| Course | HS420 Health Informatics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Implementation and adoption plan |
| Length | About 760 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 9
The Assistants Pay First, the Nurses Gain Most: A Unit 9 Implementation and Adoption Plan for a Registry Connection Go-Live
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HS420: Health Informatics
Unit 9 Implementation and Adoption Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Hollis Park Pediatrics, its teams and every time estimate are composite; the adoption framework, the sociotechnical model and the study of unintended consequences cited are real.
Who Gains and Who Loses
The plan begins with a table, one row per role, stating what changes, whether it costs or saves time, and roughly how much.
Medical assistants: today they search the registry website and retype historical doses, about four minutes on visits where they do it at all, and they skip it on busy days. After go-live the query is automatic, but they must review each incoming dose and accept or reject it, about [40] seconds per visit on every vaccine visit, not just some. Net: more consistent work, a little more time on average, and a new responsibility.
Nurses: today they type every dose into the registry website at the end of the day, about [45] minutes per nurse per day. After go-live, doses are sent automatically. Net: a large saving.
Vaccine coordinator: gains an error queue to work each morning, about [15] minutes a day, and loses the monthly reconciliation of missing doses.
Providers: see a more complete history and a forecast that matches the registry. Little time change.
Front desk: loses direct registry lookups, under the new access rules, and prints vaccine records from the clinic's reconciled chart instead.
Parents: get complete records for school more often and fewer repeat shots.
The people who must change their habits most are the medical assistants, and the people who benefit most are the nurses, so a plan that treats all staff alike will lose the assistants in the first week.
Reducing the Assistants' Cost Before Launch
Two steps cut the added time before anyone goes live. First, the vendor will configure the system to accept historical doses automatically when the vaccine, date and giver match a dose already in the chart, so assistants see only true differences. Second, the review screen will open inside the visit, not in a separate window, which the selection comparison identified as essential. A timed test with scripted scenarios brought review time down to about [20] seconds.
Sequence
Weeks 1 to 2, preparation: configure access roles; test the connection with the registry's test environment; train the vaccine coordinator and backup nurse on the error queue.
Weeks 3 to 6, pilot: one care team of two providers, two medical assistants and one nurse goes live. Other teams keep the old process. The pilot team meets for ten minutes each Friday to report problems.
Week 7, decision point: go ahead clinic-wide if three conditions are met: registry acceptance of [95] percent or more of pilot doses by the next day, median assistant review time under [30] seconds, and no unresolved error older than five days.
Weeks 8 to 10, spread: remaining teams switch over in turn, seven days between each, each with a pilot team member as a peer helper for the first three days.
Week 12, review: compare the month after go-live with the month in the workflow analysis.
Training
Training is short and role-specific: twenty minutes for assistants on the review screen, ten for nurses on what no longer needs doing, and an hour for the coordinator on the error queue. Training is scheduled within three days of each team's go-live, so it is not forgotten by the time it is needed.
Measures
1. Next-day registry acceptance rate for doses given.
2. Doses still unreported after thirty days, compared with [39] in the baseline month.
3. Doses given that the registry already showed, compared with [6].
4. Median assistant review time per visit.
5. Error queue items older than five days.
Risks
Staff may keep using old habits, such as the paper list, as a safety net; the pilot team will be asked to stop it from day one so the error queue is trusted. Unintended consequences, such as accepting a wrong historical dose with one click, are common when new technology changes routines (Ash et al., 2004), so assistants will be shown how to reject and report suspicious doses. Frameworks for technology adoption warn that projects stall when the people asked to change gain least (Greenhalgh et al., 2017); the Friday meetings exist to catch that early. Success depends on fit between technology, workflow and people, not on the interface alone (Sittig & Singh, 2010).
