Risk Management Approaches to
Managing Changes — Assignment Guide
This assignment requires a 7-page graduate paper selecting a healthcare enterprise-level risk topic, building a position for managing it, and supporting that position with root cause analysis, regulatory standards, and scholarly evidence. Each required section — abstract, problem statement, position, supporting work, counterargument, conclusion — is a distinct analytical task. This guide breaks down what each section must accomplish and where graduate students lose points.
⚕️ Need expert help with your healthcare risk management paper or graduate-level assignment?
Get Expert Help →What This Assignment Is Testing — and Why Generic Risk Management Content Fails
This assignment evaluates whether you can identify a specific enterprise-level risk in a healthcare organization, analyze its causes and consequences using recognized risk management methodology, and develop and defend a position for managing it. The seven required structural components — abstract, introduction, problem statement, position, supporting work, counterargument, and conclusion — are not interchangeable sections of a literature review. Each one performs a distinct analytical function, and a paper that treats them as a continuous narrative rather than as structured argumentative components will not satisfy a graduate-level rubric. The assignment explicitly requires course theories, textbook concepts, and outside research — meaning the grader is checking whether your analysis reflects the conceptual vocabulary of the course, not just general knowledge of risk management.
The 7-page requirement includes a cover page and reference page, which means your actual content window is approximately 5 pages — roughly 1,400 to 1,600 words at graduate writing density with standard APA formatting (12-point font, double-spacing, 1-inch margins). That is not much space for seven structural components plus six scholarly references. Every paragraph must carry analytical content — no background filler, no re-stating what risk management is in general terms, and no padding.
The assignment also specifies that examples could include insurance, billing, or inadequate healthcare service processes. This is not an exhaustive list — it is a framing signal. The topic must be something that generates risk at the enterprise level, meaning it has implications for the organization’s regulatory compliance, financial stability, patient safety outcomes, liability exposure, or reputational standing. A topic that is purely operational and departmental in scope, without enterprise-level consequences, will not satisfy the assignment’s framing requirement.
The Assignment Requires You to Develop and Defend a Position — Not Just Describe a Problem
Many graduate students write risk management papers that describe the problem thoroughly and then list several possible interventions without committing to one. That is not a position paper. The assignment asks you to “develop a position for managing the risk” — which means you select one primary risk management approach, argue why it is the most appropriate response to the risk you have identified, and defend that argument against a counterargument. The problem statement identifies the risk. The position tells the reader what you are arguing should be done about it. These are distinct moves, and a paper that conflates them loses points on the argumentative structure criterion.
Choosing a Healthcare Risk Topic That Works for This Assignment
Topic selection is a structural decision, not just a content choice. The topic you select determines whether you can satisfy all seven required components — a topic that lacks regulatory standards to cite, clear causal factors to analyze, or a defensible counterargument will produce a paper that is thin in its supporting work section regardless of how well it is written. Before committing to a topic, check that it has: documented evidence of organizational risk in the peer-reviewed literature, applicable regulatory or accreditation standards (Joint Commission, CMS, HIPAA, OSHA, state health department requirements), a recognized root cause structure, and a genuine counterargument to the position you want to take.
Enterprise-Level Healthcare Risk Topics That Satisfy the Assignment’s Requirements
Medical Billing Errors and Revenue Cycle Risk: Errors in clinical coding, upcoding, undercoding, and claim submission generate compliance risk (False Claims Act, OIG oversight), financial risk (denied claims, clawbacks, payer audits), and reputational risk. Root cause analysis maps to documentation gaps, coder training deficiencies, EHR interface errors, and physician query failures. Regulatory standards include CMS billing compliance requirements and OIG Compliance Program Guidance.
Medication Error Systems and Patient Safety Risk: Medication errors — including prescribing, transcription, dispensing, and administration errors — generate patient harm risk, regulatory risk (Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goals), and liability risk. The causal structure is well-documented in the patient safety literature, and enterprise-level consequences include sentinel event review requirements, CMS Conditions of Participation compliance, and malpractice exposure. Strong scholarly literature base in ISMP and JAMA publications.
Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAI) and Infection Control Failures: HAIs generate direct patient harm, CMS value-based purchasing penalties (HAC Reduction Program), Joint Commission accreditation risk, and public reporting exposure. Root causes include hand hygiene protocol adherence, catheter and line insertion bundle compliance, environmental cleaning standards, and staff training gaps.
Inadequate Informed Consent Processes: Consent process failures generate legal liability risk (battery and negligence claims), regulatory risk (patient rights standards under CMS CoPs), and quality risk. Enterprise-level because consent failures affect every service line — surgical, procedural, and diagnostic. Causal factors include time pressure, language and health literacy barriers, documentation system gaps, and physician communication training deficits.
Insurance Authorization and Prior Approval Delays: Delays in insurance pre-authorization generate patient safety risk (delayed care), financial risk (denied claims, write-offs), and operational risk (throughput disruption). Enterprise-level because authorization failures affect every clinical department and revenue cycle simultaneously. Regulatory dimension includes ACA requirements and state insurance commissioner standards.
Confirm Your Topic Has a Genuine Counterargument Before Committing
The counterargument section requires you to represent and then rebut an opposing position on how to manage the risk. This works best when there is a genuine debate in the literature — for example, whether to address medication errors through technology-based interventions (CPOE, barcode scanning) or through culture-based interventions (safety culture initiatives, just culture frameworks). If your topic has only one obvious management approach and no credible alternative, the counterargument section will be forced and unconvincing. Before finalizing your topic, identify the counterargument you will need to refute and confirm it is supported by peer-reviewed sources — not just a straw man you construct to knock down.
Writing the Abstract — What It Must Cover and What It Must Not Do
An APA 7th edition abstract for a graduate paper is a single paragraph of 150 to 250 words that summarizes the entire paper — the topic, the problem, your position, your key supporting evidence, and your conclusion. It is not an introduction. It does not ask questions or make promises about what the paper will do. It summarizes what the paper does, in past or present tense, as a complete distillation of the argument.
For this assignment, the abstract must cover: the specific healthcare risk you are addressing, the organizational level at which it operates (enterprise-level, and what that means for this organization), your position for managing it (stated in one to two sentences), the primary supporting evidence you use (root cause analysis findings, applicable regulatory standards), and your conclusion about why this approach is preferable. Six scholarly references means six sources will be cited in the body — the abstract itself does not include citations.
Three Things Abstracts Must Never Do
An abstract that begins with “This paper will examine…” is not an abstract — it is a prospectus. An abstract that includes in-text citations is incorrectly formatted per APA 7th edition. An abstract that runs over 250 words has exceeded the standard length and typically indicates the writer does not yet have a clear enough grip on the paper’s argument to distill it efficiently. Write the abstract last — after the body of the paper is complete — so you are summarizing what you actually wrote rather than what you intend to write.
Writing the Introduction and Problem Statement — Two Different Analytical Moves
The introduction and problem statement are separate sections with different functions. Students who merge them into one continuous narrative typically produce an introduction that is too long and a problem statement that lacks the specificity required to support the rest of the paper.
What the Introduction Must Do
The introduction provides context for the healthcare risk topic and signals the paper’s argument without stating it in full. It should establish why this topic is significant at the enterprise level — what organizational stakes are involved, what the current landscape of the problem looks like in the healthcare industry, and why a risk management approach is both necessary and appropriate. It should end with a clear thesis statement that identifies your position. Introduction length at this paper’s scale: one to two paragraphs, approximately 150 to 200 words. Longer introductions consume space the analytical sections need.
What the Problem Statement Must Do
The problem statement is a diagnostic section. It defines the specific risk, establishes its scope, and documents its consequences. The problem statement is not an argument — it is an evidence-based characterization of the problem that justifies the intervention you will propose in the position section. A strong problem statement for this assignment answers four questions: What exactly is the risk? Who and what does it affect? What are the documented consequences at the organizational level? What evidence from the peer-reviewed literature establishes the magnitude of this problem?
