| Course | HS420 Health Informatics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Informatics recommendation report |
| Length | About 1,120 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Health Science |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HS420 Unit 10
Reminders That Reach the Right Phone: A Unit 10 Informatics Recommendation Report on Recall for Overdue Childhood Vaccines
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HS420: Health Informatics
Unit 10 Informatics Recommendation Report
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Hollis Park Pediatrics, its rates, costs and targets are composite; the Cochrane review, the centralized recall trial, the data quality framework and the adoption framework cited are real.
Summary for Decision Makers
Problem: [71] percent of children turning two in the past year were up to date on the recommended series, and 18.9 percent of the clinic's reminder texts did not reach a working phone. Recommendation: run reminder and recall from the clinic's health record, using registry-reconciled vaccine histories and verified parent numbers, with a weekly worklist for families texts cannot reach. Cost: about [6] staff hours a week and [$2,400] a year in texting fees. Measures: up-to-date rate at 24 months, text delivery rate, and share of overdue children contacted within fourteen days.
Current State
The clinic sends reminder texts only for scheduled appointments. Children who are overdue and have no appointment receive nothing. The texting service draws numbers from practice management, where nearly one in five fails. The health record's list of overdue children is inaccurate because many doses given elsewhere were never entered; the registry connection, live since last quarter, has fixed most of that for children seen recently, but not for children who have not visited.
Evidence
A Cochrane synthesis of trials testing reminders and recall found that they raise vaccination uptake in children and adults alike, across telephone, letter, text and combined methods (Jacobson Vann et al., 2018). A trial in Colorado compared recall run centrally through the state registry with recall run by practices, and examined both effect and cost, finding that the approach that reaches families most reliably and cheaply depends on the setting (Kempe et al., 2017). Reminders work only if the contact data are right, which the clinic's data quality review showed is not yet the case (Wang & Strong, 1996).
Options Compared
Option 1, rely on the state registry's centralized recall. The state sends postcards to families of children who are overdue. Cost to the clinic: none. Weakness: postcards go to the address in the registry, which is often older than the clinic's, and the clinic cannot add texts or follow-up calls. Reach in the clinic's own records: unknown, since the state reports only county totals.
Option 2, clinic-run reminder and recall without data cleanup. The health record generates a monthly list of overdue children and sends texts. Cost: low. Weakness: about one text in five fails, and the overdue list still includes children whose doses were given elsewhere but never entered.
Option 3, clinic-run reminder and recall with cleanup and follow-up. Before the first send, the health record queries the registry for every child on the overdue list, accepting outside doses so that only truly overdue children remain. Numbers are confirmed at check-in using the new tablet prompt. Texts that fail go to a weekly worklist for the front desk to call. Cost: highest of the three, about [6] staff hours a week.
Option 3 costs the most staff time, but it is the only option that fixes both reasons the current reminders fail: the wrong children on the list and the wrong numbers on file.
Recommendation
Adopt Option 3. Keep the state's postcards running as a backstop for families the clinic cannot reach by phone. Assign the recall worklist to one front desk staff member each week, rotating, with the practice manager as owner.
Measures and Targets
1. Up-to-date rate at 24 months: from [71] percent to [78] percent within twelve months of launch. Source: health record report, checked quarterly against the registry.
2. Text delivery rate: from [81] percent to at least [92] percent within six months. Source: texting service delivery reports.
3. Overdue children contacted within fourteen days of becoming overdue: at least [90] percent. Source: recall worklist log.
Targets were set before launch so that the result cannot be judged against a convenient figure afterward.
Implementation
The plan follows the pattern used for the registry connection: a four-week pilot with one care team's patients, a decision point, then clinic-wide launch. Staff who call families will have a short script that offers the next available vaccine-only appointment. Frameworks for technology adoption suggest that new routines last when the people doing the extra work can see their effect (Greenhalgh et al., 2017), so the worklist will show each week how many families booked after a call.
What Families Said
Before choosing, the practice manager asked [24] parents in the waiting room over two days how they preferred to hear that a vaccine was due. Nineteen chose a text, three a phone call and two a letter. Several said they ignore texts from numbers they do not recognize, so the clinic will send from its own registered number and open each message with the clinic's name and the child's first name. Two parents said a reminder that their child was overdue felt like a scolding, which led the clinic to word recall texts as an offer of a short vaccine-only visit rather than a warning. This small check does not replace the measures below, but it shaped how the messages read before any were sent.
Alternatives Considered and Set Aside
Two further ideas were raised and set aside. Walk-in vaccine hours on Saturday mornings would help working parents, but the clinic cannot staff them this year and they would not reach families who do not know their child is overdue. Paying a vendor to run outreach calls would save staff time, but the vendor would not have access to registry-reconciled histories and would repeat the original problem of calling about doses already given elsewhere. Both may be revisited once the recall system has a year of results.
Risks and Limits
Some families do not want texts and will opt out; the clinic will honor that and rely on postcards and calls. Overdue lists for children who have moved away will include false positives until the registry shows their new provider. And the up-to-date rate depends on many factors besides reminders, including vaccine hesitancy, which recall alone does not address. The measures will show whether the system reaches families, not whether it changes every parent's decision.
