HS420 Unit 5 System Selection Comparison Example

Course	HS420 Health Informatics
Unit	Unit 5
Paper type	System selection comparison
Length	About 660 words, 5 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 5

Built In or Bolted On: A Unit 5 System Selection Comparison of Two Registry Connection Options Against a Clinic's Own Requirements

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

HS420: Health Informatics

Unit 5 System Selection Comparison

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Hollis Park Pediatrics, both options, their prices and the reference call are composite; the messaging guide, the user-centered framework and the adoption framework cited are real.

What this part is doingStating that both options fall short in the lead prepares the reader for a judgment between imperfect choices, which is the realistic situation.

How the Options Were Tested

Each requirement was rated full, partial or absent. Ratings came from three sources, and each cell notes which one: a scripted demonstration in which each vendor processed six of the clinic's own scenarios, including a child with two possible registry matches and a dose with a mistyped lot number; a call to a similar practice using each option; and the vendor's written answers, used only where the first two could not settle a question. Scripted scenarios keep a demonstration focused on the users' tasks rather than the vendor's best features (Johnson et al., 2005).

Option A: The Existing Vendor's Registry Module

Essentials met in full: eight of nine. It queries the registry when a visit opens, shows registry-only doses for one-click acceptance, labels them as historical, requires lot and site, sends doses within minutes using the national immunization messaging standard (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018), and uses the existing screens.

Essential gap: R14, the error queue's waiting time. Rejected messages appear in a queue with reasons, but the queue does not show how long each has waited, so an old rejection looks the same as a new one. The vendor says this is planned for a release next year.

Desirables: seven of eleven in full, including barcode scanning and corrections.

Cost: [$9,400] one-time setup and [$3,100] a year in added license fees. No new server.

Option B: A Separate Interface Engine

Essentials met in full: seven of nine. It sends doses reliably and has an excellent error queue with aging, alerts and a daily summary.

Essential gaps: R4, one-click acceptance of historical doses, and R19, working inside existing screens. Historical doses arrive in a separate review screen outside the health record; staff must accept them there and then open the chart. That recreates the two-window problem the workflow analysis set out to remove.

Desirables: eight of eleven in full.

Cost: [$14,800] one-time, including contractor setup, and [$6,200] a year for hosting and support.

Option B handles the clinic's back-office problem better, but Option A handles the medical assistant's problem better, and the medical assistant's problem is where the extra doses came from.

What this part is doingThe highlighted sentence weighs each gap by the harm it relates to, which is the reasoning a selection comparison must show.

Weighing the Gaps

Option A's gap affects the vaccine coordinator, who could work around it by sorting the queue by date each morning, a two-minute task. Option B's gaps affect every medical assistant at every visit, which is the workflow linked to the six unnecessary doses in the workflow analysis. A gap in a task done four hundred times a month weighs more than a gap in a task done once a day.

The reference calls supported this. The practice using Option B reported that staff often skipped the separate review screen on busy days. The practice using Option A reported that its coordinator kept a simple daily log to track old rejections.

What this part is doingUsing reference calls to test how each gap plays out in practice moves the comparison beyond the vendors' own claims.

Beyond the Requirements

Option A ties the clinic more closely to one vendor, and its fixes depend on that vendor's release schedule. Option B could connect other systems later. Frameworks for technology adoption warn that projects fail less often from missing features than from poor fit with the organization's people and routines, and that added complexity raises the risk of abandonment (Greenhalgh et al., 2017). Option A adds less complexity.

Recommendation

Choose Option A. It meets eight of nine essentials, costs less over three years, about [$18,700] against [$33,400], and its one gap has a cheap workaround. Ask the vendor to commit in writing to adding queue aging within twelve months, and keep a daily log of rejections until then.