Problem Statement Structure — What Each Paragraph Must Accomplish
At five pages of content, your problem statement should be one to two focused paragraphs — approximately 200 to 300 words. Each paragraph has a specific job.
What the Risk Is and How Big It Is
- Name the specific risk in concrete terms — not “medication errors” but “wrong-patient medication administration events”
- State the documented prevalence or frequency — cite a peer-reviewed source with incidence data
- Establish that this risk operates at the enterprise level — what organizational systems and units it affects simultaneously
- Differentiate this from a purely operational or departmental risk — what makes it enterprise-level in consequence?
What Happens When This Risk Materializes
- Patient harm outcomes — morbidity, mortality, increased length of stay, preventable readmission (cite sources)
- Financial consequences — denied claims, penalties, litigation exposure, reimbursement clawbacks
- Regulatory consequences — Joint Commission sentinel event reporting, CMS Conditions of Participation violations, OIG audit triggers
- Reputational and accreditation consequences — public reporting exposure, payer network risk, community trust
- Each consequence category needs a citation — this is where your scholarly sources anchor the problem statement
A problem statement that only describes the risk without documenting its consequences cannot support a position — because the position’s strength depends on the severity of what is being managed.
— The argumentative logic that links the problem statement to the position sectionBuilding Your Position — Arguing a Specific Risk Management Approach
The position section is the argumentative core of the paper. It states the specific risk management approach you are advocating and explains why this approach is the most appropriate response to the risk you defined in the problem statement. The position is not a description of risk management options — it is a commitment to one approach, with reasons derived from the problem statement’s evidence and supported by course theory and scholarly sources.
Before writing the position, confirm you are using the risk management vocabulary from your course. The assignment explicitly states: “Be specific while citing theories learned in our course, in both the lectures and textbook and in applicable research articles.” This means your position must name the risk management framework or theory it is grounded in — whether that is the enterprise risk management (ERM) framework, ISO 31000 risk management principles, COSO ERM, the Institute of Medicine’s patient safety framework, or another course-specific model. A position that advocates a risk management approach without connecting it to a named theoretical framework will fail the course-theory citation requirement.
Structural and Process Redesign Positions
Argue that the risk requires redesigning the organizational process that generates it — workflow restructuring, protocol standardization, checklist implementation. Ground in high-reliability organization (HRO) theory or process improvement frameworks (Lean, Six Sigma). Position is strongest when root cause analysis shows the risk is primarily process-driven rather than individual performance-driven. Regulatory hook: Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goals, CMS Conditions of Participation for the applicable service line.
Technology and Health IT Intervention Positions
Argue that the risk requires a technology-based control — CPOE implementation for medication errors, clinical decision support for diagnostic risk, barcode medication administration for dispensing errors, revenue cycle management software for billing risk. Ground in health information technology adoption literature and meaningful use frameworks. Requires engaging the counterargument that technology without culture change produces alert fatigue and workarounds — your position must address this.
Safety Culture and Organizational Learning Positions
Argue that the risk requires a culture-based intervention — just culture implementation, psychological safety frameworks, event reporting system redesign, leadership accountability structures. Ground in Reason’s Swiss cheese model or James Reason’s organizational accident theory, Leape’s systems safety literature, or Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) safety culture frameworks. Strongest when root cause analysis shows human factors and reporting suppression at root.
Compliance Program and Regulatory Alignment Positions
Argue that the risk requires a formal compliance program intervention — OIG compliance program elements for billing risk, HIPAA privacy and security program strengthening for data risk, Joint Commission survey readiness programs for accreditation risk. Ground in regulatory compliance theory and the OIG’s Seven Elements of an Effective Compliance Program. Strongest for billing, coding, privacy, and documentation risks that have direct regulatory oversight structures.
Quality Improvement Methodology Positions
Argue that the risk requires a formal quality improvement initiative — Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, Lean waste elimination, Six Sigma DMAIC methodology, or balanced scorecard implementation. Ground in Donabedian’s structure-process-outcome framework or the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) breakthrough series model. Strongest when the problem statement documents measurable performance gaps and the position proposes a structured improvement methodology with defined metrics.
