| Course | PU699 Master of Public Health Capstone |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Deliverable draft |
| Length | About 880 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Master of Public Health (MPH) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PU699 Unit 7
Flags Up Before the Lifeguards Open: A Unit 7 Deliverable Draft of a Composite City's Beach Water Quality Advisory Protocol, Using a Morning Model at Three Beaches and Yesterday's Result at the Fourth
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
PU699: Master of Public Health Capstone
Unit 7 Deliverable Draft
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Port Alder, its department and its costs are composite; the standard, the methods and the research cited are real.
Section 1. Purpose
To post each morning's swimming advisory at Port Alder's four public beaches on the best available estimate of that morning's water quality, rather than on the previous day's result.
Section 2. Authority and Scope
Issued under the department's authority to protect health at public bathing beaches. Applies to the four public beaches from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Does not apply to harmful algal blooms, which follow a separate procedure.
Section 3. Definitions
1. Exceedance: a single sample whose E. coli count is greater than 235 per 100 milliliters of water.
2. Morning estimate: the probability of exceedance produced by the department's model from that morning's rainfall, creek discharge, turbidity, wave height and wind.
3. Model beach: a beach at which the model outperformed the previous-day rule in the most recent validation. Currently Mill Creek, North Pier and Lakeside.
4. Rule beach: a beach at which it did not. Currently Alder Point.
Section 4. Daily Schedule
1. 6:30 a.m. The on-call specialist downloads the morning inputs and runs the model.
2. 6:50 a.m. The specialist checks that every input is present and plausible. If any input is missing, the model beach falls back to the previous-day rule for that day and the log says why.
3. 7:15 a.m. The specialist sends each beach's status to the head lifeguard by text and posts it to the web page.
4. 7:45 a.m. Lifeguards raise advisory flags and signs before the beaches open at 8:00.
5. 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. The specialist collects water samples at all four beaches as now.
6. Next morning. The culture result is logged beside the previous day's call.
The schedule moved forty-five minutes earlier after the head lifeguard pointed out that a 9 a.m. posting meant pulling down flags people had already seen.
Section 5. Decision Rules
1. Model beaches: post an advisory when the morning estimate is at or above the validated cutoff, currently a probability of 0.35.
2. Rule beach: post an advisory when the previous sampling day's result was an exceedance, or when gulls were observed in large numbers on the foreshore the previous afternoon, as recorded by lifeguards.
3. Any beach: post an advisory for 24 hours after a combined sewer overflow notice for the outfall nearest that beach, regardless of the model.
4. The specialist may post an advisory on judgment, with the reason logged, but may not remove one the rules require.
Section 6. Signs and Wording
Advisory signs read: Swimming not advised today. Bacteria in the water may be high. Wading is at your own risk. Wash hands before eating. Each sign carries the date and the web address, in English and Spanish. Signs never say the beach is closed, because the department advises and does not prohibit.
Section 7. Rapid Test Pilot at Mill Creek Beach
For one season, a second sample from Mill Creek Beach will be analyzed for Enterococcus by quantitative polymerase chain reaction at the state laboratory, a method that can return results in about three hours (Haugland et al., 2005) and that the federal criteria allow for beach notification (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2012). Results arriving by 11 a.m. will be compared with the model's call. During the pilot the rapid result will not change the posted advisory; the pilot exists to learn whether it should next season.
Section 8. Model Maintenance
Each winter, the model is refit with the newest season added and validated on that season. A beach changes category only if the validation shows the model beating the rule on exceedance days caught without more false advisories, or failing to. This follows the finding at Chicago beaches that models do not help everywhere and should be judged beach by beach (Nevers & Whitman, 2011).
Section 9. Public Notice of the Change
Before the pilot season, the department will explain on its web page and at the beaches that advisories now reflect same-day estimates, and why some will appear on dry days and others on rainy ones.
Section 10. Evaluation
At season's end, report for each beach how many over-standard days had a warning up when swimmers arrived and how many warnings went up on days the water was within the standard, compared with the two previous seasons.
Fiscal Note
1. Morning model operation: 20 minutes a day for 70 days, about 23 hours, at 42 dollars an hour, 966 dollars.
2. Winter refit and validation: 4 hours, 168 dollars.
3. Rapid test pilot: 70 samples at 85 dollars each at the state laboratory, 5,950 dollars, plus courier, 1,400 dollars.
4. New signs, two languages, four beaches: 1,200 dollars.
Total for the pilot season: about 9,700 dollars.
Lifeguard Checklist
Receive the text by 7:20 a.m. Raise flags by 7:45. Record large gull numbers on the Alder Point foreshore each afternoon. Report any fecal incident in the water by radio.
