| Course | HS830 Advanced Health Issues and Trends |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Counterargument memo |
| Length | About 880 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Doctor of Health Science (DHSc) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HS830 Unit 6
The Best Case That It Will Pass: A Unit 6 Counterargument Memo on Whether the Pandemic Rise in Resistant Hospital Infections Is Durable
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HS830: Advanced Health Issues and Trends
Unit 6 Counterargument Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The memo's audience is a composite hospital executive team; the surveillance findings and studies cited are real.
To, From, Subject
To: Executive team and antimicrobial stewardship committee. From: Health science fellow, quality office. Subject: The strongest case against making pandemic-era stewardship staffing permanent, and a reply.
My Earlier Claim
In my previous memo I argued that resistant hospital-onset infections had shifted upward durably and that the temporary stewardship pharmacist and infection preventionist positions added in 2021 should become permanent. This memo sets out the best argument that I was wrong.
The Opposing Reading: A Cycle, Not a Shift
The case against permanence rests on mechanism. Every condition that drove resistant infections up during the pandemic was temporary, and each has been easing.
First, antibiotic use. Early in the pandemic, a large share of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 received antibiotics for suspected bacterial pneumonia, although bacterial coinfection on admission turned out to be uncommon. Heavy empiric antibiotic use selects for resistant organisms. As clinicians learned that coinfection was rare, prescribing for COVID-19 patients fell.
Second, staffing and practice. Infection preventionists were redeployed to testing, contact tracing and personal protective equipment supply. Routine surveillance rounds, central line audits and hand hygiene observation were paused or thinned. Personal protective equipment was rationed and reused. Hospitals reporting to the National Healthcare Safety Network saw marked 2020 increases in infections tied to central lines and urinary catheters, along with MRSA bacteremia, with the largest increases during surges (Weiner-Lastinger et al., 2022). A multihospital analysis found that hospital-onset bacteremia and fungemia rose in step with COVID-19 census, falling back as surges passed (Baker et al., 2022).
Third, patients. Hospitalized patients during surges were sicker, stayed longer, spent more time in intensive care and carried more central lines, urinary catheters and ventilators, each a route for infection. That patient mix has returned toward normal.
If the rise was produced by conditions that were temporary, then the right test of durability is whether infection rates have fallen as those conditions eased, not whether they are still above 2019.
The opposing reading also has a precedent. Hospital-onset MRSA bloodstream infections fell by about 17 percent a year from 2005 to 2012 as hospitals adopted bundles for central lines, active surveillance and decolonization, before the decline stalled (Kourtis et al., 2019). Hospital infection rates respond to practice, sometimes quickly. If restored practice brought MRSA down once, restored practice can bring the pandemic rise down again without new permanent positions.
Finally, the opposing reading notes what CDC's 2024 update actually showed. The 20 percent increase in hospital-onset resistant infections compared 2020 with 2019, and the rates for several pathogens had begun to fall by 2022 even though they remained above prepandemic levels (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2024). A series that peaked and turned downward is what a cycle looks like.
On this reading, the right decision is to fund the temporary positions until rates return to 2019 levels and then let them lapse, since permanence commits the hospital to costs justified by an emergency that has ended.
Reply
Much of the opposing reading is right. Pandemic conditions explain most of the rise, and rates have started to fall. I concede that my earlier memo treated the rise as structural when the evidence for that was thin.
But the evidence cannot yet distinguish a cycle from a partial shift. The most recent full year in CDC's update, 2022, was itself unusual: hospitals still had COVID-19 surges, staffing shortages were at their worst, and travel nursing was at its peak. A series whose last point is still disrupted cannot show where it will settle. And the MRSA precedent cuts both ways. The fall from 2005 to 2012 stalled once the easy gains were taken, which suggests that rates do not drift down on their own when an emergency passes; they fall when someone does the work.
The decision should therefore be tied to an indicator rather than to my earlier claim or its opposite. I propose that the positions continue through the end of the next fiscal year and that the committee review the hospital's own standardized infection ratios for central line infections, MRSA bacteremia and hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile for calendar year 2025, the first year without pandemic surges. If all three are at or below their 2019 baseline, one position lapses. If any remains above, both continue for another year.
A Separate Question: Infections Versus the Antibiotic Market
Discussions of resistance often merge two claims that should be kept apart. Whether resistant infections are rising or falling in this hospital says nothing about whether drug companies can profit from developing new antibiotics. New antibiotics are used sparingly by design to preserve them, so sales stay low even when they are needed, and several companies that brought new antibiotics to market have gone bankrupt (Plackett, 2020). A falling infection rate here would not make that market healthier, and a rising one would not fix it. The stewardship decision before the committee concerns only the first question.
