Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies	Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies Commitments and Guarantees The Company's software license agreements include a performance guarantee that the Company's software products will substantially operate as described in the applicable program documentation for a period of 365 days after delivery. To date, the Company has not incurred any significant costs associated with its performance guarantee or other related warranties and does not expect to incur significant warranty costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with these warranties. Certain arrangements also include performance guarantees related to response time, availability for operational use, and other performance-related guarantees. Certain arrangements also include penalties in the form of maintenance credits should the performance of the software fail to meet the performance guarantees. To date, the Company has not incurred any significant costs associated with these warranties and does not expect to incur significant warranty costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with these warranties. The Company has historically offered short-term rights of return in certain sales arrangements. If the Company is able to estimate returns for these types of arrangements and all other criteria for revenue recognition have been met, revenue is recognized and these arrangements are recorded in the consolidated financial statements. If the Company is unable to estimate returns for these types of arrangements, revenue is not recognized in the consolidated financial statements until the rights of return expire, provided also, that all other criteria of revenue recognition have been met. Certain standard sales agreements contain a money back guarantee providing for a performance guarantee that is already part of the software license agreement as well as training and support. The money back guarantee also warrants that the software will remain robust and flexible to allow participation in the federal health incentive programs. The specific elements of the performance guarantee pertain to aspects of the software, which the Company has already tested and confirmed to consistently meet using the Company's existing software without any modifications or enhancements. To date, the Company has not incurred any costs associated with this guarantee and does not expect to incur significant costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with this guarantee. The Company's standard sales agreements contain an indemnification provision pursuant to which it shall indemnify, hold harmless, and reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with any United States patent, any copyright or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third-party with respect to its software. As the Company has not incurred any significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements, the Company believes that its estimated exposure on these agreements is currently minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these indemnification obligations. Hussein Litigation On October 7, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers and directors in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, captioned Ahmed D. Hussein v. Sheldon Razin, Steven Plochocki, Quality Systems, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, No. 30-2013-00679600-CU-NP-CJC, by Ahmed Hussein, a former director and significant shareholder of the Company. The Company filed a demurrer to the complaint, which the court granted on April 10, 2014. An amended complaint was filed on April 25, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges fraud and deceit, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with statements made to the Company’s shareholders regarding the Company’s financial condition and projected future performance. The amended complaint seeks actual damages, exemplary and punitive damages and costs. The Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. On July 29, 2014, the court sustained the demurrer with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, and overruled the demurrer with respect to the fraud and deceit claims. The Company believes that plaintiff’s claims are without merit and continues to defend against them vigorously. Federal Securities Class Action On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of the Company other than the defendants against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by a shareholder of the Company. After the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the litigation described above under the caption “Hussein Litigation,” generally alleges that statements made to the Company’s shareholders regarding the Company’s financial condition and projected future performance were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys' fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20, 2014, which the court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On January 24, 2014, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers and current and former directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Timothy J. Foss, derivatively on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Craig A. Barbarosh, George H. Bristol, James C. Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris Panner, D. Russell Pflueger, Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin, Lance E. Rosenzweig and Quality Systems, Inc., No. SACV14-00110-DOC-JPPx, by Timothy J. Foss, a shareholder of the Company. The complaint arises from the same allegations described above under the captions “Hussein Litigation” and “Federal Securities Class Action” and generally alleges breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by the Company’s directors, in addition to unjust enrichment and insider selling by individual directors. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of all profits, court costs, attorneys’ fees and implementation of enhanced corporate governance procedures. The parties have agreed to stay this litigation pending resolution of the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Federal Securities Class Action. The Company believes that plaintiff’s claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies

Commitments and Guarantees

The Company's software license agreements include a performance guarantee that the Company's software products will substantially operate as described in the applicable program documentation for a period of 365 days after delivery. To date, the Company has not incurred any significant costs associated with its performance guarantee or other related warranties and does not expect to incur significant warranty costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with these warranties. Certain arrangements also include performance guarantees related to response time, availability for operational use, and other performance-related guarantees. Certain arrangements also include penalties in the form of maintenance credits should the performance of the software fail to meet the performance guarantees. To date, the Company has not incurred any significant costs associated with these warranties and does not expect to incur significant warranty costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with these warranties.

The Company has historically offered short-term rights of return in certain sales arrangements. If the Company is able to estimate returns for these types of arrangements and all other criteria for revenue recognition have been met, revenue is recognized and these arrangements are recorded in the consolidated financial statements. If the Company is unable to estimate returns for these types of arrangements, revenue is not recognized in the consolidated financial statements until the rights of return expire, provided also, that all other criteria of revenue recognition have been met.

Certain standard sales agreements contain a money back guarantee providing for a performance guarantee that is already part of the software license agreement as well as training and support. The money back guarantee also warrants that the software will remain robust and flexible to allow participation in the federal health incentive programs. The specific elements of the performance guarantee pertain to aspects of the software, which the Company has already tested and confirmed to consistently meet using the Company's existing software without any modifications or enhancements. To date, the Company has not incurred any costs associated with this guarantee and does not expect to incur significant costs in the future. Therefore, no accrual has been made for potential costs associated with this guarantee.

The Company's standard sales agreements contain an indemnification provision pursuant to which it shall indemnify, hold harmless, and reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with any United States patent, any copyright or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third-party with respect to its software. As the Company has not incurred any significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements, the Company believes that its estimated exposure on these agreements is currently minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these indemnification obligations.

Hussein Litigation

On October 7, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers and directors in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, captioned Ahmed D. Hussein v. Sheldon Razin, Steven Plochocki, Quality Systems, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, No. 30-2013-00679600-CU-NP-CJC, by Ahmed Hussein, a former director and significant shareholder of the Company. The Company filed a demurrer to the complaint, which the court granted on April 10, 2014. An amended complaint was filed on April 25, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges fraud and deceit, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with statements made to the Company’s shareholders regarding the Company’s financial condition and projected future performance. The amended complaint seeks actual damages, exemplary and punitive damages and costs. The Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. On July 29, 2014, the court sustained the demurrer with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, and overruled the demurrer with respect to the fraud and deceit claims. The Company believes that plaintiff’s claims are without merit and continues to defend against them vigorously.

Federal Securities Class Action

On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of the Company other than the defendants against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by a shareholder of the Company. After the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the litigation described above under the caption “Hussein Litigation,” generally alleges that statements made to the Company’s shareholders regarding the Company’s financial condition and projected future performance were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys' fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20, 2014, which the court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

On January 24, 2014, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers and current and former directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Timothy J. Foss, derivatively on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Craig A. Barbarosh, George H. Bristol, James C. Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris Panner, D. Russell Pflueger, Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin, Lance E. Rosenzweig and Quality Systems, Inc., No. SACV14-00110-DOC-JPPx, by Timothy J. Foss, a shareholder of the Company. The complaint arises from the same allegations described above under the captions “Hussein Litigation” and “Federal Securities Class Action” and generally alleges breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by the Company’s directors, in addition to unjust enrichment and insider selling by individual directors. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of all profits, court costs, attorneys’ fees and implementation of enhanced corporate governance procedures. The parties have agreed to stay this litigation pending resolution of the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Federal Securities Class Action. The Company believes that plaintiff’s claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.