HIM 675 is SNHU’s Research Methods and Evaluation course. It centers on research methods and evaluation for health information leaders: research problems and questions, hypotheses, literature reviews and synthesis, conceptual frameworks, quantitative, qualitative and mixed designs, sampling and sample size, abstraction instruments, validity and interrater reliability, analysis plans, ethics, institutional review boards, HIPAA waivers for research and writing a research proposal. Every module below opens a full sample paper or takes a free request for one; searches like "him 675 module 3", "HIM675 sample paper" and "HIM 675 milestone example" land on this page.
What HIM 675 is really about
For SNHU's MS Health Information Management, HIM 675 is the methods course that prepares the capstone, and its graders want proposals in which every choice can be defended. Strong work states a question narrow enough to answer, reviews studies critically rather than listing them, matches the design to the question, sizes the sample with a stated calculation, tests the reliability of its own data collection and treats patient privacy as a design requirement rather than a form.
Every sample here follows a composite data integrity manager at Cimarron Heights Medical Center, a 340-bed teaching hospital in Tulsa. Its hospital-acquired pressure injury rate jumped after an audit found many injuries flagged as present on admission without any skin finding in the admission note, and coders and nurses disagree about who should settle the question. The manager wants to measure how accurate the flags are and why they go wrong. The manager and hospital are illustrative.
What HIM 675’s modules ask for
Across ten modules, HIM 675 typically asks for discussions and a journal on research questions, design choices and research ethics, short papers reviewing literature and testing an instrument, a closing reflection and a capstone-ready research proposal assembled from milestones on the problem and questions, the literature and framework, and the methods.
Where students lose points in HIM 675
The most common HIM 675 deduction is a research question too broad to answer, such as asking whether coding is accurate, with no population, measure or time frame. The second is a literature review that summarizes studies one by one without comparing their methods or findings. Graders also mark down designs that cannot answer the stated question, samples with no size calculation, instruments never tested for reliability and ethics sections that say only that the study will follow HIPAA. The fix is to narrow the question first and let it drive every later choice.
The HIM 675 drawers
HIM 675 Module 1 Discussion example
An opening discussion in which the composite Tulsa data integrity manager starts from a complaint, pressure injuries flagged as present on admission with no skin finding in the admission note, and narrows it in three passes into a question that names a population, a measure and a time frame, tested against the FINER criteria, drawing on Goldman and colleagues on how often present-on-admission flags agree with the chart, Bahl and colleagues on how those flags change safety rates and Hulley and colleagues on good research questions. Full sample paper, read it free.
HIM 675 Module 2 Literature Review Short Paper example
A short literature review that compares what research shows about present-on-admission flags: why they were added to claims, how much they improve risk adjustment, how often they agree with the chart and which hospitals over- or under-report, and how misflagging changes patient safety indicator rates, organized by theme rather than by study and ending with the gap a single hospital study can fill, drawing on Pine and colleagues, Goldman and colleagues, Bahl and colleagues and Weiskopf and Weng on data quality. Full sample paper, read it free.
HIM 675 Module 3 Final Project Milestone One example
The first milestone of the HIM 675 proposal sets the foundation for a Tulsa teaching hospital's study of present-on-admission flags: background on why the flag matters, a one-paragraph problem statement built on the local audit, a purpose statement, three research questions with hypotheses, definitions of the flag's values and the key terms, and the study's scope, assumptions and limits, drawing on Pine and colleagues on risk adjustment, Goldman and colleagues on flag accuracy and Bahl and colleagues on safety indicators. Full sample paper, read it free.
HIM 675 Module 4 Discussion example
A discussion in which the composite Tulsa data integrity manager weighs three designs for the present-on-admission study, a quantitative record review, interviews with coders and nurses and a mixed approach that follows the numbers with conversations, and chooses an explanatory sequential design because the record review can say how often flags are wrong but not why, drawing on Creswell and Creswell on research design, Fetters and colleagues on integrating mixed methods and Goldman and colleagues as a model record review. Full sample paper, read it free.