What this part is doingEnding with a contract condition and an interim workaround shows the recommendation accounts for its own weakness.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). HL7 version 2.5.1 implementation guide for immunization messaging: Release 1.5, 2018 update. https://repository.immregistries.org

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

Johnson, C. M., Johnson, T. R., & Zhang, J. (2005). A user-centered framework for redesigning health care interfaces. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 38(1), 75-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2004.11.005

Reading the HS 420 Unit 5 instructions

For Unit 5, students set the options on their shortlist against the requirements written in the previous unit and then recommend one. Comparisons often take the form of a table with a few pages of argument around it. Points go to ratings tied to specific requirements, a stated source for each rating, gaps weighed by their consequences rather than counted, and costs kept separate from fit. Many sections reward using scripted demonstrations built from your own scenarios. A recommendation that admits its option's weakness and says how to manage it usually scores better than one that claims a perfect fit. Cite a source on user-centered evaluation and on technology adoption.

How the HS 420 Unit 5 example is put together

The comparison explains its three rating sources and why scripted scenarios were used, citing a user-centered framework. Each option then gets a section: essentials met, its essential gap described plainly, desirables met and cost. The highlighted sentence contrasts which user each option serves better and ties that to where the extra doses came from. A section weighs the gaps by frequency and harm, using the reference calls. A section looks beyond the requirements at vendor dependence and complexity, citing an adoption framework. The recommendation picks the vendor module, gives three-year costs for both options and adds a written commitment and an interim log for the missing feature.

Where the points sit in the HS420 Unit 5 rubric

Selection comparisons tend to be graded on fidelity to the requirements, the evidence behind each rating, the reasoning used to weigh gaps, treatment of cost and the recommendation. The reasoning about gaps usually decides the grade: two options that each miss one essential are not equal if one gap touches every visit and the other touches one task a day. Fidelity rewards rating every requirement, not just the favorable ones. Evidence credit goes to ratings with a named source. Cost should appear separately and over a sensible period. The recommendation earns the most when it names the chosen option's weakness and a plan for it. A note under the table naming each rating's source lets a grader trust the cells without asking.

HS420 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points

A frequent misstep is comparing vendors' feature lists against each other, which rewards whoever has the longest list. Another is counting gaps instead of weighing them. Some students rate options from marketing material alone, without a demonstration or reference. Others fold price into the ratings so a cheap option looks like a better fit. A recommendation that ignores its option's gap invites the obvious objection. If you are comparing other products, perhaps two telehealth platforms or two scheduling systems, share your requirements list, and the comparison can be set up against it row by row. Leaving out how each rating was obtained makes the table look like opinion.

Get an HS420 Unit 5 example written to your instructions

Whether the products are named in the Unit 5 assignment or left to the writer, forward it together with the rubric and the requirements an earlier unit produced. Both options are rated against those needs, gaps priced in staff time, the recommendation following a rule stated first. Allow 24-48h; the first custom sample is not charged. 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 5 questions, answered

Can the comparison use real vendor names?

Where the prompt permits, yes, but claims about a named product need a source, such as published documentation or an independent review. The example uses Option A and Option B so its ratings do not read as statements about real companies. If your section expects names, cite what each rating rests on and date it.

What if both options miss an essential requirement?

Then the decision rule does its job: the paper says neither qualifies as offered and asks what would change that, a workaround, a contract commitment or a revised requirement. That conclusion is legitimate and sometimes the strongest available. Forcing a winner by quietly softening an essential need is the move graders are likely to catch.

Why keep cost outside the ratings table?

Because mixing price into the ratings lets a cheap option buy points it has not earned on fit. The example settles which options meet the needs first, then compares five-year costs for those that remain. A reader can then see whether the clinic is paying for fit, or saving money by accepting a gap.

Where can I find a free HS420 Unit 5 sample paper?

You can read the whole Unit 5 comparison on this page, rating two registry connection options against a clinic's own twenty requirements.

What is a scripted demonstration?

A vendor demonstration in which the vendor must work through the buyer's own scenarios, such as a child with two possible registry matches, rather than showing its preferred features.