MHA-FPX5016 establishes the informatics foundation for the health informatics concentration within the MHA FlexPath program. Students learn to evaluate health information systems from an administrator's perspective — not as a technical implementer but as a decision-maker who must understand what systems can do, how to evaluate them, and how to govern their use. This course is directly prerequisite to the more advanced informatics courses (MHA-FPX5062, 5064, 5066, 5068) in the cluster.
Course Overview
This course introduces the architecture and functions of health information systems including electronic health records (EHRs), practice management systems, clinical decision support, and health information exchanges. Students study interoperability standards (HL7, FHIR), the HITECH Act and Meaningful Use requirements, and the administrative and governance structures that ensure HIS performance, security, and regulatory compliance. The focus is on the administrator's decision-making role, not technical implementation.
Common Assessment Focus Areas
-
1Health Information System Evaluation
Evaluate a health information system (EHR, HIE, or specific clinical system) using a structured framework — assessing functionality, usability, interoperability, cost, and alignment with organizational needs and regulatory requirements including CMS Meaningful Use standards.
-
2Interoperability and Data Exchange Analysis
Analyze the interoperability landscape for a selected healthcare organization or setting, examining current data exchange challenges, applicable standards (HL7 FHIR, CCD, Direct Messaging), and recommendations for improving care coordination through improved information flow.
-
3HIS Governance and Security Framework
Develop or evaluate an HIS governance and security framework, addressing roles and responsibilities, access controls, HIPAA Security Rule compliance, data integrity policies, and the processes for managing system changes and user accountability.
How We Help With MHA-FPX5016
- Structuring EHR evaluation frameworks that address all rubric dimensions — not just feature lists
- Accurately explaining HL7 FHIR, CCD, and Direct Messaging standards in administrative (not technical) language
- Developing HIPAA Security Rule compliance analyses that reference specific required and addressable safeguards
- Connecting HIS governance to broader organizational leadership and accountability structures
- Locating and citing peer-reviewed health informatics literature from databases like PubMed and JAMIA
Common Challenges in This Course
Students without a clinical or IT background often describe HIS features at a surface level without evaluating them against organizational needs or regulatory standards — rubrics penalize descriptive responses that don't analyze. The interoperability assessment is frequently too technical (diving into API architecture) or too vague (noting that "systems need to talk to each other") — the target is the administrative and policy level. Governance frameworks often omit the accountability mechanisms (who reviews access logs, who approves system changes) that rubrics specifically look for.
Need Help With MHA-FPX5016?
Share your assessment brief and rubric. Our informatics-fluent specialists write for healthcare administrators, not IT departments.
Related Courses
MHA-FPX5016 FAQ
No — the course is designed for healthcare administrators, not IT professionals. You need to understand what systems do and how to evaluate them, not how to build or code them.
FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) is the current federal standard for healthcare data exchange. CMS's interoperability rules now mandate FHIR-based API access, so it appears prominently in any interoperability or HIS evaluation assessment.
Yes — Meaningful Use evolved into the Promoting Interoperability (PI) program under MACRA, which uses many of the same EHR certification and usage requirements. The conceptual framework and specific measures are still tested in this course.
Yes — referencing well-known EHR systems by name is appropriate as long as your analysis goes beyond marketing claims and addresses the evaluation criteria your rubric specifies.