| Course | HCA 405 Medical Office Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | Performance review paper |
| Length | About 1,035 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Health Care Administration |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for HCA 405 Module 7
Evidence, Not Impressions: A Performance Review With Documented Examples
Student Name
Health Care Administration Program, Aspen University
HCA 405: Medical Office Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Evidence, Not Impressions: A Performance Review With Documented Examples
Performance reviews often disappoint both managers and employees. Ratings drift toward the middle, comments are vague and the meeting feels like a formality. A review built on job standards and documented examples can instead recognize good work, address problems fairly and set direction. This paper presents a composite annual review for a billing specialist and explains how it was prepared and delivered.
Preparing the Review
The office manager kept a simple file for each employee through the year, noting specific examples of strong and weak performance with dates, as well as reports such as denial rates and posting accuracy. Before the review, she asked the employee, Mr. J., to complete a self-assessment. She compared both against the five standards drawn from his job description.
The Ratings
The table summarizes the ratings on a five-point scale, where 3 means meets expectations.
| Standard | Rating | Key evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy of payment posting | 4 | Posting audits: 99.2% accuracy across four quarterly samples |
| Denial follow-up | 5 | Reduced unworked denials older than 60 days from 140 to 12 |
| Patient billing communication | 4 | Two written patient compliments; no complaints |
| Timeliness of claims | 3 | Claims submitted within 3 days on average; target met |
| Teamwork and communication | 2 | Three documented instances of not sharing denial trends with front desk |
Documented Strengths
On March 14, Mr. J. identified that a payer had changed its authorization rules and prepared a one-page guide that prevented further denials. From April through September, he worked the backlog of old denials, recovering about $38,000. On July 2, a patient wrote to thank him for explaining a confusing bill patiently. These examples support the high ratings on denial follow-up and communication.
An Area Needing Improvement
Teamwork was rated below expectations. On May 9, June 20 and August 15, Mr. J. identified recurring registration errors behind denials but did not share them with front desk staff, who continued making the same errors. The manager's comments describe the behavior and its effect, not his character, and note that he improved after the August conversation.
Goals for Next Year
The review sets three goals: share a monthly one-page denial trend summary with the front desk team; train one front desk member in basic denial reading by June; and maintain posting accuracy above 99%. Each goal is specific, measurable and within his control.
Development Plan
Mr. J. wants to become billing lead. The development plan includes a certification course in medical billing, which the practice will pay for, and leading one staff meeting segment per quarter to build presentation skills. The manager will check progress in their regular one-on-ones.
Avoiding Rating Errors
Common errors include the halo effect, where one strong area inflates all ratings; central tendency, where everyone is rated average; recency, where only the last few weeks count; and leniency or strictness applied unevenly. Keeping a year-long file, rating each standard separately and requiring evidence for every rating reduces these errors.
Why Specific Feedback Matters
Research on feedback shows it can raise or lower performance. The classic review of feedback research warns that comments aimed at who someone is, rather than what they did, are the kind most likely to make performance worse (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). The review therefore focuses on tasks and behaviors with examples, not personal traits.
The Review Conversation
The manager scheduled an hour in a private office. She began by asking Mr. J. how he felt the year went, then walked through each standard, starting with strengths. When discussing teamwork, she described the three instances, their effect and his improvement, then asked what would help. They agreed on goals together. The meeting ended with his development plan.
Supporting Motivation
Motivation research suggests that people perform best when they feel autonomous, competent and connected (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Inviting Mr. J. to set part of the agenda, recognizing his competence with evidence and linking his goals to helping teammates addressed all three needs.
Documentation and Signatures
Both signed the review, with a statement that signature means the employee has seen it, not that he agrees. He was invited to add written comments. A copy went into his personnel file. Documented reviews support fair decisions on raises and promotions and protect the practice if a dispute arises.
Linking Review to Pay and Retention
The practice ties annual raises to overall ratings within a set range, and high performers are considered first for lead roles. Recognizing and developing strong performers like Mr. J. matters for retention, since replacing experienced staff is costly (Friedman & Neutze, 2020).
Reviews for Different Performers
Reviews look different for different employees. For a new employee, the review focuses on learning progress. For a strong performer like Mr. J., it emphasizes recognition and growth. For an employee with serious problems, it documents expectations and a formal improvement plan. The same standards and evidence apply to all.
Beyond the Annual Review
An annual review should hold no surprises. Mr. J. had already heard about the teamwork concern in August, during a one-on-one. Regular feedback through the year makes the annual review a summary rather than a shock and gives employees time to improve before ratings are set.
