| Course | HCA 499 Senior Capstone |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Capstone options analysis |
| Length | About 1,057 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Health Care Administration |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for HCA 499 Module 5
Choosing the Right Intervention: An Options Analysis With Costs and Risks
Student Name
Health Care Administration Program, Aspen University
HCA 499: Senior Capstone
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Choosing the Right Intervention: An Options Analysis With Costs and Risks
An options analysis compares realistic alternatives before a recommendation is made. It makes trade-offs visible to decision-makers and shows that the chosen option was not simply the first idea. This paper compares four options for reducing heart failure readmissions at Dana's composite community hospital and presents the recommendation approved by the project sponsor.
The Options
Option A schedules a cardiology or primary care follow-up within seven days before every heart failure patient leaves the hospital. Option B adds a pharmacist phone call within 48 hours of discharge to review medications and warning signs. Option C creates a transition coach program modeled on published coaching trials. Option D combines scheduled follow-up, pharmacist medication review at discharge and a nurse phone call within 48 hours.
Criteria and Weights
The team, including the sponsor, a cardiologist, the pilot unit manager and a pharmacist, agreed on four criteria and weights: expected effect on readmissions, 40%; cost, 25%; feasibility with current resources, 20%; and risk of implementation problems, 15%. Weights were set before scoring to avoid tailoring them to a favorite option.
Decision Matrix
The team rated every option on every criterion using a five-point scale on which higher meant better. The table shows the weighted results.
| Option | Effect (40%) | Cost (25%) | Feasibility (20%) | Risk (15%) | Weighted score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A: Scheduled follow-up | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3.85 |
| B: Pharmacist call | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3.20 |
| C: Transition coach | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2.95 |
| D: Combined bundle | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3.40 |
Reading the Matrix
Option A scored highest because it is inexpensive and feasible, but its expected effect is moderate. Option D scored second but has the highest expected effect among feasible options. The team discussed whether the weights undervalued effect. Evidence that single interventions rarely work alone (Hansen et al., 2011) and that multicomponent interventions are more effective (Leppin et al., 2014) persuaded the team to look beyond the numeric ranking.
Cost Estimates
Rough annual cost estimates were prepared with finance. Option A requires reserved clinic slots and scheduler time, about $15,000. Option B requires pharmacist time for about 300 calls, about $22,000. Option C requires a dedicated coach, about $70,000 with benefits. Option D requires scheduler time, pharmacist review at discharge and nurse calls, about $45,000. These are planning estimates, not budgets.
Value of Avoided Readmissions
Each avoided heart failure readmission saves the hospital the cost of an admission that is often poorly reimbursed and reduces exposure to federal penalties. If Option D reduced readmissions from 23.1% to 18%, about 16 readmissions a year would be avoided on the hospital's volume. Even at conservative cost estimates per admission, the savings would likely exceed the bundle's cost. The coaching trial also reported lower mean hospital costs for coached patients at 180 days (Coleman et al., 2006).
Risks and Mitigations
Option D's main risks were clinic slot shortages, pharmacist workload, missed calls and staff resistance to added discharge steps. Mitigations included reserving four heart failure slots a week in the cardiology clinic, starting on one unit, using a call script and tracking system, and designing the workflow with unit nurses.
Why Not the Coach Program
Option C had strong trial evidence but required a new position the hospital could not fund immediately. The team recommended revisiting it after the pilot, using results from Option D to build a business case if more intensive support proved necessary.
Equity Considerations
The team considered whether options would reach all patients. Phone calls may miss patients without reliable phones; clinic appointments may be hard for patients without transportation. Option D included collecting a backup contact number at discharge and connecting patients with transportation assistance when needed.
Sensitivity Check
Dana tested whether the recommendation changed if weights shifted. When effect was weighted at 50% and cost at 15%, Option D ranked first. When cost was weighted at 35%, Option A ranked first. The team judged that effect deserved the higher weight given the patient stakes and the penalty, supporting Option D.
The Recommendation
The team recommended Option D, the combined bundle, piloted on one medical unit for three months, with Option A's scheduling component spread hospital-wide if the pilot confirmed its feasibility. The sponsor approved, noting that the recommendation was grounded in both local data and published evidence.
What Would Change the Decision
The team agreed that if pilot readmissions did not fall, or if the bundle proved unworkable for staff, it would revisit the options, possibly moving to a coach model or focusing on the component that performed best.
Stakeholder Input on Options
Before finalizing scores, Dana shared the options with nurses, pharmacists and clinic schedulers. Nurses worried about call workload; pharmacists offered to start reviews the day before discharge; schedulers asked for reserved slots rather than ad hoc requests. Their input changed several feasibility scores and improved the eventual design.
Non-Financial Benefits
Not every benefit fits in a budget. Fewer readmissions mean patients spend more time at home, families face less disruption and beds are available for others. Staff also valued a clearer discharge process. The team recorded these benefits alongside costs so leaders could weigh them.
Communicating the Recommendation
Dana presented the recommendation on one page: the problem, the four options, the matrix, costs, risks and the recommended option with reasons. A single page let the sponsor decide in one meeting and share the reasoning with leadership.
Timeline Differences
The options also differed in time to launch. Scheduling could start within weeks; the combined bundle needed about a month for an order set and training; a coach program would need several months to fund and hire. A pilot that could start within the capstone timeline favored Options A and D.
