The record vendor's own module wins HS420's Unit 5 comparison by meeting eight of nine essential needs, with a manual workaround stated for the ninth. Searches like "hs 420 unit 5 assignment example", "hs420 unit 5 sample" and "hs420 unit 5 example" land here.
What a finished HS420 Unit 5 system selection comparison looks like
The comparison is one long table with a short argument around it. Rows are the [22] requirements from the earlier list, grouped by life stage, with the essential ones shaded. For each option, a cell carries one of three ratings, full, partial or absent, and a note says how that was checked: a scripted demonstration using the clinic's own referral scenarios, a call to a similar practice, or the vendor's written answer. Option A, the existing vendor's module, meets eight of nine essentials; it cannot track reports that arrive by fax from specialists outside the network. Option B meets all nine but adds a separate login and needs a paid interface to avoid retyping demographics. No total is shown until the essentials are settled. Five years of costs are laid out on their own page.
How a HS420 Unit 5 example is structured
The decision rule is stated before any result, which is the move that keeps the comparison honest: an option missing an essential requirement is out unless a workable manual process covers the gap, and only then do desirable requirements and cost decide. Next comes the method, listing the scenarios used in both demonstrations so the options faced identical tests. The table follows. Discussion takes the two gaps in turn and prices each in staff time: faxed reports from outside specialists run about [35] a month and would take the coordinator roughly [2] hours to log by hand, while a second login touches every medical assistant daily. Option A is recommended by the rule, not by a total. What would reverse that choice, a doubling of out-of-network referrals, is stated in the last paragraph.
The rule before the results
Essential needs first, a manual workaround allowed only if it is workable, then desirable needs and cost, all fixed before either demonstration.
Same scenarios for both
Five of the clinic's own referral cases run in each demonstration, so neither vendor chose the ground it was tested on.
Twenty-two rows, two columns
A rating of full, partial or absent against every requirement, each carrying a note on how it was checked.
Two gaps, priced in hours
Faxed outside reports logged by hand against a second login for every medical assistant, each costed in staff time per month.
Recommendation and its reversal
Option A chosen by the stated rule, and the change in referral patterns that would make Option B the better choice.
Where marks go in HS420 Unit 5
Comparisons that set product against product, feature for feature, drift from what this unit generally grades. The question is fit to the clinic's needs, and a product with more features can lose to one that meets the essentials more cleanly. Totals presented without a decision rule lose credit, since a reader cannot tell whether a high score hides a missing essential. Evidence is another weak point; ratings based on marketing material alone draw comments, and stronger papers say how each rating was checked. Cost folded into the score tends to muddy the analysis. Graders in HS420 also reward naming the gap the chosen option leaves, and the manual work that covers it, rather than presenting the winner as flawless. A reversal condition shows the writer understands the choice.
Get a 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.
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.