Risk Transfer and Insurance Management Positions
Argue that the risk requires a financial risk management response — malpractice insurance restructuring, captive insurance programs, self-insurance reserve adequacy, or risk financing strategy changes. Ground in enterprise risk management (ERM) theory and financial risk management literature. Most applicable for insurance, liability, and financial risk topics. Requires engaging the counterargument that risk transfer does not address root causes — your position must address prevention alongside financing.
Your Position Must Connect Back to the Problem Statement’s Evidence
The position section earns full marks when the approach you advocate is logically derived from what you found in the problem statement — not just a generally good idea about risk management. If your problem statement documents that medication errors are primarily caused by communication breakdowns during handoffs, and your position advocates for CPOE implementation (which addresses prescribing errors, not handoff communication), the paper’s logic is broken. The root cause analysis in the supporting work section must support the intervention you propose in the position. Map this connection explicitly before writing either section.
Supporting Work — Root Cause Analysis and Regulatory Standards
The supporting work section provides the evidentiary foundation for your position. The assignment specifically names root cause analysis and regulatory standards as components of supporting work — not as optional additions, but as expected analytical content. A supporting work section that only summarizes peer-reviewed literature without either applying RCA methodology or identifying applicable regulatory standards has not fulfilled the assignment’s requirements for this section.
How to Apply Root Cause Analysis to Your Healthcare Risk Topic
You are not conducting a live RCA on a real incident. You are applying RCA methodology to the healthcare risk category you have selected, using evidence from the published literature to identify its contributing causal factors. This means organizing the documented causes of your selected risk using a recognized RCA framework — either the fishbone (Ishikawa) diagram logic or the Five Whys methodology — and citing peer-reviewed sources for each causal factor you identify.
| RCA Framework | How It Works | How to Apply It to Literature-Based Analysis | When to Use It |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fishbone (Ishikawa) Diagram | Organizes causal factors into categories — commonly People, Process, Technology, Environment, Management, and Measurement in healthcare settings. Maps contributing factors upstream from the central risk event. | Identify the documented contributing factors for your risk from the peer-reviewed literature. Organize them into the fishbone categories. For each category, cite at least one source that documents the causal relationship. You describe the logic of the fishbone in prose — you do not need to submit an actual diagram, though you can if your paper format allows. | Best for risks with multiple contributing factor categories — medication errors, HAIs, billing errors. Stronger than Five Whys when the causal structure is complex and multifactorial rather than linear. |
| Five Whys | Traces a single causal chain from the risk event to its root cause by asking “Why?” five times. Each answer becomes the subject of the next “Why?” until a root cause — one where an intervention would prevent the problem — is reached. | Select the primary mechanism by which your risk manifests, then trace its causal chain using documented literature at each step. For example: Why did the billing error occur? → Because the diagnosis was coded incorrectly. Why? → Because the physician’s documentation was ambiguous. Why? → Because no structured documentation template was in use. Each “Why” should be supported by a citation documenting that causal link in the literature. | Best for risks with a clear primary mechanism and a direct causal chain. Weaker for multifactorial risks but cleaner to present in a 5-page content window when space is limited. |
| Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) | Proactive risk analysis methodology — identifies potential failure modes in a process before they occur, assesses severity and likelihood, and prioritizes interventions by risk priority number (RPN). | Describe how FMEA would be applied to the process generating your selected risk. Identify the high-RPN failure modes documented in the literature for your risk category. Cite sources that have applied FMEA methodology to this type of healthcare risk. FMEA is particularly strong for the supporting work section when your position advocates for process redesign. | Best when your position advocates for proactive process improvement rather than reactive incident management. Particularly applicable to medication safety, surgical safety, and diagnostic error topics. |
How to Identify and Use Regulatory Standards in the Supporting Work Section
Regulatory standards serve two functions in the supporting work section: they establish the compliance baseline that the organization is obligated to meet, and they provide external authoritative support for your position. A risk management approach grounded in regulatory alignment is stronger than one based solely on clinical evidence, because it establishes both the clinical and compliance justification simultaneously.
