| Course | HS290 Associate's Capstone in Health Science |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Professionalism case |
| Length | About 880 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Associate of Applied Science in Health Science |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HS290 Unit 8
Kindness That Asks for a Shortcut: A Unit 8 Professionalism Case on Declining a Coworker's Login on the First Day
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HS290: Associate's Capstone in Health Science
Unit 8 Professionalism Case
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The imaging center, coworkers and events are composite; the federal security rule and the research on access workarounds cited are real.
The Situation
It is 6:50 a.m. on my first day at the front desk of the imaging center where I was hired from the Unit 1 posting. Orientation finished on Friday. My user account was requested two weeks ago, but when I try to sign in, the registration system says the account does not exist. The help desk ticket says access will be active "within one business day."
Seven patients are already in the waiting area for 7:00 and 7:15 appointments. The access lead, my supervisor on site, is covering another location until 10:00. Renee, a representative with eleven years at the center, has been warm and welcoming all morning. She sees my screen, laughs and says, "Happens every time. Just use my login until they fix it. I'll write it down for you. Nobody minds, and we need you on that second window."
Every pressure points the same way. Patients are waiting. Renee is being generous, not careless. The lead is away. I want to fit in on day one, and refusing feels like accusing a kind person of doing something wrong.
Why Accepting Feels Professional
Accepting would look like teamwork. It would shorten the queue, take pressure off Renee and show that I can adapt. In many workplaces, including the hotel where I worked, sharing a login to a reservation system on a busy morning was ordinary. Research on clinicians' use of computer systems finds that workarounds to access controls, including shared passwords, are common in health care, usually adopted by well-meaning staff trying to get care delivered when the system gets in the way (Koppel et al., 2015). Renee's offer is that kind of workaround.
Why It Is Not
The federal Security Rule requires covered entities to assign each workforce member a unique name or number for identifying and tracking user identity (Technical safeguards, 2024). That requirement exists for the audit trail. Every record opened, every insurance policy entered and every demographic change made under Renee's login would be recorded as Renee's work.
If I made an error that morning, the record would say Renee made it; if someone looked at a record they should not have, the record would say Renee looked.
The center's own access policy, which I signed during orientation, says the same thing in plainer words: never share credentials and never use another person's. The rule also supports workforce security more broadly, because an organization cannot confirm that only authorized people use its systems if people use each other's accounts (Administrative safeguards, 2024).
Who Is Exposed
Patients are exposed, because the audit trail that protects their privacy would be false for that morning. If a record were later questioned, no one could say who truly accessed it.
Renee is exposed. Every action I took would carry her name, and a policy violation would be hers as well as mine.
I am exposed. Starting a job by breaking a signed policy, on a system that logs every action, is a poor first day if anyone reviews it, and access audits do happen.
What I Did
I declined warmly, and I said why without lecturing. The words I used were close to these: "That's really kind, and I wish I could. They had us sign the access policy Friday, and I'd hate to have anything I do this morning land on your name. Can I take the waiting room so you can move faster?"
Then I looked for work that did not need system access. I greeted each arriving patient, confirmed their appointment time from the printed schedule and checked their paper forms for missing signatures and insurance cards before they reached Renee's window. That cut a little time from each of her registrations.
At 7:05 I sent the access lead a short message: "Good morning. My registration access isn't active yet; help desk ticket [number] says one business day. I'm helping Renee by greeting and checking forms. Is there anything else you'd like me to do until access is fixed?" The lead called the help desk, and my account was working by 9:40.
What Declining Cost
The choice was not free. The queue moved more slowly than it would have with two people registering, and two patients waited about ten minutes longer than they should have. Renee was a little stiff for the first hour; I think she felt I had refused a favor. I felt awkward and worried that I had started off as the new person who quotes policy.
By lunch, Renee had said, "You're right, I shouldn't have offered. I'd forgotten that our names are on everything." That relief came only because I had declined in a way that protected her rather than criticized her.
The Principle
Kindness that asks for a shortcut is still a shortcut. A professional declines it the way it was offered, warmly, and finds another way to help.
References
Administrative safeguards, 45 C.F.R. § 164.308 (2024).
Koppel, R., Smith, S., Blythe, J., & Kothari, V. (2015). Workarounds to computer access in healthcare organizations: You want my password or a dead patient? Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 208, 215-220. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-488-6-215
Technical safeguards, 45 C.F.R. § 164.312 (2024).
