| Course | HS850 Advanced Health Leadership |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Conflict resolution memo |
| Length | About 830 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 HS850 Unit 6
Nobody Owns Day Three: A Unit 6 Conflict Resolution Memo on Pharmacists, Hospitalists and the Switch From IV to Oral Antibiotics
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HS850: Advanced Health Leadership
Unit 6 Conflict Resolution Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hospital, its staff and its figures are composite and shown as placeholders; the trials, guideline and negotiation framework cited are real.
To, From, Subject
To: Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. From: Director of clinical operations. Subject: The dispute over intravenous-to-oral antibiotic conversion, and a proposal.
The Problem in Numbers
In the last quarter, stewardship pharmacists made [412] recommendations to switch eligible patients from intravenous to oral antibiotics. Hospitalists accepted [38] percent. Patients who met the hospital's own criteria for conversion, afebrile for 24 hours, tolerating oral intake and with a functioning gut, stayed on intravenous therapy a median of [1.6] extra days. Each extra day means a line that can become infected, nursing time for infusions and, for some patients, a delayed discharge.
The clinical case for earlier conversion is strong. National stewardship guidelines recommend programs that convert eligible patients from intravenous to oral therapy (Barlam et al., 2016). Randomized trials have shown that oral therapy is noninferior to continued intravenous therapy even for serious infections once patients are stable, including left-sided endocarditis (Iversen et al., 2019) and bone and joint infections (Li et al., 2019). The dispute is not about the evidence. Both groups accept it.
Each Side's Account
Pharmacists' account. They review eligible patients each afternoon after laboratory results post and enter recommendations as notes in the record. They see the low acceptance rate as hospitalists ignoring a safe, evidence-based change, and some describe feeling that their expertise is not respected.
Hospitalists' account. Rounds end by 1 p.m., when most decisions for the day are made. A recommendation that appears at 4 p.m. arrives when the hospitalist is admitting new patients and may be covering another team's patients. The note gives no indication of whether the pharmacist has checked oral intake with nursing. Some hospitalists describe feeling second-guessed by colleagues who have not examined the patient.
Each group is describing the same gap from opposite ends: the pharmacists' review finishes after the hospitalists' decisions are made, and nobody is responsible for the hours between.
Positions and Interests
Fisher et al. (2011) advise negotiators to look past the demands each party voices, its positions, to the concerns driving them, its interests. The pharmacists' position is that hospitalists should accept recommendations. Their interests are patient safety, stewardship metrics the hospital reports and recognition of their clinical role. The hospitalists' position is that pharmacists should stop sending late notes. Their interests are making decisions during rounds with complete information, protecting afternoon admission time and keeping clinical responsibility clear. The interests are compatible. Both groups want patients switched safely and on time, and neither wants the other to carry the decision alone.
Options Considered
Automatic conversion by pharmacists under a protocol. This would remove the delay, and many hospitals use it. Hospitalists oppose it now, and imposing it in the middle of a dispute would confirm their sense of being overridden. It may become appropriate later.
Earlier pharmacist review. Pharmacists could review eligible patients the evening before, using overnight data, and flag candidates for rounds. This addresses timing but not the question of whether oral intake has been confirmed.
A shared decision point on rounds. A pharmacist joins hospitalist rounds for ten minutes, or reviews a list with the charge nurse beforehand, and conversion is decided during rounds with nursing confirmation of oral intake.
Proposal
The committee should adopt a two-step approach. First, for ninety days, pharmacists will prepare a list of eligible patients by 8 a.m., using overnight vital signs and the nurse's morning documentation of oral intake. The list goes to each hospitalist team and is reviewed in a brief huddle that opens rounds with the pharmacist, hospitalist and charge nurse. The hospitalist decides during rounds. Second, the committee will review acceptance and median days of intravenous therapy at ninety days. If acceptance rises above [75] percent and hospitalists agree, the committee will consider a protocol allowing pharmacists to convert automatically for selected drugs.
The owner of the decision point is the hospitalist, at rounds. The owner of the list is the stewardship pharmacist. The owner of the oral intake confirmation is the charge nurse. Each knows what is expected and when.
Why This Avoids Blame
The proposal does not ask either group to admit fault. It changes when information arrives and who confirms it, which both groups have described as the problem. It also creates a regular moment for pharmacists and hospitalists to talk, which may address the feelings of disrespect on both sides more effectively than any discussion of those feelings in committee.
Next Steps
The committee chair will meet with the hospitalist medical director and pharmacy manager this week to confirm the huddle format, and the first lists will start on the next schedule change.
References
Barlam, T. F., Cosgrove, S. E., Abbo, L. M., MacDougall, C., Schuetz, A. N., Septimus, E. J., Srinivasan, A., Dellit, T. H., Falck-Ytter, Y. T., Fishman, N. O., Hamilton, C. W., Jenkins, T. C., Lipsett, P. A., Malani, P. N., May, L. S., Moran, G. J., Neuhauser, M. M., Newland, J. G., Ohl, C. A., ... Trivedi, K. K. (2016). Implementing an antibiotic stewardship program: Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 62(10), e51-e77. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciw118
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.