Cost Summary
Staff time: about [6] hours a week across front desk and the coordinator, roughly [$9,000] a year in wages. Texting fees: [$2,400] a year. Configuration: done by the existing vendor under the current contract. Total: about [$11,400] a year, compared with the cost of a single outbreak response in an under-vaccinated school, which can run far higher.
References
Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Lynch, J., Hughes, G., A'Court, C., Hinder, S., Fahy, N., Procter, R., & Shaw, S. (2017). Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(11), e367. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8775
Jacobson Vann, J. C., Jacobson, R. M., Coyne-Beasley, T., Asafu-Adjei, J. K., & Szilagyi, P. G. (2018). Patient reminder and recall interventions to improve immunization rates. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018(1), CD003941. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003941.pub3
Kempe, A., Saville, A. W., Beaty, B., Dickinson, L. M., Gurfinkel, D., Eisert, S., Roth, H., Herrero, D., Trefren, L., & Herlihy, R. (2017). Centralized reminder/recall to increase immunization rates in young children: How much bang for the buck? Academic Pediatrics, 17(3), 330-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2016.11.016
Wang, R. Y., & Strong, D. M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099
Reading the HS 420 Unit 10 instructions
The final unit usually asks for a recommendation report to decision makers, comparing options for an informatics problem and defining how success will be measured. Reports often run six to eight pages behind a one-page summary. Credit goes to a problem stated with figures, options compared on the same criteria, evidence from the literature, a clear recommendation with costs, measures with baselines and targets set in advance, and honest limits. Many sections reward building on earlier units, such as a data quality review. Write the summary so a reader could decide from it alone. Cite systematic evidence for the intervention and a framework for adoption. Keep each option's description to the same length so none looks favored by space alone.
Inside the HS420 Unit 10 example
A summary gives the problem in two figures, the recommendation in one sentence, the cost and three measures. The current state explains why overdue children receive nothing and why the overdue list is unreliable. An evidence section cites a Cochrane review, a Colorado trial of centralized recall and a data quality framework. Each of three options is then weighed for whom it reaches, what it costs and where it falls short; the highlighted sentence explains why the costliest option is the only one that fixes both failures. The recommendation, three measures with targets set in advance, an implementation outline, parent feedback that shaped the wording, alternatives set aside, risks and a cost summary complete the report.
Reading the HS420 Unit 10 grading rubric
Recommendation reports are typically graded on the problem statement, the fairness of the options comparison, the use of evidence, the measures and targets, and the clarity of the summary. Measures and the fairness of the comparison often weigh most, since a recommendation without predefined success criteria cannot be evaluated and one that dismisses alternatives without the same criteria cannot be trusted. Evidence earns credit when systematic reviews or trials support the intervention. The summary is rewarded when it stands alone. Cost credit goes to figures a manager can check. Limits stated plainly, such as factors recall cannot change, strengthen rather than weaken the report. Including staff time in the cost, not only fees, is a detail graders look for in this unit.
Common HS420 Unit 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The commonest weakness is a recommendation chosen before the options were compared, with the alternatives described only to be rejected. Another is defining success after launch, which invites convenient measures. Some students cite evidence for the intervention but ignore whether their data can support it, such as wrong contact numbers. Others give costs only as one-time setup and leave out staff time. A summary that needs the rest of the report to make sense defeats its purpose. For a different problem, perhaps refill delays or missed lab follow-up, share the figures you have, and the options and measures can be laid out the same way.
Get an HS420 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Recommendation prompts frequently draw on the term's earlier work, so forward the Unit 10 directions, the rubric and any analysis already done, or describe the problem if starting fresh. The report compares options on shared criteria, recommends one and defines success before claiming it. Returned within 24-48h, with the first custom sample free. 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 HS420 papers and BS in Health Science samples
- HS420 Unit 1: Health Record Readers Discussion Post
- HS420 Unit 2: System Component Overview
- HS420 Unit 3: Workflow Analysis
- HS420 Unit 4: Requirements List
- HS420 Unit 5: System Selection Comparison
- HS420 Unit 6: Data Quality Review
- HS420 Unit 7: Seminar Reflection on System Complaints
- HS420 Unit 8: Privacy and Access Memo
- HS420 Unit 9: Implementation and Adoption Plan
- HS345 Unit 10: Statistical Analysis Report
- HS450 Unit 10: Strategic Plan
- HS340 Unit 10: Epidemiology Case Report
- HS460 Unit 10: Project Closeout Report
HS420 Unit 10 questions, answered
Does the report need a cost-benefit analysis?
Some sections require one; most expect costs stated clearly even without a formal analysis. The example prices each option in staff hours and a rough annual figure, and states benefits in the measures rather than in dollars. If your rubric asks for return on investment, the same hours convert easily, with assumptions shown.
How should the report handle options it rejects?
Fairly and briefly. Each rejected option gets the same criteria and a sentence explaining where it fell short, so the recommendation cannot be accused of ignoring alternatives. The example keeps the portal form alive as a later step, which shows the choice was about order and fit, not about dismissing a reasonable idea.
Where can I find a free HS420 Unit 10 sample paper?
You can read the full Unit 10 recommendation report here, proposing clinic-run vaccine reminder and recall with three predefined measures.
What is the difference between reminder and recall?
A reminder tells a family a vaccine will soon be due; recall contacts families whose child is already overdue.
Why set targets before launch?
So the results are judged against a figure chosen in advance, not one picked afterward because it looks good.