References
Ash, J. S., Berg, M., & Coiera, E. (2004). Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: The nature of patient care information system-related errors. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11(2), 104-112. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1471
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
Sittig, D. F., & Singh, H. (2010). A new sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19(Suppl. 3), i68-i74. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2010.042085
Reading the HS 420 Unit 9 instructions
Unit 9 usually asks for a plan to implement a new system or feature, covering sequence, training, measures and risks, with attention to how staff will adopt it. Plans often fill three to four pages. Credit goes to an honest account of who gains and who bears new work, steps that reduce that burden before launch, a pilot with criteria for going further, training timed and tailored by role, measures with baselines and risks paired with responses. Many sections expect an adoption framework to be named. Tie the plan to earlier work, such as the workflow analysis and requirements. Cite an adoption or sociotechnical source and evidence on unintended consequences.
Inside the HS420 Unit 9 example
A table of six roles states what changes for each and roughly how much time it costs or saves; the highlighted sentence explains why the plan starts with the assistants. A section describes two pre-launch changes that cut their review time, tested with scripted scenarios. The sequence runs from preparation through a four-week pilot to a week-seven decision point with three conditions, then team-by-team spread and a twelve-week review. Training is brief and timed close to each team's go-live. Five measures compare results with the baseline month. A risks section addresses old habits, one-click acceptance of a wrong dose and the danger of losing the people who gain least, citing an adoption framework.
Reading the HS420 Unit 9 grading rubric
Implementation plans tend to be scored on the analysis of stakeholders, the logic of the sequence, the pilot and decision criteria, training, measures and risk management. The analysis of who gains and who loses, together with the pilot's criteria, usually decides the grade, since those parts reveal the plan has anticipated where adoption will fail and how the team will know. Sequence credit rewards steps in a defensible order. Training earns points when it is short, role-specific and timed. Measures should have baselines. Risk credit goes to specific risks paired with specific responses. Citing a framework that explains why people abandon new technology strengthens the plan. A plan that assigns lasting owners for new duties, such as the error queue, usually earns credit for sustainability as well.
HS420 Unit 9 help: mistakes that cost points
A frequent mistake is a plan that treats all staff alike, so the group that bears the cost is surprised at go-live. Another is a pilot with no criteria for success, which turns into a launch by default. Some students schedule training weeks before go-live, when it will be forgotten. Others list risks without any response. Measures without a baseline cannot show improvement. Planning a go-live for something else, perhaps a patient portal or a new scheduling system, starts with listing who gains and who loses time, and the sequence can follow from that table. Forgetting to plan for peers who can help colleagues in the first days leaves new users with nowhere to turn.
Get an HS420 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Say what system the Unit 9 assignment implements and in what setting, then add the rubric and whatever earlier units established about that system. The plan identifies who pays in time, sequences around them and sets pilot measures in advance. The first custom sample is free; turnaround 24-48h. 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 10: Informatics Recommendation Report
- HS345 Unit 9: Regression Exercise
- HS450 Unit 9: Stakeholder Communication Plan
- HS340 Unit 9: Surveillance Data Review
- HS460 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
HS420 Unit 9 questions, answered
Does the plan need an adoption theory?
Some sections ask for one; others prefer practical sequencing. Where theory is expected, Rogers's diffusion of innovations works well at this level, particularly its attributes of relative advantage and complexity, which map neatly onto who gains and who pays. The example keeps theory to a paragraph so that the plan itself stays in front.
How long should a pilot run?
Long enough for the novelty to wear off and ordinary habits to return, which in a small clinic is often three to six weeks. The example uses four because referral volume is steady and one team produces enough cases to measure. A shorter pilot tends to measure enthusiasm; a much longer one delays everyone else without adding much.
Where can I find a free HS420 Unit 9 sample paper?
The complete Unit 9 plan is on this page, sequencing a registry connection go-live around the medical assistants who bear its cost.
Why start a go-live with the people who bear the cost?
Because they are most likely to resist or work around the change, and reducing their burden before launch is cheaper than repairing adoption afterward.
What should a pilot's decision point include?
A few measurable conditions set in advance, such as acceptance rates, review time and error queue age, so the decision to spread is based on results.