References
Baker, M. A., Sands, K. E., Huang, S. S., Kleinman, K., Septimus, E. J., Varma, N., Blanchard, J., Poland, R. E., Coady, M. H., Yokoe, D. S., Fraker, S., Froman, A., Moody, J., Goldin, L., Isaacs, A., Kleja, K., Korwek, K. M., Stelling, J., Clark, A., ... CDC Prevention Epicenters Program. (2022). The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on healthcare-associated infections. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 74(10), 1748-1754. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab688
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Antimicrobial resistance threats in the United States, 2021-2022. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Kourtis, A. P., Hatfield, K., Baggs, J., Mu, Y., See, I., Epson, E., Nadle, J., Kainer, M. A., Dumyati, G., Petit, S., Ray, S. M., Ham, D., Capers, C., Ewing, H., Coffin, N., McDonald, L. C., Jernigan, J., & Cardo, D. (2019). Vital signs: Epidemiology and recent trends in methicillin-resistant and in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections: United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(9), 214-219. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6809e1
Plackett, B. (2020). Why big pharma has abandoned antibiotics. Nature, 586(7830), S50-S52. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02884-3
Weiner-Lastinger, L. M., Pattabiraman, V., Konnor, R. Y., Patel, P. R., Wong, E., Xu, S. Y., Smith, B., Edwards, J. R., & Dudeck, M. A. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on healthcare-associated infections in 2020: A summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 43(1), 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2021.362
The Purdue Global HS830 Unit 6 instructions
Unit 6 commonly asks learners to identify the most serious counterargument to the position developed in earlier units, present it fairly and respond. Memo format with headings is typical, often three to four pages. The strongest submissions present the objection at full strength, using credible sources the writer might otherwise cite in support of the original claim. A reply should concede what the evidence supports and show where the objection falls short. Many prompts also ask the writer to say how the position changes as a result. Linking the reply to a decision and an indicator the organization can track helps show the analysis has practical value for a health care leader.
How this HS830 Unit 6 example is built
A routing line addresses the executive team and stewardship committee. Two sentences restate the earlier claim. The opposing reading follows in five parts: antibiotic use early in the pandemic, paused surveillance and rationed protective equipment, a sicker patient mix, the steep MRSA bloodstream infection decline from 2005 to 2012 as proof that practice moves rates, and CDC data showing several pathogens falling by 2022. The highlighted sentence proposes the right test of durability. The reply concedes that pandemic conditions explain most of the rise, argues that 2022 was still disrupted and sets a review of three standardized infection ratios against the 2019 baseline. A final section explains why infection counts say nothing about the antibiotic market.
Reading the HS830 Unit 6 grading rubric
Counterargument assignments are generally assessed on how fairly and forcefully the opposing view is stated, the quality of the rebuttal, use of evidence, effect on the original position and professional writing. Fairness counts heavily: an objection reduced to a weak version usually costs more points than any other flaw. Rebuttal points reward specific concessions and a reply grounded in evidence rather than restatement. Evidence is judged on relevance and currency, and surveillance reports and peer-reviewed analyses are preferred. The effect on the position earns credit when the memo states what changed. Memo conventions, concise headings and accurate citations make up the writing portion. Graders also notice whether the memo's recommended indicator could actually be pulled from the hospital's own reporting.
HS830 Unit 6 help: mistakes that cost points
Memos most often lose points by treating the counterargument as a formality, giving it a paragraph and dismissing it. Another problem is a reply that simply repeats the original claim more forcefully. Some writers choose an easy objection instead of the strongest one. Others concede nothing, which reads as defensive. Mixing two separate questions, such as infection rates and drug development economics, weakens both. If your earlier claim concerns a different issue, perhaps nurse staffing ratios or telehealth use, share your previous paper with the instructions, and we can prepare a memo that builds the opposing case your instructor will expect. Finally, a reply with no date or threshold attached leaves the committee nothing to revisit.
Get an HS830 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
A counterargument memo needs a claim to attack, ideally one of your own from an earlier unit. Paste it in with the Unit 6 prompt and rubric. Expect the opposing reading at its strongest, concessions wherever the evidence forces them, and a dispute reduced to one indicator and a date. First custom samples are free of charge; delivery takes 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 HS830 papers and DHSc samples
- HS830 Unit 1: Vendor Concentration Discussion Post
- HS830 Unit 2: Pediatric Issue Scan With Four Tests
- HS830 Unit 3: Dementia Trend Evidence Appraisal
- HS830 Unit 4: Adult Obesity Trend Data Analysis
- HS830 Unit 5: Autism Prevalence Seminar Reflection
- HS830 Unit 7: Horizon Scanning Report
- HS830 Unit 8: Implications Briefing
- HS830 Unit 9: Position Paper
- HS830 Unit 10: Emerging Issue Analysis
- HS820 Unit 6: MERS Seminar Reflection
- HS810 Unit 6: Cost and Equity Appraisal
HS830 Unit 6 questions, answered
How much space should the opposing view get?
More than feels comfortable. The sample gives it twice the space of the reply, because a strong objection needs its mechanism and evidence laid out before it can be answered. If your rubric sets proportions, follow them; otherwise, aim for a version that someone holding the opposing view would recognize as their best argument.
What if the counterargument turns out to be right?
Then say so and revise. A memo that concludes the opposing reading is stronger is a legitimate outcome and often a high-scoring one, because it shows the analysis governed the conclusion. Most cases fall between: the objection explains part of the pattern, and the memo narrows the original claim to the part that survives.
Where do US resistance figures come from?
CDC's Antibiotic Resistance Threats Report and its later updates, built largely on the National Healthcare Safety Network, which hospitals report into. The sample cites the 2019 report for baseline burden and the 2024 update for pandemic-era change, and it dates each figure because estimation methods and reporting coverage have changed between editions.
Where can I find a free HS830 Unit 6 sample paper?
The complete Unit 6 counterargument memo is shown here, presenting the case that the pandemic rise in resistant hospital infections is a passing cycle and replying with a named indicator.
Does the memo abandon its original claim?
Partly. It concedes that pandemic conditions explain most of the rise and moves the staffing decision to a review of 2025 infection ratios instead of defending permanence outright.