Key Regulatory Bodies and Standards for Healthcare Risk Topics
- The Joint Commission: National Patient Safety Goals (NPSGs) — updated annually, cover medication safety, infection control, patient identification, communication, fall prevention, and surgical safety. Accreditation standards apply to hospitals, ambulatory care, behavioral health, and home care organizations
- Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS): Conditions of Participation (CoPs) — mandatory standards for Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. Quality Reporting Programs, Value-Based Purchasing, Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP)
- Office of Inspector General (OIG): Compliance Program Guidance documents for hospitals, physicians, home health, and third-party billing. Seven Elements of an Effective Compliance Program. Work Plan — annual document specifying OIG audit priorities
- HIPAA/HITECH: Privacy Rule, Security Rule, Breach Notification Rule — applicable to all covered entities and business associates. Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforcement and audit authority
- OSHA: Healthcare worker safety standards — bloodborne pathogen standard, workplace violence prevention guidelines, respiratory protection standards
- State Health Departments: Licensure requirements, mandatory adverse event reporting, infection control regulations — vary by state but are frequently more stringent than federal minimums
How to Use Regulatory Standards in the Paper
- Cite the specific standard number or section — not just “Joint Commission standards require…” but the specific NPSG number (e.g., NPSG.03.06.01 for medication reconciliation)
- Explain what the standard requires and whether the risk you have identified represents a gap in compliance — the regulatory standard becomes evidence that the problem is not just clinically significant but organizationally obligatory to address
- Connect the regulatory standard to your position — your proposed risk management approach should be one that achieves or maintains compliance with the applicable standards, not one that ignores the regulatory dimension
- For billing and coding risks: cite specific CMS billing compliance requirements, the False Claims Act statutory standard (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733), and applicable OIG guidance documents — these have the most direct regulatory authority
- Regulatory standards can be cited as primary sources — the Joint Commission website, CMS.gov, and OIG.hhs.gov are authoritative primary sources, not secondary academic sources, but they are appropriate citations for the regulatory dimension of the supporting work
Verified External Resource: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Network
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality maintains the Patient Safety Network (PSNet) at psnet.ahrq.gov — a curated database of peer-reviewed patient safety and healthcare risk management research, including systematic reviews, case reports, and commentary on root cause analysis methodology, just culture frameworks, medication safety, infection control, diagnostic error, and quality improvement. AHRQ PSNet is a primary federal government resource and is appropriate for citation as both a source database and a direct reference for risk management frameworks used in healthcare organizations. Key resources include the WebM&M (Morbidity and Mortality Rounds on the Web) case studies, which provide documented root cause analyses of healthcare adverse events, and the Patient Safety Primers, which are peer-reviewed summaries of patient safety concepts including RCA methodology, FMEA, and safety culture theory. All resources are freely accessible without institutional login.
Writing the Counterargument — What It Must Do and What Makes It Weak
The counterargument section demonstrates that you have engaged seriously with the strongest objection to your position. It is not a section where you introduce a weak opposing view so you can dismiss it easily. A genuine counterargument represents the most credible alternative position — and your rebuttal must address it on its merits, not by restating your original position more forcefully.
The counterargument section has three required moves: state the counterargument accurately and charitably, acknowledge what is legitimate about it, and then explain specifically why your position is nonetheless preferable — using evidence, not just assertion. A rebuttal that says “while this view has some merit, my position is still better because it addresses the root cause” has not made an argument. A rebuttal must explain precisely where the counterargument falls short and why your approach is stronger given the specific characteristics of the risk you have defined.
