| Course | MHA 598 Using Results to Build Brand in the Health Sector (MHA/598) |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | SBAR brand strategy proposal |
| 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 598 Week 5
An SBAR to the Board: Articulating a Results-Based Brand Strategy for a Three-Hospital System in One Structured Proposal
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
MHA/598: Using Results to Build Brand in the Health Sector
Week 5 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The health system, its board, brand strategy, budget and targets are composites written for a model paper; national figures and research findings come from the sources cited.
After three months of brand work at the composite Knoxville health system, the chief executive asked the vice president of strategy for a single proposal the board could consider and approve at its next meeting. She asked for it in SBAR format, which the board's clinical members used every day and which she had found kept proposals focused. This paper presents the proposal.
Why SBAR
SBAR, for situation, background, assessment and recommendation, began as a structured format for clinical communication, such as a nurse calling a physician about a patient. A systematic review of studies of SBAR in clinical settings found that the format was used to improve team communication, handoffs and telephone calls, and that eight of 26 patient outcomes measured improved significantly, with the strongest evidence for telephone communication, although the studies varied widely (Müller et al., 2018). Its value for a board proposal is discipline: it leads with the decision and separates facts from judgment.
Situation
The board is asked to approve a results-based brand strategy for the system's three hospitals. The strategy would replace the current advertising-led approach with investment in patient experience, a public quality report and community trust-building, funded partly by reducing broad advertising. Approval is needed now to begin before the next budget year.
Background: The Brand Problem
The system's slogan, Caring for East Tennessee, promised nothing specific. Market share fell from 34% to 31% over five years while advertising spending rose. Residents knew the name but could not say what distinguished the system.
Background: The Promise
Over three months, the strategy team used patient and staff input to define a three-part promise of honesty, fast access and published outcomes.
Background: Experience Gaps
Patient ratings at all three hospitals were below the national rate of 72% of patients rating their hospital 9 or 10. Discharge and communication about medicines were the weakest moments. A pilot of redesigned discharge on one unit raised discharge information scores by nine points.
Background: Trust
National survey data show public trust in doctors and hospitals nearly halving since the start of the pandemic, with rural residents among the least trusting (Perlis et al., 2024). The system's own survey found 31% trust in its rural counties compared with 52% in Knox County.
Background: Quality Report
The team drafted a public quality report with each hospital's star rating, outcomes, experience scores and access times, including weaker results.
Assessment: Three Options
The team assessed three options. Option one: continue the current advertising approach with a refreshed slogan. Option two: advertise the flagship's four-star rating and strong cardiac results. Option three: adopt a results-based strategy investing in experience, publishing results and rebuilding trust.
Assessment: Option One
Continuing current advertising has not stopped market share decline and does not address the experience gaps patients describe. It carries low risk but low expected return.
Assessment: Option Two
Advertising strengths would highlight real results but risks overpromising for the two hospitals without comparable performance and does nothing to improve experience or trust in rural counties.
Assessment: Option Three
The results-based strategy addresses the causes patients and data identify. Evidence supports it: the review of 55 studies introduced earlier found that better experience repeatedly went along with safer and more effective care (Doyle et al., 2013), so investment in experience is also investment in quality. The strongest brand investment is the one that also makes care safer.
Assessment: Risks of Option Three
Option three takes longer to show results, requires operational change across departments and exposes weaker results publicly. The team judged these risks acceptable because they are the price of a credible brand.
Assessment: Financial Case
The finance team estimated that improving the system's patient recommendation scores to the national rate and cutting consultation waits to ten days could recover about one percentage point of market share within two years, worth roughly $6 million in contribution margin. The estimate is uncertain, but even a partial gain would exceed the reallocated budget.
Assessment: Staff Readiness
Nurse and physician focus groups supported the direction, especially the discharge changes, but asked that new work come with staffing support. The workforce strategy's staffing investments on the highest-load units align with the brand strategy, and the two plans are coordinated so that staff are not asked to deliver a promise without the capacity to keep it.
Assessment: Community Readiness
Faith leaders and rural community members said they would welcome forums and local health workers but would judge the system by whether it followed through. The rural advisory councils give them a formal role in holding the system to its commitments.
Recommendation: The Strategy
Approve option three: a results-based brand built on three proof points, honesty, access and published results.
Recommendation: Resources
Reallocate $1.8 million of the current $3.2 million advertising budget to experience and trust work: $900,000 for discharge and communication improvements across all surgical and medical units, $400,000 for central scheduling to improve access, $300,000 for rural community health workers and forums and $200,000 for the public quality report. Retain $1.4 million for targeted advertising that follows the claim rules.
Recommendation: Milestones
Months one to six: discharge redesign on all surgical units, central scheduling launched, first quality report published. Months seven to twelve: medical units, rural forums and advisory councils. Year two: brand advertising launched only after proof points show progress.
Recommendation: Measures
Patient recommendation scores, discharge and medicine communication scores, time to consultation, rural trust survey results and market share by service line, reported to the board quarterly.
How the Proposal Was Tested
Before the board meeting, the vice president tested the proposal with three board members, the chief medical officer and two patient advisors. Their questions shaped the final version: the board members asked for the financial case, the physician asked how clinicians would be supported and the patient advisors asked how patients would know the promise was real. Each question is answered in the proposal or in the anticipated questions.