Fairness Across the Team
The manager compared ratings across the front office to check for consistency, making sure similar performance received similar ratings. She was careful that ratings reflected evidence rather than personality or how much she liked working with someone, since inconsistent reviews undermine trust and can create legal risk.
Self-Assessment
Mr. J.'s self-assessment rated his teamwork higher than the manager did. Rather than dismiss the difference, the manager asked what he had seen that she had not, and he described helping a colleague learn a payer portal. They agreed the rating would stay but the example would be added, showing that self-assessment can add evidence as well as perspective.
Conclusion
A performance review built on job standards and dated examples produces ratings that employees can understand and accept. Mr. J.'s review recognized his denial work with evidence, addressed a teamwork gap without attacking his character, and set specific goals and a development plan. Research on feedback and motivation supports this approach, which turns the annual review into a tool for growth.
References
Friedman, J. L., & Neutze, D. (2020). The financial cost of medical assistant turnover in an academic family medicine center. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 33(3), 426-430. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2020.03.190119
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Reading the HCA 405 Module 7 assignment instructions
Analysis of performance is part of Aspen's HCA 405 catalog text, and since the module wording is shown only to enrolled students, a performance review with documented examples fits this example. Review assignments usually ask you to write a review for a real or hypothetical employee, with ratings, examples, goals and a plan, and sometimes to explain how you would deliver it. Check whether your prompt supplies the employee's record. Tie each rating to a standard from the job description and support it with dated examples. Write improvement comments about behavior and effects, not character, and make goals measurable. Include how you would deliver the review in person. Add a short note on how often feedback happens during the year.
Inside the HCA 405 Module 7 example
This example spans about 1,035 words across eighteen headings, with a five-row ratings table. It begins with preparation, then the ratings, documented strengths, an area needing improvement, goals and a development plan. Rating errors, why specific feedback matters, the review conversation, supporting motivation, documentation and signatures, and links to pay and retention follow. Reviews for different performers, feedback beyond the annual review, fairness across the team and self-assessment close the body. A note beside the strengths section explains how dates make each rating verifiable. The review document itself appears first, followed by the reasoning behind it. The final sections show how reviews differ for new staff, strong performers and those with serious problems.
Reading the HCA 405 Module 7 grading rubric
Performance reviews are usually assessed on evidence-based ratings, balanced feedback, clear goals and fair process. Every rating has evidence. Feedback balances recognition with one clear improvement area. Goals are specific and within the employee's control. The process includes self-assessment, a private conversation and a signature statement. Research on feedback and motivation is cited in APA style, along with turnover cost evidence. Graders also reward awareness of rating errors and consistency across a team, both addressed. Attention to self-assessment also shows respect for the employee's view. Clear links from ratings to pay and development show how reviews shape careers. Consistency checks across the team show fairness in practice.
Common HCA 405 Module 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most frequent error is vague comments, such as good team player, without examples. Add dates and specifics. Students also rate everything average or everything excellent; use the full scale with evidence. Another gap is goals that cannot be measured. Keep improvement comments about behavior. When your review is written, a tutor can read it as the employee would and point out any comment that might feel unfair or unsupported. Include a development plan so the review points forward. Invite the employee's own comments. Make sure the signature line explains what signing means. Name the standards before rating them, and use the whole scale.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HCA 405 and Health Care Administration sample papers
- HCA 405 Module 1: The Role of the Medical Office Manager
- HCA 405 Module 2: Office Environment, Safety and Supplies
- HCA 405 Module 3: Job Analysis and a Job Description
- HCA 405 Module 4: Selecting and Hiring Staff
- HCA 405 Module 5: Supervising and Training Employees
- HCA 405 Module 6: Motivating Staff and Building Morale
- HCA 405 Module 8: Analyzing and Improving an Office System
- HCA 415 Module 2: Major Moral Theories Compared
- HCA 125 Module 7: Budget and Break-Even Analysis
- HCA 410 Module 3: Professional Organizations for Students
- HCA 130 Module 4: A Patient Letter About a Result
HCA 405 Module 7 questions, answered
What does HCA 405 Module 7 usually ask for?
Aspen's HCA 405 description covers the analysis of performance, so writing a performance review with documented examples is a typical assignment. Follow your Aspen classroom prompt.
What is the halo effect in performance reviews?
Letting one strong or weak area influence ratings on unrelated standards.
Why document examples throughout the year?
Dated examples support fair ratings, reduce recency bias and give employees specific feedback they can act on.
Where can I find a free HCA 405 Module 7 sample paper?
Read the completed review above, from the ratings table to the development plan. It is the seventh sample for HCA 405.
What is recency bias in HCA 405 Module 7?
Letting the last few weeks of performance outweigh the whole review period, which a year-long file of examples helps prevent.