Find Your Counterargument in the Literature Before You Write Your Position
The counterargument is not something you invent after writing your position. It is the scholarly debate your topic already sits in. Before committing to your position, read the literature for the opposing view — the researchers who advocate for a different approach to the same risk, or who critique the approach you are advocating. Those sources become your counterargument citations. A counterargument section that cites peer-reviewed sources for the opposing position is significantly stronger than one that characterizes the opposition as “some might argue” without attribution. Finding the counterargument literature also protects your position — if there is a strong objection to your approach that you have not addressed, discovering it in the literature before writing is far better than having the grader identify it as a gap.
Writing the Conclusion — What It Must Synthesize and What It Must Not Add
The conclusion in a graduate position paper does not summarize each section sequentially. It synthesizes the paper’s argument — connecting the problem, the position, the supporting evidence, and the rebuttal into a final statement about what the paper has established and what its implications are for healthcare organizations managing this risk. A conclusion that lists what each section covered is a summary, not a synthesis. The distinction is analytical: a synthesis draws a conclusion from the argument’s moving parts, not a recap of them.
For this assignment, a strong conclusion addresses three things in approximately two paragraphs: the organizational stakes — why managing this risk matters at the enterprise level and what happens when it is not addressed; the sufficiency of your position — why the approach you have argued, in light of the counterargument and the supporting evidence, represents the most defensible response to the documented risk; and the broader implication — how this risk management approach connects to the course’s theoretical framework for enterprise risk management, and what it suggests about how healthcare organizations should approach change management in this risk domain. Do not introduce new evidence, new citations, or new claims in the conclusion. If something belongs in the conclusion, it should already be supported by the body of the paper.
Six Scholarly Sources — What Each Must Accomplish and How to Select Them
Six scholarly references is the minimum. At five pages of content with seven structural sections, six sources is a tight budget — you will likely need each one to serve multiple citation purposes across the paper. Before selecting sources, map where citations are required: the problem statement needs at least two sources documenting the risk’s prevalence and consequences; the root cause analysis needs at least two sources documenting contributing factors; the position needs at least one source grounding it in a named theoretical framework; and the counterargument needs at least one source supporting the opposing view. That accounts for six citations at the minimum — if any source serves multiple functions, that frees budget for additional supporting evidence.
| Source Type | What It Provides | Where to Find It | APA 7th Format Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles | Primary evidence base for incidence data, causal factor research, intervention effectiveness, and theoretical frameworks. Required for all empirical claims in the problem statement, RCA, and position sections. | PubMed/MEDLINE (free), CINAHL (library access), Health Affairs, JAMA, NEJM, American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, Journal of Healthcare Management. | Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year). Title of article in sentence case. Journal Name in Title Case and Italics, Volume(Issue), page–page. https://doi.org/xxxxx |
| Government and Regulatory Agency Publications | Authoritative regulatory standards, compliance program guidance, national data on adverse events and billing fraud. OIG, CMS, AHRQ, CDC, Joint Commission are all appropriate primary sources for the regulatory standards section. | OIG.hhs.gov, CMS.gov, AHRQ.gov, CDC.gov, JointCommission.org, PSNet.ahrq.gov. All freely accessible. | Agency Name. (Year). Title of publication in sentence case and italics. URL |
| Scholarly Textbooks (Course and Outside) | Theoretical frameworks — enterprise risk management theory, quality improvement methodology, patient safety systems theory. Your course textbook is explicitly required. Outside scholarly texts strengthen the theoretical grounding of the position section. | Your course syllabus identifies the assigned textbook. For outside texts: Carroll’s Risk Management Handbook for Health Care Organizations, Kavaler and Alexander’s Risk Management in Health Care Institutions, IHI Open School resources. | Author, A. A. (Year). Title of book in sentence case and italics (edition, if applicable). Publisher Name. |
| Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses | Highest evidence level for intervention effectiveness claims. If you are arguing that your proposed approach is evidence-based, a systematic review or meta-analysis of that approach in healthcare settings is the strongest supporting citation available. | Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (library access), AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center reports (free), Joanna Briggs Institute (library access), PubMed filters for systematic reviews. | Same format as peer-reviewed journal article with volume, issue, and DOI. Note: Cochrane reviews have their own DOI format — include it exactly. |
