HIPAA's Safe Harbor list, applied line by line to a seeded composite draft, turns up [eleven] slips in NU569's Unit 9 review, from an age past 89 to a tattoo. Searches like "nu 569 unit 9 assignment example", "nu569 unit 9 sample" and "nu569 unit 9 example" land here.
What a finished NU569 Unit 9 de-identification review looks like
Two parts, about five pages. The first reproduces the seeded draft with numbered lines, a composite visit for a [91]-year-old retired ferry pilot seen on [June 4] at a named clinic. The second is an audit table with one row per finding: line number, the text as written, the Safe Harbor category it falls under, and the revision. Findings span categories: the exact visit date cut to the year; the age rewritten as 90 or older, with the birth date removed, year included, since past 89 even the year reveals age; a town and ZIP code removed; a medical record number caught in a pasted lab header; a daughter's phone number in the social history; a forearm photograph showing a tattoo. What Safe Harbor does not catch fills a final paragraph.
How a NU569 Unit 9 example is structured
The audit is organized by the rule, not by the draft. It opens on the standard: the Safe Harbor method at 45 CFR 164.514(b)(2), which requires removing eighteen categories of identifiers belonging to the individual or to relatives, employers and household members, with a second condition of no actual knowledge that the leftover details could point to the person. Expert determination, the other route, is named and set aside, since a course paper has no statistician attached. The table follows the categories in the rule's own order, showing which the draft triggered and which it did not. Two rows need explanation beyond the list: the age over 89, where the birth year must also go, and the ZIP code, where only the first three digits may stay, and only for areas above twenty thousand people. A last section covers quasi-identifiers the list omits.
The standard, cited exactly
The review gives the regulation's location and its two conditions: removal of the listed identifiers and no actual knowledge that the rest could identify someone. Paraphrasing the rule loosely would weaken every finding that follows.
Relatives and employers count too
The daughter's phone number and the name of the patient's former employer are flagged because the rule covers identifiers of relatives, employers and household members, not only the patient's own.
An age past 89
Stating 91 years old breaks the rule, and so does any birth year that implies it. The revision groups him as 90 or older and removes every date element that could reveal the true age.
Details the list never names
A ferry pilot in a small coastal county is not one of the eighteen categories, yet the job could point to one man. The review generalizes the occupation under the actual-knowledge condition and explains why.
What the revision keeps
Clinical content survives intact: the findings, the reasoning and the plan. De-identification removes the person, not the medicine, so the write-up still teaches what it was meant to.
Where marks go in NU569 Unit 9
Accuracy to the regulation is usually checked first where sections assign this audit, and a review that lists the wrong number of identifiers, or invents categories while missing real ones, is marked down heavily however tidy the table looks. Graders commonly check the two traps the rule sets: an age over 89 left as a number, and a birth year kept for a patient that old. Overlooking identifiers of family members is a frequent loss. A review that stops at the eighteen categories, with no attention to rare occupations or small places, scores lower on analysis. Revisions that strip clinical content along with identifiers are treated as over-correction. Citing the rule without its location, or confusing Safe Harbor with expert determination, costs smaller amounts.
Get a NU569 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Describe the case type and write-up format your Unit 9 audit covers, and share the prompt and rubric, but keep any draft built on a real patient to yourself. We assemble a composite draft seeded with the identifiers that most often slip through and audit it row by row against the Safe Harbor list. Free the first time, back within 24-48h.
NU569 Unit 9 questions, answered
What are the eighteen Safe Harbor identifiers?
Names; geographic units smaller than a state; date elements other than year, plus ages over 89; telephone and fax numbers; email addresses; Social Security numbers; medical record, health plan and account numbers; certificate or license numbers; vehicle and device identifiers; web addresses; IP addresses; biometric identifiers; full-face photographs and comparable images; and any other unique identifying number, characteristic or code.
Is a composite patient automatically de-identified?
Very nearly, if it is built well: details are drawn from several encounters or invented, so no single person matches. A composite can still slip if one striking detail comes from a real patient, an uncommon occupation, say, or a memorable event. Reviewing even a composite draft against the list is a sound habit, and graders often ask for exactly that.
Does my school's policy go further than HIPAA?
Often, yes. Many programs and clinical sites forbid any real patient information in coursework, even de-identified, and some require composites only. Where the program rule is stricter, it governs your papers. The review in the sample cites HIPAA because it is the common floor, and it notes that a school or site may set the bar higher.