch shown on the drawn map as a dashed line.

The Handoffs Annotated

1. Handoff A, office to scheduling. Fields: patient, procedure, diagnosis, surgeon, requested hospital, insurance. Channel: fax at the north hospital, the electronic booking form at the main campus. Incomplete: 18 percent of faxed requests lack a diagnosis, against 4 percent of electronic ones. Consequence: authorization cannot start without a diagnosis.

2. Handoff B, scheduling to authorization. Fields: the same plus date and hospital. Channel: work queue. Incomplete: 3 percent. Consequence: minor.

3. Handoff C, authorization to office for notes. Channel: phone and fax. Incomplete on first response: 27 percent. Consequence: the largest source of authorization delay.

4. Handoff D, to the payer portal. Incomplete: 2 percent.

5. Handoff E, from the payer. Requests for more information: 11 percent of submissions.

6. Handoff F, authorization to registration. Fields: authorization number, approved procedure, site and window. Channel: case status in the scheduling system. Incomplete: under 1 percent.

7. Handoff G, change request to scheduling. Channel: phone. No form; scheduler notes vary.

8. Handoff H, moved case to registration. Fields that cross: the case on its new date. Fields that do not: any signal that the case moved. Channel: work queue.

9. Handoff I, registration to the operating room schedule. Channel: case status.

Handoff H is the finding: when a case moves, the scheduling system sends it forward to registration and never back to authorization, so an approval granted for one hospital and one window travels unchanged to another.

What this part is doingNaming one handoff as the finding, rather than presenting all nine as equal, is what turns the map into an argument the later units can build on.

Why the Moved Case Matters

Payers usually approve a procedure for a specific site of service and a date window, often thirty to sixty days. A case moved from the main campus to the north hospital, or from one month to the next, may fall outside the approval. The scheduling system has no field that records where and when the authorization applies, so the registrar at step 23 sees only that a number exists. Medicare's own prior authorization process for certain hospital outpatient procedures likewise ties the request to the specific service a hospital provides (42 C.F.R. § 419.82, 2024), and commercial and Medicare Advantage plans commonly add site restrictions of their own. Authorization requirements now reach a wide range of outpatient procedures, which makes any gap in re-verification more costly than it once was (Schwartz et al., 2021).

In the four-week sample, 38 of 210 cases moved at least once, and 9 of those moved to a different hospital or outside their authorized window. Scaled to a month, the two hospitals move about 40 cases a month, of which roughly 10 leave their authorization behind.

The North Hospital Variant

The dashed branch deserves a sentence. Because the north hospital's scheduler checks authorization needs for orthopedic cases at step 9, she sometimes notices moved cases herself. That informal check explains why the north hospital's moved cases show fewer problems, and it is a person, not a process.

What this part is doingExplaining why the variant performs better, and that it depends on one person, warns the reader not to copy it as a solution.

How Reliable the Rates Are

The incomplete rates rest on four weeks and 210 cases, enough to rank the handoffs but not to state any single rate precisely. Handoff A's fax figure is the firmest, since 64 of the cases arrived by fax and 12 lacked a diagnosis. Handoff C's 27 percent comes from the authorization team's own notes, which record a second request to a surgeon's office only when someone remembers to write it down, so the true rate may be higher. Moved cases were identified from the scheduling system's change log, which records every date or hospital change, and are the most reliable count on the map.

Open Questions Passed to Later Units

Identifying the path and its size is as far as this unit goes; a fix comes later. Later units take that up. For now, three facts are established: information loss is concentrated at handoffs A and C, the moved-case path bypasses authorization entirely, and roughly ten cases a month take it.