| Course Lectures and Assigned Readings | The assignment explicitly requires citing course theories from lectures and the textbook. Personal communications (lectures) are cited in-text only per APA 7th — they do not appear on the reference list. Assigned readings that are published documents follow standard citation formats. | Your course syllabus, course management system, and assigned reading list. If the lecture is a recorded or slide-based resource with a URL, it can be cited with a URL reference. Unpublished lectures are in-text only: (Instructor Last Name, personal communication, Month Day, Year). | In-text only for unrecorded lectures: (Instructor Last Name, personal communication, Month DD, YYYY). For recorded/posted lectures: Instructor Last Name, F. M. (Year, Month Day). Title of lecture [Video/PowerPoint]. Platform. URL |
APA 7th Edition Formatting Requirements for This Paper
- Title page includes paper title, author name, institution, course number and name, instructor name, and due date — no running head required for student papers per APA 7th
- Abstract on its own page, 150–250 words, single paragraph, no citations, no indentation of first line
- Body uses Level 1 headings (centered, bold, title case) for each required section — Abstract, Introduction, Problem Statement, Position, Supporting Work, Counterargument, Conclusion
- In-text citations include author last name and year for paraphrase: (Carroll, 2023). Include page number for direct quotes: (Carroll, 2023, p. 47)
- Reference list begins on a new page, entries in alphabetical order by first author’s last name, hanging indent format
- All DOIs formatted as hyperlinks: https://doi.org/xxxxx — not “doi:” or “DOI:” per APA 7th
- No running head on any page for student papers — this changed in APA 7th edition (6th required it)
- Page numbers in header, top right — required for student papers
- 12-point font, double-spaced throughout including reference list, 1-inch margins all sides
Common Errors That Cost Points — and How to Avoid Each One
| # | The Error | Why It Costs Points | The Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Selecting a topic without enterprise-level consequences | The assignment specifies “enterprise level” — meaning the risk affects the organization systemically, not just one unit or process. A paper on improving handwashing compliance in one ICU is not enterprise-level. A paper on the organizational HAI risk management program is. The problem statement cannot be adequately supported if the topic lacks documented organizational-wide consequences in areas like compliance, finance, accreditation, or liability. | Before finalizing the topic, list the enterprise-level consequences explicitly: which CMS Conditions of Participation does it affect? What financial exposure does it create? Which accreditation standards are implicated? If you cannot answer these before writing, the topic is not enterprise-level or you do not yet have adequate command of the regulatory landscape for that topic. |
| 2 | Writing a literature review instead of a position paper | Many graduate students trained in literature review writing produce papers that summarize what the literature says about a risk without ever committing to a position. A position paper argues for a specific approach. A paper that says “various approaches have been proposed including X, Y, and Z” and never advocates for one has not produced a position — it has produced a review. The assignment requires a position section, a counterargument, and a conclusion that synthesizes the argument — none of these components make sense in a literature review structure. | Write a one-sentence thesis statement before writing any other section: “This paper argues that [specific risk management approach] is the most appropriate response to [specific risk] in healthcare organizations because [primary reason].” Every subsequent section must serve or defend that thesis. If a paragraph does not do that, it does not belong in the paper. |
| 3 | Applying RCA methodology to the wrong level of analysis | Root cause analysis applied at the wrong level produces either too-shallow analysis (listing surface causes: “staff error,” “inadequate training”) or too-general analysis (describing industry-wide systemic problems without organizational specificity). The RCA must identify the causal factors at the organizational process level — the specific process failures, system gaps, and structural conditions that generate the risk in the type of organization the paper addresses. Surface causes are symptoms, not root causes. Population-level causes are not actionable at the organizational level. | Apply the “why” test to every causal factor you identify: if asking “why does this cause exist?” points to another organizational process failure, the original factor was not a root cause. Continue until you reach a level where an organizational intervention would actually prevent the cause — that is where the RCA belongs. Cite sources that document these deeper causal factors — not just the surface-level evidence that the problem exists. |