References
Haugland, R. A., Siefring, S. C., Wymer, L. J., Brenner, K. P., & Dufour, A. P. (2005). Comparison of Enterococcus measurements in freshwater at two recreational beaches by quantitative polymerase chain reaction and membrane filter culture analysis. Water Research, 39(4), 559-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.11.011
Nevers, M. B., & Whitman, R. L. (2011). Efficacy of monitoring and empirical predictive modeling at improving public health protection at Chicago beaches. Water Research, 45(4), 1659-1668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.12.010
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Recreational water quality criteria (Office of Water 820-F-12-058). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Reading the PU 699 Unit 7 instructions
Unit 7 commonly asks for a draft of your capstone deliverable, in the format your site would actually use. State its purpose narrowly enough that the evidence supports it. Define key terms precisely. Write procedures as duties with times and responsible roles. Build in decision rules that reflect your analysis, including where the evidence differs by site or group. Include a pilot or phased approach where uncertainty remains, a maintenance plan and an evaluation plan. Attach a fiscal note and any operational tools, such as checklists. Keep academic citations outside the operational text or in a companion memo, unless your prompt asks otherwise. Record changes made in response to stakeholder comments, since later units rely on that evidence.
How the PU 699 Unit 7 example is put together
The draft runs in numbered sections in the department's order: purpose, authority and scope, definitions including model and rule beaches, a six-step daily schedule, decision rules by beach type, sign wording, a rapid test pilot at one beach, model maintenance, public notice and evaluation. A highlighted line records the lifeguard comment that moved posting ahead of opening. Margin notes explain why the purpose is narrow, why rules differ by beach and why the rapid test runs alongside the model. A fiscal note itemizes staff time, laboratory costs and signs, totaling about 9,700 dollars, and a short lifeguard checklist closes the document. The format matches the department's existing procedures so that legal and program staff can mark it up directly.
PU699 Unit 7 rubric: what earns full points
Purdue Global capstone deliverables are generally graded on fitness for use and fidelity to the evidence. Points go to a document in the site's own format, with clear duties, times and roles. Credit rises when the purpose and rules follow directly from the analysis and synthesis, including limits. Instructors value built-in evaluation, maintenance and a realistic budget. Evidence that stakeholder comments shaped the draft adds marks. Precise definitions and plain operational language matter. A companion rationale with APA citations, or citations placed where the prompt allows, completes the rubric. Deliverables that promise outcomes the evidence cannot support usually lose points. Graders also look for a fallback when inputs fail, since a protocol with no rule for a missing data feed will break on its first bad morning.
PU699 Unit 7 help: mistakes that cost points
Many drafts read as essays about a protocol rather than as the protocol itself. Write it in the form your site would issue. Another problem is a purpose broader than the evidence, such as preventing illness when the analysis measured advisory accuracy. Avoid procedures without times or responsible roles. Include costs, especially staff time. Keep borrowed technical values visible and explain why they fit. Do not leave out how the document will be evaluated. If you have your analysis and need it turned into a usable protocol or policy, send it and we will draft the deliverable in your site's format. Finally, write a fallback rule for the morning an input is missing, because that morning will come.
Get a PU699 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
What would your site actually use: a policy, a protocol, a toolkit, a rule? Name it, attach any template the organization already follows, and add the Unit 7 prompt and rubric. Within 24-48h you get a free first custom sample written to those instructions and shaped to that format, any value still awaiting your site's confirmation left in brackets. 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 PU699 papers and MPH samples
- PU699 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- PU699 Unit 2: Problem Definition Paper
- PU699 Unit 3: Competency Mapping Document
- PU699 Unit 4: Evidence Synthesis
- PU699 Unit 5: Data Analysis Section
- PU699 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- PU699 Unit 8: Stakeholder Presentation
- PU699 Unit 9: Reflection on Practice
- PU699 Unit 10: Capstone Portfolio
- PU501 Unit 7: Medical Care vs Public Health
- PU685 Unit 7: Child Health Program Analysis
- PU508 Unit 7: Sun Protection Intervention Mapping
- PU650 Unit 7: Hypothesis Generation Paper
PU699 Unit 7 questions, answered
Does the deliverable have to be adopted by the site to count?
Sections rarely require that, since adoption depends on people outside the course. What instructors usually assess is whether the site could adopt it: correct format, realistic obligations, costs stated and limits labeled. Say in a cover note who at the site has seen the draft and what they said. Present any adoption only if it has actually happened.
Where do the academic citations go in a practice deliverable?
Usually outside the deliverable itself. Agencies rarely put reference lists inside a regulation or protocol, so many capstones place a short rationale with citations in a companion memo or appendix for the instructor. Check the prompt; some sections want in-text citations throughout. Either way, the document the site would use should read cleanly without them.
Where can I find a free PU699 Unit 7 sample paper?
This page holds the complete Unit 7 draft protocol for same-day beach advisories, with the fiscal note and lifeguard checklist.
Why does the protocol treat beaches differently?
Because the analysis found the morning model helped at three beaches and not at the fourth, so the rules follow the evidence beach by beach.
Why pilot a rapid test without letting it change postings?
To learn how its results compare with the model's calls before relying on either, which keeps the pilot season safe while it gathers evidence.