| Course | HLTH 5623 Epidemiology and Public Health for Healthcare Administrators |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Population health action plan |
| Length | 1,180 words, about 4 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | MHA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 5623 Module 6
From Profile to Plan: Three Actions a Health System Can Take Where Diabetes Hospitalizations Concentrate
Student Name
American College of Education
HLTH5623: Epidemiology and Public Health for Healthcare Administrators
Module 6 Assignment
Instructor Name
June 5, 2028
The Findings That Drive Action
The population profile of Brookfield County, a fictional county of about 340,000 people served by the regional health system in this course, produced four findings that matter for action. About 31,000 adults live with diagnosed diabetes. Estimated prevalence is highest, at more than 17 percent, in three east-side urban tracts. Residents there earn less, go uninsured more often and own fewer cars than anywhere else in the county. And their residents, about 6 percent of the county's adults, account for 17 percent of admissions for diabetes complications and amputations, the kind of hospitalization that ongoing outpatient care can often prevent.
Those findings point away from a countywide campaign and toward a focused effort where the gap between burden and care is widest. The system's target is to reduce admissions for diabetes complications among east-side residents by 20 percent within three years, from about 330 admissions a year to about 265, while maintaining progress elsewhere. A population profile earns its keep when it tells a health system where not to spread its resources thin.
Action One: Community Health Workers
The first action is a community health worker program for adults with diabetes in the three tracts who have had an emergency visit or admission in the past year, about 600 people. Community health workers, hired from the neighborhoods they serve, would help patients with the practical barriers the profile identified: arranging transportation, applying for coverage, obtaining medications and supplies and getting to follow-up appointments. Kangovi et al. (2018) tested a standardized community health worker intervention for low-income patients with chronic conditions across primary care practices in a randomized trial. The intervention did not change the primary outcome, self-rated physical health, but patients who received it reported higher quality of care, spent fewer total days in the hospital and had lower odds of repeat hospitalization.
Six community health workers, each supporting about 100 patients with diabetes and other chronic conditions, supervised by a social worker, would cost about $510,000 a year including salaries, benefits, supervision and transportation assistance. The measure of success is admissions for diabetes complications among enrolled patients compared with a matched group of eligible patients enrolled later, along with the share of enrolled patients with a primary care visit every six months.
Action Two: A Neighborhood Clinic Site
The second action addresses access directly. The nearest system primary care clinic to the east-side tracts is 5 miles away by road and about 55 minutes by bus with one transfer, and 16 percent of households in the tracts have no vehicle. The system would open a part-time primary care and diabetes education site in a community health center or church partner's space within the tracts, staffed three days a week by a nurse practitioner, a certified diabetes educator and a medical assistant, with laboratory draws and foot and eye screening on site.
The estimated annual cost is about $620,000, partly offset by visit revenue from patients with coverage. Its measures are the number of distinct east-side patients with diabetes seen each quarter, the proportion with an A1c test in the past six months and the proportion receiving annual foot and retinal examinations, the preventive services most directly linked to avoiding amputation and vision loss.
Action Three: Prioritizing the Prevention Program
The third action connects this plan to the diabetes prevention program evaluated earlier in the course. The system has decided to expand the program to all 22 clinics in a staged, randomized order. This plan recommends that the neighborhood clinic site and the two clinics closest to the east-side tracts be placed in the first group, while preserving randomization among the remaining clinics, and that sessions be offered in the evenings at the neighborhood site. Evaluation of the national program found that attendance drives results, with participants losing more weight for each additional session attended (Ely et al., 2017), so reducing the travel and schedule barriers that limit attendance in these tracts is likely to matter as much as offering the program at all.
Because this action changes the rollout order rather than adding a new program, its additional cost is small, about $40,000 a year for evening staffing. Its measures are enrollment among east-side adults with prediabetes and the proportion completing at least 16 sessions.
Sequencing and Partnerships
The actions are sequenced so that each supports the next. Community health workers begin first, because they can start within three months and will identify the patients most likely to use the neighborhood site. The neighborhood site opens in month six, once a partner space is secured. The prevention program starts at the site in month nine. The health system should not act alone: the county health department already runs a food access program in two of the three tracts, and a formal partnership would allow community health workers to connect patients with it. A scientific review of social determinants and diabetes concluded that addressing food, housing, transportation and health care access together is necessary to reduce disparities in outcomes (Hill-Briggs et al., 2021), which the partnership begins to do.
Risks and What Would Change the Plan
The plan faces three main risks. The first is recruitment: community health worker programs depend on hiring people trusted in the neighborhood, and the system's usual hiring requirements, such as prior health care experience, could screen out the best candidates. The plan therefore asks human resources to create a job description that values lived experience and community relationships over clinical credentials. The second is attribution: admissions for diabetes complications are influenced by many factors, and a decline could reflect changes in coding, in coverage or in another provider's services. The evaluation will compare the east-side tracts with similar tracts in a neighboring county without the program, using the same state discharge data, to separate the plan's effect from regional trends.
The third risk is sustainability. The plan's annual cost of about $1.2 million is only partly offset by visit revenue, and the system's finance committee will expect evidence of reduced admissions before continuing it beyond the first three years. Each action has an early measure that can be read within six to twelve months, and the plan commits to a review at eighteen months. If community health worker enrollment is below 60 percent of eligible patients or the neighborhood site sees fewer than 250 distinct patients with diabetes in its first year, the system will redesign that component rather than continue it unchanged.