| 4 | Not citing course theory alongside external sources | The assignment explicitly states: “Be specific while citing theories learned in our course, in both the lectures and textbook and in applicable research articles.” A paper that cites only external peer-reviewed sources without connecting the analysis to course-specific frameworks, models, or theories will lose points on the course theory integration criterion. The grader is checking whether you can apply what the course taught — not just whether you can find good external sources. | Review your course syllabus and textbook for the specific risk management theories, frameworks, and models covered. Enterprise risk management theory, risk identification taxonomies, risk mitigation hierarchy, risk appetite and tolerance frameworks, and quality improvement methodologies are typical graduate health administration course content. Identify which course framework applies most directly to your position and cite it explicitly by name and source in both the position and supporting work sections. |
| 5 | Writing a counterargument that is not actually argued in the literature | A counterargument that begins “some might argue…” without citing a source for that position is not a genuine counterargument — it is a straw man. Graduate-level papers require the opposing view to be sourced. If you cannot find a peer-reviewed source that advocates for the opposing approach, either your counterargument is not a real position in the field, or you have not searched the literature adequately. Both are problems the grader will identify. | Search PubMed or CINAHL for authors who advocate for the approach you are not taking. Search for critiques of the approach you are taking. This literature exists for any credible healthcare risk management topic — the field debates approaches actively. Cite at least one source that supports the counterargument, and then use the same literature base to identify the source’s limitations, which becomes the basis of your rebuttal. |
| 6 | Referencing only the problem statement in the conclusion | A conclusion that re-describes the problem and says your approach will solve it has not synthesized the argument. The conclusion must demonstrate that the position, the supporting evidence, and the rebuttal together justify a specific conclusion about how this risk should be managed — and connect that conclusion to the enterprise-level stakes established in the introduction. A grader who reads a conclusion that sounds like a second problem statement will note that the paper lacks argumentative closure. | Write the conclusion last. Before writing it, summarize in one sentence each of the following: what the problem statement established, what the RCA found, what regulatory gap exists, what the position advocates, and what the rebuttal showed the counterargument misses. Then write a conclusion that synthesizes those five points into a final argumentative claim — not a list of those five things, but a statement that draws a conclusion from them about what healthcare organizations should do. |
FAQs: Risk Management Approaches to Managing Changes Assignment
What Separates a High-Scoring Risk Management Paper from a Passing One
The highest-scoring papers on this assignment do three things that passing papers do not. First, they maintain a single logical thread from the problem statement through the conclusion — the root cause analysis findings directly support the intervention proposed in the position, the regulatory standards cited are the ones that the proposed intervention achieves compliance with, and the counterargument rebuttal uses evidence from the same literature base as the RCA. A paper where each section could be swapped with a different topic without changing the paper’s logic has not built an argument — it has assembled independently written sections.
Second, they cite course theory by name and framework. The assignment is explicit about this requirement, and it is the criterion most frequently missed by students who research the topic thoroughly but do not connect their analysis to the course’s conceptual vocabulary. If the course covered enterprise risk management frameworks, ISO 31000, COSO, the high-reliability organization model, or the Swiss cheese model, those frameworks should appear by name in the position or supporting work sections — not as add-on references, but as the theoretical lens through which the analysis is conducted.
Third, they treat the counterargument as a genuine intellectual engagement rather than a formality. A counterargument section that cites a real opposing position from the peer-reviewed literature and then rebuts it with evidence specific to the paper’s own RCA findings demonstrates that the writer has not just mastered the content, but has engaged with the scholarly debate in the field. That is what distinguishes a graduate-level position paper from an undergraduate literature review.
If you need professional help selecting and scoping a topic, developing the root cause analysis, identifying current peer-reviewed and regulatory sources, structuring the seven required components, or editing a draft for analytical depth and APA formatting, the team at Smart Academic Writing covers healthcare management, risk management, and health administration graduate papers at all levels. Visit our graduate school paper help service, our research paper writing service, our APA citation help service, or our editing and proofreading service. You can also see how the service works or contact us directly with your assignment details and deadline.