| Course | HA 695 Graduate Capstone Project |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Post-implementation evaluation plan |
| Length | About 770 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MS in Healthcare Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HA 695 Unit 6
Written Before the First Card Changes: A Post-Implementation Evaluation Plan for the Supply Waste Program, With Decision Rules for Continuing, Adjusting or Stopping
Student Name
Health Care Administration, Herzing University
HA 695: Graduate Capstone Project
Instructor Name
February 19, 2026
Written Before the First Card Changes: A Post-Implementation Evaluation Plan for the Supply Waste Program, With Decision Rules for Continuing, Adjusting or Stopping
The Aim Being Tested
Reduce the cost of disposable supplies opened and discarded without use in Ridgeway Medical Center's main operating room from $182 per case to $121 per case or less within six months of the first card reviews, with no increase in supply-related case delays and no supply-related safety events caused by holding items unopened. Every measure below traces to one part of that aim; nothing is collected merely because it is available.
The Baseline, Restated With Its Method
$182 per case, from direct observation of 120 cases in October 2025 by two perioperative nurse educators, who logged every disposable opened onto the field and which items were never used; item costs at October catalog prices; weighted by fiscal 2025 case volume across the six largest services. Every follow-up audit will use the same observation form, the same two educators where possible, the same weighting, and October 2025 prices, so that price changes do not appear as changes in waste. A comparison is only valid if both figures are produced the same way.
Measures
Each measure is listed with its type, the part of the aim it tests, its interval and reason, and who pulls it for which report.
| Measure | Type | Tests | Interval and reason | Pulled by, reported in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waste cost per case, observed | Outcome | The one-third reduction | Audit of 120 cases at months 3, 6 and 12; observation is labor-intensive, and three points show the direction and whether it holds | Nurse educators; program report to the vice president and chief financial officer |
| Disposable supply cost issued per case, all cases | Outcome, supporting | Whether savings appear in spending | Monthly; available automatically and shows the trend between audits | Supply analyst; monthly operating room committee report |
| Targeted cards reviewed, of 80 | Process | Whether card cleanup happened | Monthly during months 1 to 3; tracks a finite task | Information systems analyst; committee report |
| Hold-list items unopened at incision | Process | Whether the hold practice is followed | Weekly spot check of 20 cases in months 4 to 6; compliance changes quickly and needs early feedback | Perioperative nurse manager; weekly huddle and committee report |
| Scorecards delivered on time | Process | Whether feedback reached surgeons | Monthly | Supply analyst; committee report |
| Retrieval time for held items | Balancing | No delays from holding | Every retrieval, recorded by the circulating nurse; each one matters | Circulating nurses to the nurse manager; weekly huddle |
| Supply-related delay codes per 100 cases | Balancing | No delays from any part of the program | Monthly; delay codes are entered for every case | Perioperative services manager; committee report |
| Supply-related safety events | Balancing | No harm from holding items | Monthly count, with immediate review of any event | Patient safety officer; committee report |
Displaying the Results
The monthly measures are shown as run charts with the baseline median, and read using the standard rules for shifts and trends rather than by reacting to single months (Perla et al., 2011). The observed waste audits, with only three points in the first year, are shown as a simple before-and-after comparison with the service breakdown, since three points cannot support run chart rules.
Decision Rules, Written Before Any Data Exists
At month 3, after card cleanup only. Continue as planned to the hold list if observed waste is $160 per case or less. If waste is above $160, the card reviews are checked for completeness and a second round is held with the surgeons whose waste did not fall, before the hold list starts.
During months 4 to 6, the hold list. Stop the hold list immediately for any item that took longer than two minutes to reach the field when the patient needed it, and review it with the surgeon and nurse manager before any restart. Stop the hold list entirely if two supply-related safety events linked to holding occur in any month, or if supply-related delay codes rise above 1.5 per 100 cases, compared with a baseline of 0.9, for two consecutive months.
At month 6. Adopt the program as standard work if observed waste is $121 per case or less and no balancing rule has been triggered. Adapt it, keeping the parts that worked and redesigning the rest, if waste is between $122 and $150. Abandon the hold list and scorecards, keeping card cleanup, if waste is above $150, because the combined program would then not be delivering more than card cleanup alone was expected to.
At month 12. Confirm that the reduction has held. If waste has risen by more than $20 per case from month 6, the annual card review cycle is brought forward and the scorecards are reviewed.
What Leadership Hears and When
Monthly: the operating room committee receives the run charts and any triggered rule. Months 3, 6 and 12: the program's two sponsors, the perioperative vice president and the finance chief, receive a two-page report with observed waste, spending, the balancing measures and the decision taken under the rules. Surgeons receive their own scorecards monthly and a summary of the program's overall results at months 6 and 12. Balancing measures are included because improvement in one part of a system can create problems elsewhere, and a plan that does not look for them will not find them (Langley et al., 2009).
The evaluation cannot separate the effect of each part of the program precisely, since they are introduced in sequence rather than tested separately. The month-3 audit, taken after card cleanup alone, gives a rough estimate of what cleanup contributes, and the difference at month 6 reflects the hold list and scorecards together. Published observational work has reported large variation in waste between surgeons (Zygourakis et al., 2017), so the month-6 report will also show the change for each of the 12 highest-waste surgeons, which is where most of the effect should appear. The same report will state plainly any result that falls short of the aim, since a plan that reports only its successes teaches the organization nothing about what to change next.