Assumptions
The analysis rested on stated assumptions: that clinic slots could be reserved, that pharmacists could absorb about three reviews a week on the pilot unit and that roughly 13 heart failure patients would be discharged monthly. Listing assumptions made clear what would need checking during the pilot.
Conclusion
The options analysis compared four interventions on effect, cost, feasibility and risk using a weighted matrix, cost estimates and sensitivity checks. Although the simplest option scored highest numerically, evidence favoring multicomponent approaches led the team to recommend a combined bundle, piloted on one unit. Making the trade-offs explicit gave the sponsor confidence in the decision.
References
Coleman, E. A., Parry, C., Chalmers, S., & Min, S.-J. (2006). The care transitions intervention: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(17), 1822-1828. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.17.1822
Hansen, L. O., Young, R. S., Hinami, K., Leung, A., & Williams, M. V. (2011). Interventions to reduce 30-day rehospitalization: A systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 155(8), 520-528. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00008
Leppin, A. L., Gionfriddo, M. R., Kessler, M., Brito, J. P., Mair, F. S., Gallacher, K., Wang, Z., Erwin, P. J., Sylvester, T., Boehmer, K., Ting, H. H., Murad, M. H., Shippee, N. D., & Montori, V. M. (2014). Preventing 30-day hospital readmissions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(7), 1095-1107. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1608
What the HCA 499 Module 5 instructions ask for
Options analysis fits the applied design of Aspen's HCA 499 capstone, and since the classroom alone holds each module's exact prompt, a comparison of interventions with costs and risks was chosen for this sample. Options assignments usually ask you to identify several realistic alternatives, compare them on explicit criteria and recommend one. Check whether your prompt requires a specific tool such as a decision matrix or cost-benefit analysis. Set criteria and weights before scoring, and show what happens if weights change. Include costs even if rough, and name your assumptions so readers know what to check. A one-page summary of the recommendation helps decision-makers act quickly. Rough estimates are fine if you label them as planning figures and explain their source.
How the HCA 499 Module 5 example is put together
This example contains roughly 1,055 words under nineteen headings, with a five-row decision matrix. It describes four options and the criteria with weights, presents the matrix and reads it alongside the evidence. Cost estimates, the value of avoided readmissions, risks and mitigations, and why the coach program was deferred follow. Equity, a sensitivity check, the recommendation and what would change the decision come next. Stakeholder input, non-financial benefits, communicating the recommendation, timeline differences and assumptions close the body. A note beside the matrix explains that setting weights before scoring protects the analysis from bias. The sensitivity check shows how rankings shift when weights change, which makes the final choice more defensible. Assumptions are listed at the end so readers can see what the estimates depend on.
Reading the HCA 499 Module 5 grading rubric
Options analyses tend to be graded on realistic alternatives, explicit criteria, sound comparison and a justified recommendation. The four options are real and distinct. Criteria and weights are stated first. The matrix is followed by honest discussion of why the top numeric score was not chosen, supported by evidence cited in APA style. Costs, risks and equity are covered. A sensitivity check shows robustness. Graders also value clear communication to decision-makers, and the one-page summary shows how the recommendation reached the sponsor. Stakeholder input shows the analysis was tested with the people who would do the work. Clear assumptions let readers check the estimates. Equity considerations show attention to all patients.
HCA 499 Module 5 help: mistakes that cost marks
The most frequent weakness is a straw-man comparison in which the favored option obviously wins. Choose realistic alternatives. Students also set weights after scoring, which biases results. Another gap is leaving out costs or assumptions. Include a sensitivity check. Explain any departure from the matrix ranking. If you would like a tutor to test your matrix, we can change a weight or two with you and see whether your recommendation still holds. State your assumptions and test them during the pilot. Ask the people who would carry out each option to review feasibility scores. Present the recommendation on one page. Include equity, since options can reach some patients better than others.
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 499 and Health Care Administration sample papers
- HCA 499 Module 1: Choosing and Defining a Capstone Problem
- HCA 499 Module 2: Capstone Project Proposal
- HCA 499 Module 3: Analyzing the Problem With Data
- HCA 499 Module 4: Focused Literature Review
- HCA 499 Module 6: Implementation Plan
- HCA 499 Module 7: Evaluation Plan With Measures
- HCA 499 Module 8: Final Capstone Report
- HCA 100 Module 4: Professionalism in Health Care Work
- HCA 105 Module 6: A Medication Error Scenario
- HCA 125 Module 1: Healthcare Financial Structure
- HCA 310 Module 3: Documenting an Exam and Diagnosis
HCA 499 Module 5 questions, answered
What does HCA 499 Module 5 usually ask for?
Aspen's HCA 499 capstone is applied and pragmatic, so an options analysis with costs and risks is a typical assignment. Check your Aspen classroom for the prompt.
What is a weighted decision matrix?
A table that scores options on criteria, multiplies scores by agreed weights and sums them to compare options.
What is a sensitivity check?
Testing whether the recommendation changes when weights or assumptions change, which shows how robust the choice is.
Where can I find a free HCA 499 Module 5 sample paper?
The options analysis, decision matrix and all, is shown above. It is the fifth HCA 499 sample in the same capstone.
Why run a sensitivity check in HCA 499 Module 5?
To see whether the recommended option still ranks well when criteria weights or assumptions change.