HI595 Unit 5 Stakeholder and Approval Plan Example

Course	HI595 Master's Capstone in Health Informatics
Unit	Unit 5
Paper type	Stakeholder and approval plan
Length	About 1,000 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 HI595 Unit 5

Nine Sign-Offs in Order: A Unit 5 Capstone Stakeholder and Approval Plan Built Around Dependencies and Refusal Paths

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

HI595: Master's Capstone in Health Informatics

Unit 5 Stakeholder and Approval Plan

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Carrowby Health, its roles, committees and every date are composite; the sources cited are real.

What this part is doingPutting the quality improvement determination first, before any data are touched, shows the reader that the plan's order is set by what each step depends on.

Stakeholder Grid

Twelve roles, each with what changes in their day, what they gain or lose, and what the project needs from them.

1. MRI safety officer: no change in duties; gains structured information before scans. Needed: clinical review of every draft. Must approve.

2. MRI technologists: fewer phone calls on the day; must read a new worklist column. Needed: two interviews. Informed.

3. Screening nurses: gain a worklist; take on verification of outside implants. Needed: requirements and tabletop testing. Must approve the worklist design.

4. Supervising radiologists: no change in authority; see verified labeling in one place. Needed: review of exception rules. Informed.

5. Operating room materials manager: the supply log becomes a source for the record. Needed: data mapping. Must approve data use.

6. Surgeons and cardiologists who implant devices: no new task; operative documentation unchanged. Needed: briefing. Informed.

7. Health information management director: owns completeness of the implant entry. Gains a defined task. Must approve.

8. Imaging informatics manager: would configure the specification. Needed: feasibility review. Must approve feasibility.

9. Privacy officer: reviews data access for the audit. Must approve.

10. Patient advisory council representative: reviews the letter and card. Needed: one review. Informed.

11. Vice president of imaging services, project sponsor: charter and final acceptance. Must approve.

12. Course instructor: site and project approval for the capstone. Must approve.

Separating approvers from those who only need to know matters because the two groups need different communication. Surgeons and cardiologists sign nothing and gain no task, yet patients will ask them about the new card, so they are briefed twice: once at the start and once before the card is used.

Approval Sequence

Each step lists its dependency.

1. A written finding from the human research protections office that the project is improvement work. Depends on nothing; comes first because no records may be reviewed until the project is confirmed as improvement work rather than research.

2. Course instructor site approval. Depends on step 1, since the instructor requires the determination letter.

3. Sponsor charter signature. Depends on step 2.

4. Privacy officer approval of data access for the baseline audit. Depends on step 3, because access requests must name an approved project and sponsor.

5. Operating room materials manager approval to use the supply log. Depends on step 4.

6. Health information management director agreement to own entry completeness. Depends on step 3.

7. MRI safety committee review of the draft specification. Depends on steps 5 and 6, since the draft must show data sources and ownership.

8. Imaging informatics feasibility confirmation. Depends on step 7; informatics will not estimate a design the safety committee has not seen.

9. Sponsor acceptance of version 1.0. Depends on step 8.

No record is opened until step 4, and no draft goes to the safety committee until both the data source and the owner have agreed in writing.

What this part is doingWriting a dependency beside every step explains the order instead of asking the reader to trust it.

Refusal Paths

Each approval can be refused, and the plan says what happens.

1. If the determination office classifies the work as research, the project pauses for a full review application and the audit shrinks to fit the remaining weeks.

2. If the privacy officer limits data access, the audit uses the MRI department's delay log and screening forms only, which hold fewer fields but no full charts.

3. If the materials manager declines to share the supply log, the specification will treat manual entry from the operative note as the primary source, a weaker design that the report will name as such.

4. If the health information management director declines ownership, the specification will assign completeness to the MRI safety officer, with a note that this concentrates work in one person.

5. If the safety committee requests changes, the draft returns for revision with a one-week turnaround.

6. If informatics finds a component infeasible, that component is redesigned or marked for a later phase.

Communication

Approvers receive a one-page brief and the relevant draft section. Those who need only to know receive a short update at the start and at version 1.0. An approval log keeps each sign-off, who gave it, when, and on what conditions.

What this part is doingPlanning for refusal at every step shows the grader that the schedule survives a no, which is what makes an approval plan realistic.

Timing Against the Term

Steps 1 to 4 must finish by week 5 so that the audit can run in weeks 6 to 8. Steps 5 and 6 can run in parallel during weeks 5 and 6. The safety committee meets in week 10, which sets the deadline for the draft at week 9. Informatics has agreed to a two-week turnaround, placing step 8 in weeks 11 and 12, and sponsor acceptance in week 14. If any step slips by more than a week, the refusal path for that step is used rather than waiting, because waiting would squeeze the tabletop test, which the methodology treats as essential.

