Free Practice Questions for NAHQ CPHQ Exam

The Organizational Leadership domain clearly defines governance responsibilities within performance improvement. The governing body holds ultimate accountability for organizational performance, including approval and oversight of the performance improvement plan.

According to the NAHQ competency framework, the governing body ensures alignment between performance improvement activities, strategic priorities, and the organization’s mission. While quality leaders, department managers, and medical staff play critical roles in implementation and execution, planning authority and oversight rest with governance.

This distinction between governance, leadership, and operational roles is frequently tested on the CPHQ exam, making Option C the correct answer.

Detailed Explanation:

Benchmarking involves comparing practices and outcomes with similarorganizations to identify areas for improvement.

Option B: Benchmarking

Benchmarking provides standards or comparisons that help teams identify best practices and improvement areas.

Option A:

Outcome measurement assesses results but does not compare across facilities.

Within the Population Health and Care Transitions domain, NAHQ guidance stresses proactive evaluation of high-risk performance measures, especially those tied to CMS payment programs. When a metric is at the upper limit of acceptability, the organization should not wait for performance to worsen.

Convening an interdisciplinary group allows the organization to assess whether existing interventions are effective and sustainable, and to identify opportunities for strengthening care transitions, patient education, and follow-up processes. This proactive approach supports long-term performance stability and minimizes future financial penalties.

Waiting for performance to exceed thresholds (Option D) reflects reactive management. Options A and B represent specific interventions that should only occur after a broader evaluation confirms gaps. NAHQ emphasizes sustainability and cross-functional accountability, making Option C the correct choice.

The data in the table shows that Department C has the lowestcompliance rate in pain management at 65%, which is well below the organization’s goal of a 90% mean compliance rate. This indicates that pain management presents the greatest opportunity for improvement. Focusing on pain management in Department C could yield significant gains in overall patient care and satisfaction, as managing pain effectively is a critical component of quality care.

Patient flow (A): Although Department C also has low compliance in patient flow, pain management has the lowest compliance rate, making it a higher priority.

Environment of care (B): Compliance rates are higher in this focus area, especially in Department B.

Infection prevention (D): Compliance rates are generally higher across all departments in this area, so it is not the most pressing issue.

References

NAHQ Body of Knowledge: Quality Improvement Prioritization

NAHQ CPHQ Exam Preparation Materials: Analyzing Performance Data for Improvement

The NAHQ CPHQ exam blueprint emphasizes the use of technology-enabled forcing functions and constraints as highly effective patient safety strategies. Forcing functions are system-level design features that prevent users from proceeding unless required safety steps are completed, thereby reducing reliance on memory or individual vigilance.

Option A best demonstrates effective use of technology to improve patient safety because it requires independent verification by a second staff member with a separate login before the process can continue. This technological safeguard prevents bypassing critical safety checks and reduces the risk of errors, aligning with CPHQ principles related to high-reliability organizations and error prevention.

Option B may introduce risk by reducing direct communication and does not inherently improve safety. Option C indicates increased workarounds, which signal system design problems and increased risk, not safety improvement. Option D reflects a reporting trend but does not necessarily confirm improved safety, as decreased reporting may indicate underreporting rather than fewer events.

The CPHQ framework prioritizes proactive system design, and technology that enforces correct processes is considered a best practice for sustaining patient safety improvements.

Per the NAHQ CPHQ exam blueprint, incidence rates are fundamental epidemiologic measures used to evaluate risk and occurrence of new events over time. Incidence specifically measures new cases of a condition that develop within a defined population during a specified time period.

Option A correctly defines incidence by identifying new cases, specifying a timeframe, and using the population at risk as the denominator. This aligns directly with CPHQ expectations for differentiating incidence from prevalence.

Option C includes all cases (new and existing), which describes prevalence over a period rather than incidence. Option D reflects point prevalence, measuring cases at a single point in time. Option B is mathematically incorrect and does not represent a standard epidemiologic calculation.

The CPHQ framework emphasizes incidence rates for evaluating disease onset, effectiveness of prevention strategies, and population health trends, making Option A the correct and verified response.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

Under the Health Data Analytics domain, the reliability of survey data depends on sampling design and data collection timing.

By conducting all calls between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., the professional introduces sampling bias by excluding individuals unavailable during those hours (e.g., full-time workers). This limits representativeness and generalizability of results.

Follow-up calls and clinician involvement do not correct the underlying selection bias.

Therefore, option B identifies the key limitation — limited sample representativeness due to collection timing.

In the context of a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for a new patient safety event reporting system, the team should use the risk priority number (RPN) to determine which failure mode to address first. Here’s why:

Comprehensive Assessment: The RPN is calculated by multiplying the values assigned to the severity, frequency of occurrence, and detectability of a failure mode. This number provides a comprehensive assessment of the risk associated with each potential failure.