Conclusion
The profile showed where diabetes hospitalizations concentrate and why. The plan answers with three targeted actions: community health workers for high-risk patients, a neighborhood clinic site that removes a 55-minute bus trip from routine care and an early, accessible start for the prevention program. Together they cost about $1.2 million a year, and each has a measure the system can read within a year. The three-year target, a 20 percent reduction in complication admissions in the east-side tracts, is ambitious but grounded in the evidence and in a clear understanding of where the gap lies.
References
Ely, E. K., Gruss, S. M., Luman, E. T., Gregg, E. W., Ali, M. K., Nhim, K., Rolka, D. B., & Albright, A. L. (2017). A national effort to prevent type 2 diabetes: Participant-level evaluation of CDC's National Diabetes Prevention Program. Diabetes Care, 40(10), 1331-1341. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-2099
Hill-Briggs, F., Adler, N. E., Berkowitz, S. A., Chin, M. H., Gary-Webb, T. L., Navas-Acien, A., Thornton, P. L., & Haire-Joshu, D. (2021). Social determinants of health and diabetes: A scientific review. Diabetes Care, 44(1), 258-279. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci20-0053
Kangovi, S., Mitra, N., Norton, L., Harte, R., Zhao, X., Carter, T., Grande, D., & Long, J. A. (2018). Effect of community health worker support on clinical outcomes of low-income patients across primary care facilities: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 178(12), 1635-1643. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4630
Reading the HLTH 5623 Module 6 instructions
HLTH 5623 Module 6 asks you to turn your epidemiologic analysis into a plan a health system could act on. Most prompts expect the findings that drive action, a target, a small number of actions each supported by evidence and aimed at where the burden concentrates, sequencing, partnerships, risks and measures that would show whether the plan works. Many sections ask you to report evidence accurately even when results were mixed. An action plan like this commonly runs five pages. The Canvas instructions say whether a budget is required and whether the plan must use the population from Module 5. Write the target as a number, a population and a date before choosing actions.
Inside the HLTH 5623 Module 6 example
The plan begins with the three findings that matter: hospitalizations concentrate in two neighborhoods, many are preventable, and residents there have low access to primary care. A target follows: reduce preventable diabetes admissions from those neighborhoods by a set share within three years. Action one deploys community health workers for adults with recent admissions, citing a randomized trial and reporting that its primary outcome was null while some secondary outcomes improved. Action two opens a neighborhood clinic site. Action three prioritizes the diabetes prevention program for residents with prediabetes, with evidence on the national program's reach. The sequencing section orders the actions with partners such as churches and the health department. Risks are paired with mitigations, and thresholds for redesign close it.
HLTH 5623 Module 6 rubric: what full marks look like
Action plans are graded on the link from evidence to action. Findings credit requires only the findings that drive action, with numbers. Target marks reward a specific, measurable and time-bound goal tied to the profile. Each action row rewards targeting at a defined group and evidence reported accurately, including null or mixed results, which graders check closely. Sequencing and partnership marks go to a realistic order and named partners. The risks row rewards specific mitigations and thresholds that would trigger redesign. The last points go to a clear structure and APA 7. A measure for each action, reported at a stated interval, shows how leaders will know whether the plan is working. Targets set from a baseline year also earn marks.
HLTH 5623 Module 6 help from the desk
Action plans most often propose many programs for the whole population. Another frequent weakness is overstating evidence, such as calling a trial with a null primary outcome a success. Students also forget partners and timelines. Target the place and group where the burden concentrates. Choose three actions at most. Report trial results exactly. Sequence the work. Set thresholds for changing course. Name a partner for each action and what they will contribute. For a population such as rural veterans or new mothers with postpartum depression, the desk can write an action plan too. Name who owns each action.
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 American College of Education 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 HLTH 5623 and MHA sample papers
- HLTH 5623 Module 1: Counts, Rates and Denominators
- HLTH 5623 Module 2: Crude and Adjusted Rates Paper
- HLTH 5623 Module 3: Study Design Appraisal
- HLTH 5623 Module 4: Epidemiologic Rate Analysis
- HLTH 5623 Module 5: Population Health Profile
- HLTH 5673 Module 1: Market Analysis
- HLTH 5643 Module 5: Data Governance Plan
- HLTH 5613 Module 3: Strategic Options Analysis
- HLTH 5673 Module 2: Market Segmentation Analysis
HLTH 5623 Module 6 questions, answered
How do I connect epidemiologic findings to action?
Start from where the burden concentrates and why, then choose actions that address those causes in those places. For each action, cite evidence that it works, estimate its cost and name a measure that will show whether it is working. Avoid general campaigns that spread resources evenly when the data show concentrated need.
Should I report studies that had mixed results?
Yes, accurately. If a trial found no effect on its primary outcome but benefits on secondary outcomes, say so. Honest reporting of mixed evidence makes a plan more credible and helps decision makers set realistic expectations for what an action will achieve.
Where can I find a free HLTH 5623 Module 6 sample paper?
Read it above at no cost: "The Findings That Drive Action", "Action Three: Prioritizing the Prevention Program" and "Risks and What Would Change the Plan" make up this HLTH 5623 Module 6 population health action plan.
What do community health workers do in diabetes care?
They are trusted community members trained to help patients with practical barriers such as transportation, food and medications, coach self-care and connect patients with clinical and social services.
How many actions should a population health plan include?
Two or three well-targeted actions with evidence and measures are usually stronger than a long list. Each should address a reason the burden concentrates where it does.