HIM 675 Module 5 Final Project Milestone Two example
Milestone Two of the HIM 675 proposal synthesizes the evidence behind a Tulsa teaching hospital's present-on-admission study around three claims, that the flag matters, that it is often wrong and that errors start in documentation, then builds a four-step framework tracing a flag from the condition at arrival through what is recorded and what the coder reads to the value on the claim, drawing on Goldman and colleagues, Bahl and colleagues, Weiskopf and Weng, Bergstrom and colleagues on the Braden Scale and Edsberg and colleagues on pressure injury staging. Full sample paper, read it free.
HIM 675 Module 6 Instrument Short Paper example
A short paper that builds the record abstraction tool for a Tulsa teaching hospital's present-on-admission study, field by field with decision rules for each condition, then reports two pilot rounds: 90% agreement but a kappa of only 0.80 on the first 30 records, three ambiguous rules rewritten, and a kappa of 0.89 on the next 20, drawing on McHugh on interpreting kappa, Edsberg and colleagues on pressure injury stages, Weiskopf and Weng on data quality and Goldman and colleagues on blinded abstraction. Full sample paper, read it free.
HIM 675 Module 7 Final Project Milestone Three example
Milestone Three sets out the methods of a Tulsa teaching hospital's present-on-admission study: an explanatory sequential design, a stratified sample of 320 records sized from an expected 75% agreement, blinded re-abstraction with ongoing double review, a variables table, an analysis plan with confidence intervals, a binomial test and logistic regression checked against events per variable, eight follow-up interviews analyzed thematically, and an ethics plan with expedited review and a HIPAA waiver, drawing on Fetters and colleagues, Peduzzi and colleagues, Braun and Clarke and federal research privacy guidance. Full sample paper, read it free.
HIM 675 Module 8 Journal example
A journal entry in which the composite Tulsa data integrity manager, piloting the abstraction tool, opens the chart of a woman who arrived from a nursing home with a wound no one recorded for two days and realizes that 320 patients will be read without being asked, then weighs that against the Belmont principles, the conditions for a HIPAA research waiver and the duty to find errors that may be hiding harm, deciding on two added protections, drawing on the Belmont Report, Beauchamp and Childress and federal research privacy guidance. Full sample paper, read it free.
HIM 675 Module 9 Final Project example
The HIM 675 final project assembles a complete research proposal for a Tulsa teaching hospital: an abstract, the problem and three questions, a synthesis-based rationale, a bedside-to-claim framework, an explanatory sequential design with 320 stratified records, a tested abstraction tool with kappa of 0.89, an analysis plan, interviews, ethics and privacy protections, a seven-month timeline, a modest budget and a dissemination plan, drawing on Goldman and colleagues, Bahl and colleagues, Weiskopf and Weng, McHugh, Fetters and colleagues and Peduzzi and colleagues. Full sample paper, read it free.
HIM 675 Module 10 Reflection example
Ending HIM 675, the composite Tulsa data integrity manager admits to having planned to prove a suspicion rather than test a question, then describes three changes: writing questions that could come out the other way, distrusting a reassuring number until chance is removed, and treating the people in the records as stakeholders, with Hulley and colleagues on research questions, McHugh on kappa and the Belmont Report, and a commitment to publish the result even if the flags turn out accurate. Full sample paper, read it free.
Your classroom shows something else?
Southern New Hampshire University revises courses; module counts and deliverables shift between terms. Send what your classroom shows and the desk matches it exactly.
Using a HIM 675 sample the right way
Read an HIM 675 sample by checking whether the question names a population, a measure and a time frame, whether the review compares studies and whether the sample size, reliability testing and privacy protections are shown rather than promised. For HIM 675, bring the prompt, your topic or the course case and the rubric; a first custom sample is returned free in 24-48h.
HIM 675 questions, answered
What does HIM 675 cover?
Research problems and questions, literature review, frameworks, quantitative, qualitative and mixed designs, sampling, instruments, reliability, analysis plans, research ethics and proposal writing.
Is HIM 675 the capstone?
It prepares it. The proposal written here usually becomes the plan carried out in the capstone course.
What makes a strong HIM 675 proposal?
A narrow, answerable question, a critical review, a design matched to the question, a calculated sample size, a tested instrument and specific privacy protections.