| Course | HI580 Information Systems Design and Implementation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Proposed workflow design |
| Length | About 900 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 HI580 Unit 5
Where the Retyping Went: A Unit 5 Proposed Workflow Design Drawn Beside the Current Map and Counted by Role
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HI580: Information Systems Design and Implementation
Unit 5 Proposed Workflow Design
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Brackenridge Medical Center, its unit, staff and every minute are composite; the sources cited are real.
Two Maps, One Legend
The current map from Unit 3 sits on the left and the proposed map on the right, in identical notation: six lanes, the same step shapes, decision diamonds with conditions on the arrows, and workarounds in their own numbered shape. A legend shared by both explains every symbol, following the advice that maps used for improvement should make comparison easy rather than impressive (Antonacci et al., 2018). The proposed design assumes the system selected in Unit 4, a specialist surveillance system interfaced to the record, with a workstation in every labor room.
The Proposed Path
1. Registration at triage now feeds the surveillance system directly, so the room display carries the correct name from the first minute.
2. Once the monitors are on, the same tracing shows in the room and at the central desk simultaneously.
3. The provider's triage evaluation and the admit-or-discharge choice stay exactly as they are today.
4. Admission status and the room assignment now happen on the unit board instead of by phone.
5. The admission assessment is typed in the room rather than written on paper.
6. At each half-hourly review during active labor, the interpretation goes straight into the room workstation, choosing the tracing category and marking the segment it describes. The entry flows to the central display and the record in one step, stamped by the shared clock.
7. The epidural decision is unchanged, but anesthesia's dosing entries now share the tracing's timeline.
8. Second stage: pushing documented at the bedside as it happens.
9. Mode of delivery is decided as before.
10. Delivery: the delivering nurse creates the newborn record with a quick registration screen; birth time comes from the shared clock.
11. Recovery and transfer: unchanged except that no paper goes to scanning.
Each Workaround and Its Replacement
1. Bedside paper worksheet, retired: replaced by room workstations, because the need was to chart where the nurse is.
2. Hourly batch typing, retired: replaced by single entry at the bedside.
3. Sticky-note tabs on strips, retired: replaced by marked tracing segments that the next nurse opens at handoff, because handoff still needs a pointer.
4. Wall clock for birth time, retired: replaced by the shared clock across monitors, display and record.
5. Clerk-created newborn record by phone, retired: replaced by delivering nurse registration.
6. Charge nurse's notebook, retired: replaced by a board column showing minutes since each room's last interpretation.
7. Printed record pages on nights, retired: replaced by room workstations.
No workaround is simply deleted; each is retired only when a feature meets the need that created it.
Decision Points
All three clinical decision points from the current map, admit or send home, epidural, and delivery mode, are preserved unchanged, because the design changes documentation, not clinical judgment. One process decision is retired: in the current map, the nurse decided when to leave the room to type; that decision no longer exists.
The Tally by Role
Minutes per twelve-hour shift, estimated from the Unit 3 time observations and the vendor's demonstration timings:
1. Labor nurse: loses about 40 minutes of re-entry; gains about 6 minutes of newborn registration per delivery and about 4 minutes of segment marking at handoff. Net saving roughly 30 minutes per shift with one active patient.
2. Unit clerk: loses about 15 minutes of newborn record creation and phone calls; gains about 5 minutes of identity checks on the board. Net saving roughly 10 minutes.
3. Charge nurse: loses the notebook tracking, about 10 minutes; gains about 5 minutes reviewing the board's timeliness column. Net saving roughly 5 minutes.
4. Obstetric provider: no change in time; gains access to current interpretations from the room.
5. Health information management: loses scanning of paper worksheets, about 2 hours a day across the unit.
The clerk's role shrinks most in proportion, and the paper says so. Newborn registration moves to the nurse because the nurse is present at the birth and the clerk is not, which removes the main cause of late and mismatched newborn records.
Why Count the Trade
Redesign proposals often list benefits and leave out the work they add. Workflow research warns that new systems redistribute work among roles in ways that are easy to miss until go-live, when staff discover tasks no one told them about (Unertl et al., 2010). Stating the nurse's new tasks openly lets the unit plan training and staffing for them, and it gives the post-implementation evaluation something specific to check.
Risks in the Design
Two risks follow from the changes. First, newborn registration by the delivering nurse happens at the busiest moment of a birth, so the registration screen must take under a minute, a fit criterion carried from REQ-19. Second, single entry means the record depends on the interface; if it fails, entries must queue and post with original times, which the interface specification must define. A sociotechnical view expects that changes to technology shift risks to other parts of the system (Sittig & Singh, 2010), and these two shifts are named so they can be tested.