What the Board Decided
The board approved the strategy with one amendment: a review at six months rather than twelve for the discharge and scheduling milestones. The amendment reflected the board's wish to see early evidence before the second year's investment.
Anticipated Questions
Will publishing weaker results hurt us? The team's view is that honesty is the promise and that hiding results would damage trust more. Why cut advertising? Because advertising a promise patients have not experienced widens the gap. What if measures do not improve in a year? The board will review the strategy at twelve months and may adjust it.
Conclusion
In SBAR form, the proposal asks the board for one decision, summarizes what it must know, weighs three options against evidence and recommends a results-based brand with resources, milestones and measures. The structure keeps the board focused on the choice and on how success will be judged.
References
Doyle, C., Lennox, L., & Bell, D. (2013). A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open, 3(1), e001570. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570
Müller, M., Jürgens, J., Redaèlli, M., Klingberg, K., Hautz, W. E., & Stock, S. (2018). Impact of the communication and patient hand-off tool SBAR on patient safety: A systematic review. BMJ Open, 8(8), e022202. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022202
Perlis, R. H., Ognyanova, K., Uslu, A., Lunz Trujillo, K., Santillana, M., Druckman, J. N., Baum, M. A., & Lazer, D. (2024). Trust in physicians and hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic in a 50-state survey of US adults. JAMA Network Open, 7(7), e2424984. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.24984
What the MHA 598 Week 5 instructions ask
MHA 598 Week 5 usually asks students to articulate a brand strategy for a health care organization in a structured proposal, often using the SBAR format of situation, background, assessment and recommendation. Prompts may ask students to summarize the organization's brand challenge in a few sentences, present relevant data and research, assess options and recommend a strategy with resources and measures. Versions vary in format and length, and some require a one-page limit, so follow yours closely. Strong proposals are concise, lead with the decision needed, present evidence rather than opinion, consider alternatives, request specific resources and define how success will be measured and reported.
How this MHA 598 Week 5 example is built
A request from the chief executive for a proposal the board can approve in one meeting opens the paper, along with her reasons for choosing SBAR. The SBAR format is explained, with evidence on its use. The situation states the decision: approve a results-based brand strategy replacing the current advertising approach. The background summarizes the brand promise, patient experience gaps, trust decline and the quality report. The assessment weighs three options against evidence. The recommendation specifies the strategy, a budget shifted from advertising to experience and reporting, milestones for two years and measures. Anticipated board questions and answers close the paper, with a twelve-month review point.
MHA 598 Week 5 grading rubric: where the points go
The SBAR proposal week is generally graded on clarity, use of evidence and the strength of the recommendation. Graders look for a correctly structured SBAR, a clear statement of the decision needed, concise background with relevant data, an assessment comparing options with evidence, a specific recommendation with resources and timelines and measures of success. Brevity and precision earn credit, as does anticipating the questions decision makers will ask. Research and current data strengthen the assessment, especially where they test the preferred option. APA references and correct formatting complete the grade. Proposals that bury the request, present opinion as assessment or recommend without resources commonly lose points; skipping the alternatives considered is another frequent deduction.
MHA 598 Week 5 help: mistakes to avoid
A frequent weakness in the MHA 598 SBAR is a background section that retells everything and an assessment that repeats it. Start with the situation: the decision you need, in one or two sentences. Keep the background to the facts decision makers must know. In the assessment, compare real options against evidence and say which is best and why. Make the recommendation specific: what, who, when, how much, how you will measure it and when the board will review it. Anticipate the questions leaders will ask. Finally, cut every sentence that does not help the board decide, since the value of SBAR is focus, and attach detail as an appendix rather than in the body.
Related MHA 598 sample papers
Other MHA 598 week samples
- MHA 598 Week 1: Brand as Promise
- MHA 598 Week 2: Brand as Experience
- MHA 598 Week 3: Brand as Emotional Connection
- MHA 598 Week 4: Quality as Brand Proof
- MHA 598 Week 6: Engaging Teams in the Brand
More MHA sample papers
- MHA 520 Week 5: Maintaining Integrity
- MHA 542 Week 5: Meaningful Collaboration
- MHA 543 Week 5: Succession Planning
- MHA 560 Week 5: Sustainability Practice
MHA 598 Week 5 questions, answered
What does MHA/598 Week 5 usually ask for?
The fifth paper typically asks students to articulate a brand strategy in a structured proposal, often an SBAR, summarizing the situation, background, assessment and recommendation with resources and measures.
Where can I find a free MHA 598 Week 5 sample paper?
Anyone may read the brand strategy SBAR above free of charge; every section carries a comment. Share your organization's brand challenge, and your first proposal is written free.
What is SBAR?
A structured communication format of situation, background, assessment and recommendation, widely used in clinical handoffs and adapted for proposals to leaders.
Does SBAR improve patient safety?
A systematic review of eleven studies found that eight of 26 patient outcomes measured improved significantly with SBAR, particularly when used for telephone communication, though evidence was mixed.
Why use SBAR for a brand proposal?
Because it leads with the decision needed, keeps background brief, separates evidence-based assessment from recommendation and is familiar to clinicians and board members.
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 598 week samples · All courses