| Course | MHA 520 Sector Stakeholders: Identifying and Cultivating Alliances (MHA/520) |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Relationship development paper |
| Length | about 1,152 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | MHA |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for MHA 520 Week 3
Relationships Are Built in the Work: Nurturing an Orthopedic Group Through Co-Management and Community Partners Through Shared Community Health Workers
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
MHA/520: Sector Stakeholders: Identifying and Cultivating Alliances
Week 3 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hospital, its partners, agreements and results are composites written for a model paper; research findings come from the sources cited.
Two weeks after the vital relationships list was approved, the leader of the independent orthopedic group met the chief executive of the composite suburban Atlanta hospital. He said his surgeons appreciated the attention but felt like customers the hospital was trying to keep rather than partners in running the service they depended on. A larger system was offering them ownership and a voice. This paper describes how the hospital nurtured that relationship and a second one with community organizations, and the principles behind both.
Beyond Courtesy
Frequent contact, responsiveness and respect are necessary but not sufficient. Relationships deepen when partners share work, decisions and results, so that each depends on the other and sees the benefit. The hospital's approach was to build structures that bring partners together around a common task.
What the Surgeons Needed
The vice president and chief medical officer asked the surgeons what they needed. Their answers were specific: reliable operating room start times, a say in which implants and equipment the hospital bought, nurses and therapists who knew their protocols and a share in the savings their efficiency created. They also feared losing independence.
A Co-Management Agreement
The hospital and the group negotiated a co-management agreement for the joint replacement service line. A joint committee of four surgeons, the service line nurse director, the chief medical officer and a finance leader governs the service. The group receives a fixed annual fee at fair market value for leadership time and an incentive payment tied to measures: surgical site infections, readmissions, length of stay, patient-reported function and supply cost per case. Legal counsel reviewed the agreement for compliance with fraud and abuse laws.
Why Shared Coordination Matters
Research supports designing structures that strengthen communication among caregivers. A study of joint replacement patients in nine hospitals found that relational coordination, meaning frequent, timely and problem-solving communication supported by shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect among surgeons, nurses, therapists and others, was associated with better quality of care, less postoperative pain, better function and shorter stays (Gittell et al., 2000). The agreement's committee was designed less to pay surgeons than to make the whole team talk.
Putting Coordination Into Practice
The committee introduced a daily huddle on the orthopedic unit, standard order sets the surgeons wrote together, a shared dashboard and quarterly case reviews where surgeons, nurses and therapists discuss complications without blame.
What Each Side Gains
The surgeons gain influence, income tied to their efforts and a better-run service without selling their practice. The hospital gains aligned surgeons, better outcomes and lower costs. The relationship now rests on shared results rather than persuasion.
The Second Relationship: Community Partners
The vital list included two community organizations serving the county's Korean and Vietnamese residents, which had said the hospital showed up only at assessment time. The hospital asked what they needed: help for members who left the hospital confused about medicines and follow-up, and funding stability.
Shared Community Health Workers
The hospital and the two organizations created jointly supervised community health worker positions, hired from the communities and speaking their languages, employed by the organizations and funded by the hospital. They work with patients during and after hospital stays on appointments, medicines, food, housing and transportation.
Evidence Behind the Model
The program follows a standardized model tested in a randomized trial of disadvantaged patients with multiple chronic diseases, in which community health worker support improved chronic disease control, mental health and patients' ratings of care quality while reducing hospitalization at one year by 28%, although the reduction was not statistically significant (Kangovi et al., 2017). A return-on-investment analysis drawn from the trial put the payback at $2.47 for each program dollar, realized by a typical Medicaid payer inside one fiscal year (Kangovi et al., 2020).
Shared Governance of the Program
A steering group of the hospital's vice president, the two organizations' directors and a community health worker meets monthly. The organizations control hiring and supervision; the hospital provides training, access to patients and funding.
Early Results in Orthopedics
In the first two quarters under the agreement, first-case start times on orthopedic days improved from 61% on time to 88%, the surgeons chose a single implant vendor for primary knees and hips, cutting supply cost per case by about 9%, and average length of stay fell by half a day. The surgeons declined the rival system's offer, citing the new partnership.
Early Results in the Community
Over their first half year, the four community health workers supported 212 patients. Follow-up appointments within two weeks of discharge rose from about half to more than three quarters among participants. The organizations reported that members now called the hospital's community health workers first when problems arose, a sign of trust that numbers only partly capture.
Respecting Partners' Independence
Both partners valued their independence. The hospital avoided exclusivity demands that would have prevented the orthopedic group from operating elsewhere, and did not ask the community organizations to endorse the hospital publicly. Partners who keep their independence and still choose to work closely together offer a sturdier alliance than those bound by contract alone.
Leaders Who Show Up
The chief executive attended the first quarterly case review with the surgeons and a community health worker graduation ceremony. Visible attention from senior leaders told partners that the relationships mattered at the top, not only to the vice president.
Practices That Build Trust
Across both relationships, the hospital adopted practices that build trust: acknowledging past failures, following through on every commitment, sharing data openly, giving partners real decision rights and inviting criticism.
Legal and Ethical Guardrails
Relationships with physicians who refer patients must follow fraud and abuse laws. The co-management fee was set by an independent valuation firm, incentive payments are tied only to quality and efficiency measures and never to referral volume, and the agreement is reviewed annually by compliance. Community partners receive grants under written agreements with clear purposes and reporting.
Checking Relationship Health
Twice a year, the hospital and each partner complete a short relationship health check covering trust, communication, fairness, shared goals and satisfaction, and discuss results together.