Iversen, K., Ihlemann, N., Gill, S. U., Madsen, T., Elming, H., Jensen, K. T., Bruun, N. E., Høfsten, D. E., Fursted, K., Christensen, J. J., Schultz, M., Klein, C. F., Fosbøll, E. L., Rosenvinge, F., Schønheyder, H. C., Køber, L., Torp-Pedersen, C., Helweg-Larsen, J., Tønder, N., ... Bundgaard, H. (2019). Partial oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment of endocarditis. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(5), 415-424. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1808312
Li, H.-K., Rombach, I., Zambellas, R., Walker, A. S., McNally, M. A., Atkins, B. L., Lipsky, B. A., Hughes, H. C., Bose, D., Kümin, M., Scarborough, C., Matthews, P. C., Brent, A. J., Lomas, J., Gundle, R., Rogers, M., Taylor, A., Angus, B., Byren, I., ... Scarborough, M. (2019). Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for bone and joint infection. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(5), 425-436. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1710926
HS850 Unit 6 instructions, in plain terms
The sixth unit generally asks learners to analyze a conflict between professional groups and recommend a resolution in memo form, usually three to five pages. The memo should describe the conflict from each side's perspective in fair terms, apply a conflict or negotiation framework and propose a solution with clear ownership. Most prompts ask for options to be compared before one is recommended. Instructors look for analysis that moves beyond personalities to structures, such as timing, protocols or incentives, that produce the conflict. Evidence about the clinical or operational issue at the center of the dispute strengthens the memo. A plan for review, often at ninety days, shows the recommendation will be tested rather than assumed to work.
How this HS850 Unit 6 example is built
The memo opens with a routing block and the problem in numbers, then cites stewardship guidelines and two randomized trials to establish that the clinical evidence is not in dispute. Each side's account follows in parallel paragraphs, and the highlighted sentence identifies the unowned hours between afternoon review and morning decisions. A positions and interests section applies interest-based negotiation. Three options are weighed: automatic pharmacist conversion, earlier pharmacist review and a shared decision point on rounds. The proposal combines a morning eligibility list with a huddle, names an owner for the list, the decision and the confirmation of oral intake, and sets a ninety-day review. A short closing section on why the proposal avoids blame explains how a regular huddle may also ease the sense of disrespect on both sides.
Where the points sit in the HS850 Unit 6 rubric
Conflict resolution memos in this course are commonly assessed on the fairness of the conflict analysis, appropriate use of a framework, quality and feasibility of the recommendation, use of evidence and professional writing. Fairness counts heavily; a memo that takes one side's account at face value loses points. Framework points reward applying a recognized approach, such as interest-based negotiation or a conflict typology, to the specific dispute. Recommendations score well when they change the structure that generates the conflict and name owners. Evidence matters when it removes a factual disagreement from the table. Memo format, concise headings and accurate citations complete the grade. Instructors often check whether the memo's owners and timeline would survive the first busy week on the units.
Common HS850 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most frequent weakness is a memo that recommends better communication or a training session without changing anything about how work is organized. Another is presenting one group's complaints as facts and the other's as excuses. Some learners skip options and jump to a solution. Others propose a solution, such as automatic conversion, that one group strongly opposes without addressing that opposition. Leaving out a review date makes the recommendation hard to evaluate. If your conflict involves different groups, perhaps nurses and transport staff or two physician specialties, send a description of both sides' views, and a memo can be drafted that finds the structural cause.
Get an HS850 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Which two groups are in dispute, and over what task or handoff? Describe that, name who would receive the memo, and attach whatever data both sides accept, plus the Unit 6 instructions and rubric. The memo returns in 24-48h, reframing the dispute without blame and weighing options that each carry an owner. First requests are 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 HS850 papers and DHSc samples
- HS850 Unit 1: Professional Bureaucracy Discussion
- HS850 Unit 2: Influence Without Authority Review
- HS850 Unit 3: Leadership Versatility Self-Assessment
- HS850 Unit 4: Parking Fee Four-Frame Case Analysis
- HS850 Unit 5: Clinician to Manager Seminar Reflection
- HS850 Unit 7: Team Development Plan
- HS850 Unit 8: Organizational Culture Appraisal
- HS850 Unit 9: Leadership Philosophy Paper
- HS850 Unit 10: Development Plan
- HS840 Unit 6: Outcome Measures Instrument Review
- HS830 Unit 6: Resistant Infection Counterargument
- HS820 Unit 6: MERS Seminar Reflection
- HS810 Unit 6: Cost and Equity Appraisal
HS850 Unit 6 questions, answered
Who should the memo be addressed to?
Whoever can authorize the recommendation. Disputes between professional groups often need sign-off from both lines of authority, which in a hospital typically means a nursing executive and a physician leader, sometimes a committee. Addressing only one side's leadership can itself read as taking a side, so the sample writes to both and copies the two department managers.
Does the memo need a theoretical framework?
At doctoral level, yes, even in memo format. The framework does not need a long section; a paragraph explaining the conflict through one account, whether jurisdiction, coordination or conflict typology, is usually enough. What it must do is change the reading of the dispute. If removing the theory would leave the recommendation unchanged, the framework is decoration.
Can the memo recommend training or better communication?
Only as a supporting action, and only if the analysis shows a skill gap. Most interprofessional disputes arise from unclear ownership, conflicting protocols or measures that reward each group separately, and training does not touch those. The sample recommends a structural change, a joint trigger with a shared measure, and treats education as the rollout step rather than the solution.
Where can I find a free HS850 Unit 6 sample paper?
The complete Unit 6 conflict resolution memo is shown here, resolving a pharmacist and hospitalist dispute over switching antibiotics from intravenous to oral.
Why not let pharmacists convert antibiotics automatically?
Many hospitals do, but imposing it during a dispute would confirm hospitalists' sense of being overridden. The memo makes it a later option if a ninety-day trial succeeds.