Why the Safety Committee Comes Late

It may seem odd that the committee responsible for MRI safety reviews the work seventh. The reason is that it can only judge a draft that shows where data come from and who keeps them current; reviewing an idea without those answers would waste a meeting. Radiology guidance places screening decisions with the committee and supervising radiologists (Harwood et al., 2024), so the project brings them a complete draft rather than a concept.

Why This Order

Projects that skip the determination step risk having data reviewed without the right approval, which can invalidate the work. Improvement reporting guidance asks projects to state how ethical review was handled (Ogrinc et al., 2016). Implementation research also finds that early involvement of the people whose work will change improves adoption (Cresswell & Sheikh, 2013), which is why screening nurses approve the worklist design rather than receiving it.

References

Cresswell, K., & Sheikh, A. (2013). Organizational issues in the implementation and adoption of health information technology innovations: An interpretative review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 82(5), e73-e86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.10.007

Harwood, M., Fahrenholtz, S. J., Wellnitz, C. V., Kawashima, A., & Panda, A. (2024). MRI in adult patients with active and inactive implanted MR-conditional, MR-nonconditional, and other devices. RadioGraphics, 44(3), e230102. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.230102

Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2016). SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(12), 986-992. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411

HI595 Unit 5 instructions, in plain terms

The fifth unit typically asks you to identify stakeholders and plan the approvals your capstone requires. Expect a stakeholder grid, an ordered approval sequence with dependencies, contingency plans for refusal and a communication approach. Five pages built around two tables is common. Distinguish people who must approve from people who need only to be informed, and say what changes for each. Put any determination about research versus quality improvement first, before data are touched. Give every approval a dependency so the order is justified. Plan what happens if each approver says no. Fit the sequence against the term's calendar, noting fixed meeting dates such as committees.

How the HI 595 Unit 5 example is put together

The grid lists twelve roles from the MRI safety officer to the course instructor, each with what changes, what they gain or lose, what the project needs and whether they approve. A paragraph explains why surgeons are briefed twice. Nine numbered approval steps follow, each with its dependency, and the highlighted sentence notes that no record is opened before privacy approval. Six refusal paths say what happens if each approver declines. A communication section and an approval log come next. A timing section maps the steps to weeks, and a section explains why the safety committee sees a complete draft late. A closing section cites improvement reporting guidance and implementation research.

Reading the HI595 Unit 5 grading rubric

Stakeholder and approval plans are usually graded on completeness of the stakeholder analysis, logic of the approval sequence, contingency planning, feasibility within the term and clarity. The logic of the sequence and the refusal paths often weigh most, since an approval plan that cannot survive a no is not a plan. Completeness earns credit when support roles such as privacy and informatics appear alongside clinicians. Distinguishing approvers from informed parties is commonly rewarded. Feasibility is judged against fixed dates in the term. Grids and numbered sequences should be easy to scan. Plans that list stakeholders without saying what each must do, or that open data before ethics review, lose points.

HI595 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points

The most common shortfall in this plan is a stakeholder list with no indication of who approves what. Another is an approval order with no stated dependencies, which looks arbitrary. Some students skip the research or quality improvement determination, or place it after data collection. Refusal paths are frequently missing. Committee meeting dates are often ignored, leaving a draft with no review slot. People who gain new tasks may be informed rather than asked to approve the design. With a different capstone, perhaps in a clinic network or a payer, name the committees and owners involved and we will order the sign-offs around their calendars. A plan that gives the sponsor no date for each sign-off is hard to manage.

Get an HI595 Unit 5 example written to your instructions

Who at your site would have to say yes before anything changes? Even a partial list of those roles helps, alongside the Unit 5 prompt and rubric. We draft the first sample free, sequenced for your setting, inside a 24-48h window. The approvals themselves stay yours to request and record. 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 HI595 papers and MS in Health Informatics samples

HI595 Unit 5 questions, answered

Do I need a quality improvement determination for a capstone?

Many organizations require one before any chart review, even for projects that will never be published, and some programs ask for evidence of it. Where your site has such a process, the plan should place it first. The determination, like every approval in the example, is something the student requests and documents personally; no sample can supply it.

What if a stakeholder refuses?

The plan should already say what happens. The example gives each approval a fallback that keeps the project finishable: an optional field instead of a required one, a different route for referrals. Instructors tend to read a plan without fallbacks as one that assumes every answer will be yes, which is rarely how a real organization behaves.

Should I use a RACI chart?

It can help, and many plans include one. A responsibility matrix shows who approves, consults and is informed, which covers much of what this unit asks. It does not show order, though, so the example pairs its grid with a numbered sequence. If your rubric names a specific format, follow it and add the sequence alongside.

Where can I find a free HI595 Unit 5 sample paper?

This page holds the whole Unit 5 plan, with a twelve-role grid, nine ordered approvals and a refusal path for each.

Why does the quality improvement determination come before data access?

Because records should not be reviewed until the project is confirmed as improvement work rather than research, which determines what other review the data use requires.