What the HS290 Unit 8 assignment asks for
The eighth unit typically presents a professionalism dilemma and asks how you would respond and why. The finished case usually fills three or four pages. Instructors look for a situation described with all its pressures, so the right answer is not artificially easy, and an analysis that names the standards at stake, such as federal security rules and employer policy. Many prompts reward identifying everyone affected, not only the writer. A response described step by step, including actual words, shows the decision can be carried out. An honest account of what the right choice costs strengthens credibility. Citing the regulation and research on workplace behavior where relevant supports the reasoning, and a closing principle stated in one line helps a reader remember it.
How the HS 290 Unit 8 example is put together
The case opens at 6:50 a.m. with the failed sign-in, the help desk ticket and the patients waiting, then describes Renee's offer and why refusing feels like an accusation. A section explains why accepting feels professional, citing research on workarounds to access controls. The next section cites the Security Rule's unique identifier requirement, and the highlighted sentence shows how errors and improper access would be recorded under Renee's name. Patients, Renee and the writer are each listed as exposed. The response gives the exact words used, the tasks taken on without system access and the message sent to the access lead. A cost section admits the slower queue and the awkward hour before the principle closes the case.
HS290 Unit 8 rubric: what earns full points
Professionalism cases are marked on how fully the situation's pressures are presented, accuracy of the standards cited, analysis of who is affected, practicality of the response and honesty about its cost. Accuracy of standards and quality of reasoning usually count most, since a correct decision supported by the wrong rule shows weak understanding. Presenting pressures fully earns credit because it makes the decision meaningful. Identifying everyone affected shows broader thinking. A response with actual words and steps proves it can be done. An honest cost section adds credibility. Citations of the regulation and employer policy, plus clear organization from situation to principle, also count. Cases that moralize without explaining consequences tend to score lower.
HS290 Unit 8 help: mistakes that cost points
A frequent weakness is presenting the coworker as careless, which makes declining too easy and the case too thin. Another is citing privacy rules generally without the specific unique identifier requirement that governs logins. Some students recommend reporting the coworker immediately, which is usually disproportionate for a first, well-meant offer. Others describe declining but not what they did next, leaving patients waiting and the lead uninformed. Pretending the right choice cost nothing reduces credibility. If your case involves a different dilemma, perhaps a friend asking about a patient, a request to backdate a form or a gift from a patient, send it, and we will build the case around the standards that actually govern it.
Get an HS290 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Forward the case as your section framed it and the Unit 8 instructions with the rubric; mention the job setting if the prompt leaves it open. The free first analysis of the case is ready in 24-48h, treating the tempting option fairly before refusing it, with the words the response would actually use written out. 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 HS290 papers and Associate of Applied Science in Health Science samples
- HS290 Unit 1: Patient Access Role Discussion Post
- HS290 Unit 2: Patient Access Skills Self-Assessment
- HS290 Unit 3: Patient Access Career Pathway Plan
- HS290 Unit 4: Imaging Front Desk Scenario Analysis
- HS290 Unit 5: Hotel to Patient Access Resume Draft
- HS290 Unit 6: Imaging Center Cover Letter
- HS290 Unit 7: Interview Mistake Question Reflection
- HS290 Unit 9: Portfolio Assembly
- HS290 Unit 10: Capstone Summary Paper
- HS230 Unit 8: Clinical Lab Accreditation Review
- HS215 Unit 8: Newborn Coverage Denial Memo
- HS200 Unit 8: Kidney Stone Diagnostic Test Rationale
- HS140 Unit 8: Hydroxychloroquine Monitoring Plan
HS290 Unit 8 questions, answered
Should I report a coworker in a professionalism case?
Proportion matters. A first, well-meant offer to share a login calls for declining and raising the underlying problem, the access delay, with the lead. Repeated or deliberate violations are different and may need reporting under the employer's policy. The sample explains why its response starts small, and names the point at which escalation would become necessary.
How do I make the right answer sound less obvious?
Give the wrong answer its best case first. Describe why a sensible person would accept, the patients waiting, the wish to fit in, the coworker's good intentions, before explaining what it would actually cause. Graders in many sections reward this, because professionalism is tested in situations where the right choice feels awkward, not in ones where it is easy.
Which standards should a health care professionalism case cite?
The ones that actually govern the situation. For access and records, the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and the employer's own policies are the usual sources; for conduct, a professional association's code where one applies to the role. Cite specifically, a section or a named requirement, rather than gesturing at laws in general. The sample cites the unique user identification requirement by name.
Where can I find a free HS290 Unit 8 sample paper?
This page contains the complete Unit 8 professionalism case on declining a coworker's login during a first-day access delay.
Why can't health care workers share logins?
The Security Rule requires each user to have a unique identifier so every action can be traced. A shared login makes the record show the wrong person and defeats the audit trail.