References

Antonacci, G., Reed, J. E., Lennox, L., & Barlow, J. (2018). The use of process mapping in healthcare quality improvement projects. Health Services Management Research, 31(2), 74-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951484818770411

42 C.F.R. § 419.82 (2024). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-IV/subchapter-B/part-419/subpart-I/section-419.82

Schwartz, A. L., Brennan, T. A., Verbrugge, D. J., & Newhouse, J. P. (2021). Measuring the scope of prior authorization policies: Applying private insurer rules to Medicare Part B. JAMA Health Forum, 2(5), e210859. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.0859

The Purdue Global HI555 Unit 3 instructions

In the third unit you are commonly asked to map a front-end revenue cycle process and analyze where it fails. Expect a swimlane diagram with numbered steps, followed by annotation, and a short methods statement explaining how the map was built. Many prompts specify a service line, such as imaging or surgery, or let you choose one. Two pages of diagram and several pages of annotation is a typical scope. Map the process as it actually runs, using observation and work queue data, not as policy describes it. Focus your annotation on handoffs between lanes, where information most often drops out. Include external parties such as the payer only as outside boxes. End with the finding that matters most, even if the fix belongs to a later unit.

How this HI555 Unit 3 example is built

A scope and method section describes six observed scheduling sessions, work queue time stamps for 210 cases and interviews with each lane lead. The map follows in four lanes, surgeon's office, surgical scheduling, authorization and pre-admission registration, with the moved-case path added as steps 20 to 23 and a dashed variant at the smaller hospital. Nine handoffs are then annotated with fields, channel, incomplete rate and consequence, from faxed requests missing a diagnosis to slow returns of clinical notes. The highlighted sentence names handoff H as the finding. A section explains why site and date matter to payers, citing the Medicare outpatient prior authorization rule. A short reliability section and a note on the variant come next, before the map hands its open questions to later units.

Where the points sit in the HI555 Unit 3 rubric

Process maps are generally scored on accuracy and clarity of the diagram, quality of the annotation, identification of failure points and use of evidence. Most of the credit rides on the annotation and the failure analysis: graders ask whether each handoff is described specifically and whether the paper identifies the failure that matters most. Evidence earns credit when rates and observations are tied to a stated method. The diagram is judged on standard conventions, numbered steps and legible lanes. Graders often reward honesty about where data are weakest. APA format and organization complete the rubric. Maps drawn from policy documents alone, or annotations that describe every step at equal length without a finding, tend to lose points.

HI555 Unit 3 help from the desk

The most frequent problem with this assignment is a map drawn as the process should run rather than as it does. Another is annotating steps inside lanes while saying little about handoffs. Some maps include the payer's internal steps, which cannot be observed and add guesswork. Variants between sites are often left out, which hides useful differences. Students also present rates without saying where they came from. Keep the finding separate from the fix if the course saves solutions for later. If your process is different, perhaps imaging or infusion scheduling, collect your steps, handoffs and a sample of cases with the prompt, and a map can be drafted for your setting.

Get an HI555 Unit 3 example written to your instructions

Front-end maps come out sharper when built from a real process, so a de-identified description of how orders reach scheduling where you work helps, though a course case serves equally well. Add the written assignment and grading criteria and nothing more is needed; the free first sample arrives within 24-48h with every handoff marked and annotated. 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 HI555 papers and MS in Health Informatics samples

HI555 Unit 3 questions, answered

What software should the map be drawn in?

Whatever the course accepts; common choices are diagramming tools or the drawing features in word processors. The example uses standard swimlane conventions, lanes for roles, rectangles for steps, diamonds for decisions, so any tool can reproduce it. Clarity matters more than polish: numbered steps, labeled handoffs and a legend that explains every symbol.

Should the map include the payer's steps?

Only as an external box or lane, drawn to show where the organization waits on someone it does not control. The example treats the payer portal that way. Mapping the payer's internal process is usually beyond what a provider can observe, and guessing at it adds detail without evidence behind it.

How many steps are appropriate?

Enough to show every handoff and decision, few enough to fit legibly on one or two pages. The example uses twenty-three steps. A map with eight steps usually hides the crossings where information is lost; one with sixty tends to bury them in routine detail. Group routine steps and keep every lane change visible.

Where can I find a free HI555 Unit 3 sample paper?

The full Unit 3 map and its annotation are on this page, including all nine handoffs and the moved-case path that skips authorization.

Why annotate handoffs instead of every step?

Information is lost far more often where work passes from one lane to another than inside a lane, so handoffs are where the evidence and the fixes usually sit.