HIM 690 Module 5 Discussion Example

Reviewed by Delia Ravenscroft, MSN, RN

This HIM 690 Module 5 Discussion sample works through a capstone result that contradicts earlier research. It was written for SNHU HIM 690 (HIM-690), where the fifth module asks MS Health Information Management candidates to interpret their findings critically and discuss them with peers. The composite writer's capstone at an academic hospital in Tulsa found that pressure wound flags were wrong in about two of five records, and that the errors overwhelmingly called hospital-acquired wounds pre-existing. Earlier research had found teaching hospitals more likely to make the opposite error. The post sets out three possible explanations, coders defaulting to yes, admission skin checks being skipped and deep tissue injuries surfacing days after the damage began, explains what evidence would tell them apart and asks peers how they handle a result that surprises them.

CourseHIM 690 Health Information Management Capstone
ModuleModule 5
Paper typegraduate discussion post interpreting an unexpected capstone finding
LengthAbout 360 words, 3 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolSouthern New Hampshire University
ProgramMS Health Information Management
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for HIM 690 Module 5

1

Module Five Discussion

The Wrong Direction

My results came back with a surprise. Goldman et al. (2011) found that teaching hospitals tended to under-report conditions as present on admission. At Cimarron Heights, a teaching hospital, pressure wound flags erred the other way in 26 of 31 disagreements, calling wounds that developed here pre-existing. I could explain that away quickly, which is exactly why I want to slow down.

What this page is doingThe post names the surprise and the temptation.
2

There are at least three explanations. The first is coder habit: when a nursing home resident comes in with any note about skin, coders may default to yes, perhaps because a no seems to accuse the hospital. The second is documentation: if no one inspects the skin on the first day, coders have nothing to contradict a later wound note, and a wound found on day three can look as if it had always been there. The third is clinical: Edsberg et al. (2016) note that deep tissue injury may appear as intact discolored skin before it evolves, so damage that began before arrival can be documented only later, and some of what my reviewers called hospital-acquired might truly have begun earlier.

These explanations predict different things. If coder habit drives the errors, over-reports should cluster among particular coders and facility admissions regardless of what the nurses wrote. If missing documentation drives them, errors should be concentrated in records without a first-day skin check, which the descriptive data already hint at. If clinical timing drives them, the disagreements should involve deep tissue injuries more than open wounds. My data can test all three: coder identity, admission source, the assessment variable and the wound stage are all in the file. A structured risk score such as the Braden Scale (Bergstrom et al., 1987) is recorded in most charts and may help show whether patients flagged present on admission were at high risk on arrival.

What this page is doingEach explanation is turned into a testable prediction.
3

The most comfortable explanation for me, as a health information professional, is the second one, because it places the fix with nursing. That is a reason to test it harder, not to believe it sooner. For peers: when your results surprised you, what did you do to avoid choosing the explanation you liked best?

What this page is doingThe writer names a personal bias before inviting peers.
4

References

Bergstrom, N., Braden, B. J., Laguzza, A., & Holman, V. (1987). The Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk. Nursing Research, 36(4), 205-210. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198707000-00002

Edsberg, L. E., Black, J. M., Goldberg, M., McNichol, L., Moore, L., & Sieggreen, M. (2016). Revised National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel pressure injury staging system. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 43(6), 585-597. https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000000281

Goldman, L. E., Chu, P. W., Osmond, D., & Bindman, A. (2011). The accuracy of present-on-admission reporting in administrative data. Health Services Research, 46(6pt1), 1946-1962. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01300.x

What the HIM 690 Module 5 instructions ask for

The fifth module of HIM 690 asks you to discuss how you are interpreting your capstone results, particularly anything unexpected. Aim for a page that cites a few APA 7 sources, then answer peers as the week goes on. State the finding precisely, with numbers, and explain why it is surprising, ideally against published research. Offer more than one explanation, and for each, say what it predicts and what data would support or rule it out. Note which explanation you are tempted to prefer and why that preference might be a bias. Close by asking classmates how they guard against choosing the most convenient interpretation of their own results. Precision about numbers matters more than length.

How this HIM 690 Module 5 discussion example is built

Cimarron Heights Medical Center's capstone found pressure wound flags erring toward present on admission in 26 of 31 disagreements, against Goldman and colleagues' finding that teaching hospitals tended to under-report. Three explanations follow: coders defaulting to yes for facility patients, missing first-day skin checks leaving nothing to contradict later notes and deep tissue injury surfacing late, as Edsberg and colleagues describe. Each is turned into a prediction testable with coder identity, admission source, assessment status and wound stage, with Braden scores from Bergstrom and colleagues' scale as a check. The HIM 690 post admits a preference for the explanation that puts the fix with nursing and treats that as a reason for harder testing.

Where the HIM 690 Module 5 rubric puts the points

HIM 690 interpretation discussions are generally graded on a precise statement of the finding, a clear explanation of why it is unexpected, multiple plausible explanations, predictions that would distinguish them, use of literature to frame the result and awareness of the writer's own biases. Posts that score highest show how the student's existing data can test each explanation rather than proposing a new study. Graders value humility and rigor over confident storytelling. Correct APA 7 citations and concise writing are expected. Replies earn credit when they suggest an explanation the writer missed or a simple test that could separate two explanations. Posts that show a test the writer will actually run score best.

HIM 690 Module 5 help: the mistakes that cost points

Interpretation posts in this course often lose marks by offering one explanation as fact, explaining results with no reference to prior research, proposing explanations that cannot be tested or ignoring the writer's own stake in the answer. If your capstone result is unexpected in a different way, for example no difference where you expected one or a smaller effect than the literature, send your finding and the prompt and the post will build explanations around it. The variables you collected matter, so list them. Our HIM 690 posts turn each explanation into a prediction the existing data can test. Bring the exact counts behind your surprise.

Get HIM 690 Module 5 written to your instructions

Send the HIM 690 Module 5 prompt and the finding that surprised you, with the variables you collected. The post will state the result precisely, compare it with published research, offer several explanations with testable predictions and name the bias to watch for, turned around within two days and free on a first order. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.

Request this module free All HIM 690 modules

More HIM 690 papers and related MS Health Information Management samples

HIM 690 Module 5 questions, answered

Where can I find a free HIM 690 Module 5 Discussion sample?

This page has the full HIM 690 Module 5 post, interpreting a capstone finding that runs against earlier research with three explanations and tests for each.

What should I do when capstone results contradict the literature?

State the result precisely, offer several explanations, say what each predicts and test them with your data before choosing one.

Why consider more than one explanation?

Because the first or most comfortable explanation may be wrong, and testing alternatives makes the conclusion more credible.

What is a deep tissue pressure injury?

A pressure injury that may first appear as intact, discolored skin over damage below the surface and can evolve over several days.

How can bias affect interpretation?

Researchers may favor explanations that fit their role or expectations, such as placing the fix in another department, so naming that preference helps guard against it.