Measuring Outputs
For orthopedics: the co-management measures and surgeon satisfaction. For the community program: patients served, follow-up visits completed, readmissions among participants and partner satisfaction.
When Relationships Strain
Strains will come: a missed incentive payment, a staffing dispute or a patient complaint. The agreements include a process for raising concerns early, and both partners agreed that problems would be discussed face to face.
Conclusion
The surgeons wanted to be partners, and the community organizations wanted to be more than survey respondents. Co-management and shared community health workers turned both relationships into shared work, supported by research on relational coordination and community health worker programs. Trust practices, shared governance and regular relationship checks keep the alliances healthy over time.
References
Gittell, J. H., Fairfield, K. M., Bierbaum, B., Head, W., Jackson, R., Kelly, M., Laskin, R., Lipson, S., Siliski, J., Thornhill, T., & Zuckerman, J. (2000). Impact of relational coordination on quality of care, postoperative pain and functioning, and length of stay: A nine-hospital study of surgical patients. Medical Care, 38(8), 807-819. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200008000-00005
Kangovi, S., Mitra, N., Grande, D., Huo, H., Smith, R. A., & Long, J. A. (2017). Community health worker support for disadvantaged patients with multiple chronic diseases: A randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Public Health, 107(10), 1660-1667. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303985
Kangovi, S., Mitra, N., Grande, D., Long, J. A., & Asch, D. A. (2020). Evidence-based community health worker program addresses unmet social needs and generates positive return on investment. Health Affairs, 39(2), 207-213. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00981
What the MHA 520 Week 3 instructions ask
The third MHA 520 assignment generally has students show how health care leaders nurture and sustain important relationships. Prompts may ask students to describe strategies for building trust, communication practices, shared goals and mutual benefit with stakeholders such as physicians, community partners, donors or boards, and to apply them to specific relationships. Some versions ask how to repair a damaged relationship or rebuild trust after a failure. Read the prompt closely, since versions vary. Strong papers go beyond courtesy and frequent contact to show how relationships deepen through shared work, use research on communication and collaboration, address what each partner gains and gives and describe how to measure relationship health.
How this MHA 520 Week 3 example is built
The paper opens with the orthopedic group's leader telling the chief executive that surgeons feel like customers when they want to be partners. Two relationships from the hospital's vital list are developed. For the orthopedic group, a co-management agreement gives surgeons shared leadership of the joint replacement service line, with payments tied to quality and efficiency. Research on relational coordination shows why communication, shared goals and respect matter for surgical outcomes. For community partners, jointly supervised community health workers follow a trial-tested model. Trust-building practices, a relationship health check and measures close the paper, along with lessons on repairing strained partnerships and the legal guardrails for physician deals.
MHA 520 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go
The relationship development week is typically graded on practical strategies grounded in evidence and applied to specific relationships. Graders look for clear strategies for trust, communication and shared goals, attention to what each partner gains, application to real stakeholders, research on collaboration and outcomes and ways to measure whether relationships are healthy. Structures that make collaboration part of daily work earn credit, as does an honest account of what the organization must give. Peer-reviewed research strengthens the paper. The final points go to structure and APA formatting. Papers that describe networking etiquette rather than lasting partnerships, or omit the partner's perspective, commonly lose points, as do plans with no way to tell whether the relationship is healthy.
MHA 520 Week 3 help: mistakes to avoid
MHA 520 Week 3 papers often slip into describing relationships as a matter of lunches, holiday cards and regular calls. Those help, but relationships deepen when partners share work, decisions and results. Ask what each partner needs, fears and expects from you. Design structures, such as joint committees, shared staff or agreements with shared goals, that bring partners together around a common task. Use research on communication and collaboration to explain why these structures matter. Be honest about the hospital's past failures with a partner, since acknowledging them builds trust. Finally, measure the relationship's health, not only its outputs, and review it with the partner at least twice a year.
Related MHA 520 sample papers
Other MHA 520 week samples
- MHA 520 Week 1: Networking Opportunities
- MHA 520 Week 2: Determining Vital Relationships
- MHA 520 Week 4: Managing Transitions
- MHA 520 Week 5: Maintaining Integrity
- MHA 520 Week 6: Stakeholder Alliance Plan
More MHA sample papers
- MHA 507 Week 3: Data Privacy and the EMR
- MHA 508 Week 3: Privacy Law in Health Care
- MHA 515 Week 3: Delivery and Outcomes Trends
- MHA 516 Week 3: Effective Governance Systems
MHA 520 Week 3 questions, answered
What does MHA/520 Week 3 usually ask for?
The third assignment typically asks students to explain how leaders nurture important relationships through trust, communication, shared goals and mutual benefit, applied to specific stakeholders.
Where can I find a free MHA 520 Week 3 sample paper?
The co-management and community partner paper above can be read free in full, with notes on every strategy. Name the relationships you are working on, and we draft your first paper free.
What is a co-management agreement?
An arrangement in which a hospital pays physicians for leading and improving a service line, often with a fixed fee and incentive payments tied to quality and efficiency goals.
What is relational coordination in health care?
Coordination through frequent, timely and problem-solving communication supported by shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect among caregivers, linked in research to better surgical outcomes.
Do community health worker programs save money?
Analysis of a randomized trial put the payback at about $2.47 per program dollar for a typical Medicaid payer within one fiscal year.
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 University of Phoenix 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.
Request this one custom, free · All MHA 520 week samples · All courses