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
Sittig, D. F., & Singh, H. (2010). A new sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19(Suppl 3), i68-i74. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2010.042085
Unertl, K. M., Novak, L. L., Johnson, K. B., & Lorenzi, N. M. (2010). Traversing the many paths of workflow research: Developing a conceptual framework of workflow terminology through a systematic literature review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 17(3), 265-273. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2010.004333
The Purdue Global HI580 Unit 5 instructions
The fifth unit commonly asks for a proposed workflow that shows how a new system will change work, compared with the current state. Expect current and future maps in the same notation, a walk-through of changes, an account of what happens to each workaround and decision point, and an analysis of how work shifts between roles. Facing diagrams with explanation is a common format. Use identical notation so the comparison is easy. Retire a workaround only when a feature meets the need it served. Preserve or explicitly retire each decision point. Count the work each role gains and loses, and be honest when a role takes on new tasks. Name any new risks the design creates so they can be tested.
How this HI580 Unit 5 example is built
The design opens with both maps and a shared legend, citing guidance on maps built for comparison. Eleven proposed steps follow, with bedside interpretation entry flowing to the record in one step and newborn registration by the delivering nurse. Seven numbered workarounds are each matched to a replacement, and the highlighted sentence explains that none is simply deleted. A section confirms that all three clinical decision points remain and one process decision disappears. The role tally gives minutes gained and lost for nurse, clerk, charge nurse, provider and health information management. A section explains why counting the trade matters, citing workflow research, and the design closes with two new risks drawn from a sociotechnical view.
Where the points sit in the HI580 Unit 5 rubric
Proposed workflow designs are commonly scored on clarity of comparison, justification of changes, handling of workarounds and decision points, analysis of role impact and attention to new risks. Handling of workarounds and role impact usually carry the most points, rewarded when each removed workaround is matched to a feature and when added work is stated openly. Clarity earns credit for identical notation and a shared legend. Justification is judged on whether each change ties back to a requirement or current-state problem. Naming risks the design creates shows maturity and feeds the test plan. Correct citations complete the rubric. Designs that present only benefits, or delete workarounds without addressing their needs, lose points. Graders also look for decision points that are preserved or retired on purpose rather than lost in the redraw.
HI580 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
The most frequent weakness here is a future map drawn in different notation from the current one, which makes comparison hard. Another is listing benefits while hiding new tasks for some roles. Some students remove workarounds without explaining what now meets the need. Decision points sometimes vanish from the future map without comment. New risks created by the design are often overlooked, though they are exactly what the test plan should target first. If your redesign covers a different process, perhaps discharge or medication reconciliation, bring your current-state map and we will draw the future state beside it in matching notation.
Get an HI580 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Bring the current-state map you drew before, or whichever map came with the assignment, along with the Unit 5 instructions and rubric. A custom proposed design will redraw it in the same notation and count, role by role, where the work lands. Your first sample is free, within 24-48h. 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 HI580 papers and MS in Health Informatics samples
- HI580 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- HI580 Unit 2: Stakeholder Requirements List
- HI580 Unit 3: Current Workflow Map
- HI580 Unit 4: System Selection Matrix
- HI580 Unit 6: Interface Specification
- HI580 Unit 7: Test Plan
- HI580 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- HI580 Unit 9: Go-Live Plan
- HI580 Unit 10: Post-Implementation Evaluation
- HI575 Unit 5: Access Control Policy
- HI501 Unit 5: Usability Walkthrough
- HI570 Unit 5: Ethical Dilemma Analysis
- HI510 Unit 5: Resident Assessment Exercise
HI580 Unit 5 questions, answered
Does the proposed workflow have to use the same notation as the current one?
Nearly always, because comparison is the purpose. The example uses identical lanes, shapes and legend on facing pages so a reader sees each change directly. Switching notation between the two diagrams forces the grader to translate, and changes that should be obvious become arguable. If your course prescribes a notation, use it for both.
What if the new design adds work for some staff?
Say so and quantify it, because it almost always does. The example records the delivering nurse gaining newborn registration while losing hourly re-entry, and states the net estimate. Graders tend to trust a design that admits costs, and the admission becomes useful input for training and staffing decisions later in the course.
How detailed should the role tally be?
Fine-grained enough to reveal direction and rough size: steps added or removed, handoffs changed and estimated minutes per shift. The example brackets minutes because only a time study could confirm them. Precision beyond what the evidence supports adds nothing, while a tally missing entirely leaves the design's cost invisible to whoever approves it.
Where can I find a free HI580 Unit 5 sample paper?
The complete Unit 5 design is on this page, with matching current and proposed maps, retired workarounds and a role-by-role tally.
Should a proposed workflow show added work for some staff?
Yes. Stating which roles gain tasks lets the unit plan training and staffing, and it gives the later evaluation something specific to check.