References
Langley, G. J., Moen, R. D., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P. (2009). The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Perla, R. J., Provost, L. P., & Murray, S. K. (2011). The run chart: A simple analytical tool for learning from variation in healthcare processes. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20(1), 46-51. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2009.037895
Zygourakis, C. C., Yoon, S., Valencia, V., Boscardin, C., Moriates, C., Gonzales, R., & Lawton, M. T. (2017). Operating room waste: Disposable supply utilization in neurosurgical procedures. Journal of Neurosurgery, 126(2), 620-625. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.2.JNS152442
The Herzing HA 695 Unit 6 instructions
Unit 6 asks you to write an evaluation plan for your capstone intervention. Expect to restate the aim, restate the baseline and method, define outcome, process and balancing measures, plan how results will be displayed, set decision rules in advance and schedule reporting to leadership. Students often ask why decision rules must be written first. Rules set after seeing data tend to bend toward continuing whatever was started. Write thresholds and actions for each review point now. Repeat the baseline method exactly, so comparisons are fair. Include balancing measures for harm, such as delays from held items. Use run charts with named rules rather than reacting to single months.
How the HA 695 Unit 6 example is put together
The plan opens with the aim, its target and its safety condition. The baseline section repeats the observation method, observers and pricing basis so later audits match. A measures table lists waste per case, card review completion, held-item retrievals and their times, supply-related delays and safety events, with intervals and owners. The display section explains run charts with the baseline median and the rules for shifts and trends. The decision section sets thresholds at months 3, 6 and 12, with what happens if each is met or missed, including stopping the hold list if a retrieval delays a patient. The reporting section schedules monthly charts for the operating room committee and short reports to the two sponsors.
Reading the HA 695 Unit 6 rubric
Herzing's rubric for an evaluation plan typically covers the aim, baseline, measures, display, decision rules and reporting. Decision rules written before data exist carry the most weight, because they protect the evaluation from wishful reading once results arrive. Aim points reward a measurable target with a safety condition. Baseline criteria look for a method that can be repeated exactly. Measure credit goes to outcome, process and balancing types with owners. Display points reward run charts and named rules. Reporting should be scheduled with audiences, and each report should say which decision rule, if any, was triggered and what the team did about it. Langley's improvement guide, Perla's run chart article and Zygourakis's waste study support the plan.
Common HA 695 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Evaluation plans in HA 695 Unit 6 often slip by leaving decisions for later. Another frequent problem is changing the measurement method between baseline and follow-up. Students often include only the outcome measure. Balancing measures for safety are missing. Results are shown as single monthly numbers. Thresholds are vague, such as significant improvement. Reporting has no schedule or audience. Who pulls each measure is not stated, so data arrive late or not at all when the review date comes. Stopping rules are absent. Finally, decide now what each result will mean, because graders reward a plan that makes the next steps automatic once the data come in and leaves no room to explain away a poor result.
Get a HA 695 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 6 instructions and the rubric from your HA 695 classroom, plus the aim and the measures your recommendation was built on. We write a custom example with measures traced to the aim, intervals and collectors named, decision rules written in advance and handover settled, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More HA 695 papers and healthcare administration samples
- HA 695 Unit 1: Problem scoping paper
- HA 695 Unit 2: Evidence and oversight plan
- HA 695 Unit 3: Organizational evidence review
- HA 695 Unit 4: Current state analysis
- HA 695 Unit 5: Costed business case
- HA 695 Unit 7: Executive summary
- HA 695 Unit 8: Leadership presentation
- HA 625 Unit 6: Fraud and abuse audit plan
- HA 630 Unit 6: Digital campaign plan
- HA 635 Unit 6: Discipline case file
- HA 640 Unit 6: Decision matrix
HA 695 Unit 6 questions, answered
How long should the evaluation period run?
Long enough for the change to show and for novelty to wear off, which for most process changes means several months rather than a few points after go-live. Say what the interval assumes about volume, since a low-volume measure needs a longer window to say anything. If the term ends before the period does, plan the handover rather than shortening the evaluation.
What counts as a balancing measure?
Anything that would show the change causing trouble somewhere else: time added to another role, a queue moved rather than shortened, a cost pushed into a different budget. Pick the one a skeptical colleague would raise first, because that is the objection your plan has to be able to answer with data rather than with assurance.
Does the plan need statistical analysis?
Check the instructions, since expectations vary between sections. Most administrative capstones are served better by a clear before-and-after comparison with the collection method stated than by a test the writer cannot defend in a meeting. If you do use one, name it, say what assumption it rests on, and keep the plain comparison in the report as well.
Where can I find a free HA 695 Unit 6 sample paper?
Read the complete HA 695 Unit 6 evaluation plan here at no charge, outcome, process and balancing measures with decision rules set before any data. Ask for a custom evaluation plan for another capstone.
What is a balancing measure in a capstone evaluation?
A measure that checks whether the change causes harm elsewhere, such as delays or safety events after supplies are held unopened. This sample tracks both alongside waste per case.