Prioritization: By using the RPN, the team can prioritize which failure modes to address first based on the overall risk they pose. The higher the RPN, the more critical it is to address that failure mode.

Efficient Resource Allocation: Addressing the highest RPN first ensures that resources are allocated to the areas that have the greatest potential impact on patient safety, making the risk mitigation process more efficient.

Balanced Decision-Making: The RPN allows the team to consider not just how often a failure might occur, but also how severe the consequences would be and how easy it is to detect before it causes harm. This balanced approach ensures that all relevant factors are considered in decision-making.

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a systematic method for evaluating a process to identify where and how it might fail, to assess the relative impact of different failures, and to identify the parts of the process that are most in need of change. FMEA includes review of the following:

Steps in the process: Identify what could go wrong during each step.

Failure modes: Identify potential failure modes for each step.

Failure effects: For each failure mode, identify potential effects.

Severity: Assign a severity rating for each effect of failure.

Occurrence: Assign an occurrence rating foreach failure mode.

Detection: Assign a detection rating for each failure mode and effect.

Risk Priority Number (RPN): Calculate the RPN for each effect.

FMEA is particularly useful in healthcare for risk assessment of a new or modified process because it not only identifies potential failures, but also prioritizes them based on their impact, frequency of occurrence, and detectability, allowing for targeted and efficient process improvement.

A flow chart (D) best evaluates care processes and transitions by mapping workflows and identifying inefficiencies. Brainstorming (A), planning grids (B), and affinity diagrams (C) are less suited for process analysis. NAHQ emphasizes flow charts for process evaluation.

NAHQ CPHQ Study Guide, Performance and Process Improvement Section, “Process Mapping and Flow Charts”; NAHQ CPHQ Practice Questions, Performance Improvement Tools.

When the chairperson of the governing body requests an annual report on improvements in patient care, the report should provide an overview of the quality program, with a specific focus on how these activities have impacted patient care. This approach gives the governing body a comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of the quality initiatives and their direct influence on patient outcomes, safety, and satisfaction. It helps the leadership to assess the overall performance and supports informed decision-making for future improvements.

The names of physicians who fall below the threshold of standards of care (A): This information could lead to a punitive focus and might not be suitable for a high-level annual report.

A detailed description of all quality activities (B): While detailed information is valuable, an annual report should focus on the impact rather than every activity.

The results of peer review (D): Peer review results are typically confidential and might not be included in a high-level report to the governing body.

References

NAHQ Body of Knowledge: Quality Program Reporting and Governance

NAHQ CPHQ Exam Preparation Materials: Reporting to the Governing Body

=========

A scatter diagram is a graphical tool that displays the relationship between two variables by plotting pairs of data points on a coordinate plane. It can help identify possible correlations, trends, outliers, and patterns in the data.

A Pareto chart is a type of bar chart that shows the frequency or impact of different factors or causes in descending order, along with a cumulative line that indicates the percentage of the total. It can help prioritize the most significant issues or opportunities for improvement.

A fishbone diagram is a visual tool that helps identify the root causes of a problem or effect by organizing possible factors into categories, such as people, process, environment, etc. It can help facilitate brainstorming and root cause analysis.

A histogram is a type of bar chart that shows the distribution of a continuous variable by grouping the data into bins of equal width and displaying the frequency or count of each bin. It can help describe the shape, center, spread, and outliers of the data.

In this case, the long-term care facility wants to analyze the relationship between two variables: the number of medications and the number of falls. Therefore, a scatter diagram is the most appropriate tool to help them understand the data. A scatter diagram can show if there is a positive, negative, or no correlation between the two variables, and how strong or weak the correlation is. It can also reveal any outliers or clusters of data points that may indicate other factors affecting the relationship.

A Pareto chart, a fishbone diagram, and a histogram are not suitable tools for this purpose, as they do not show the relationship between two variables. A Pareto chart can show the relative importance of different factors or causes, but not how they are related to each other. A fishbone diagram can help identify the possible causes of a problem or effect, but not how they are quantitatively related to each other. A histogram can show the distribution of a single variable, but not how it is influenced by another variable.

The focus of performance improvement in healthcare is often on the systems rather than the individual1. This approach is part of continuous quality improvement (CQI), which emphasizes the organization and its systems1. It promotes the need for objective data to analyze and improve processes1. The ultimate aim of performance improvement in healthcare is to optimize healthcare delivery by focusing on patient care outcomes, client safety, efficiency, cost reduction, and minimizing risks and liability2. Therefore, the answer is B. systems. This is because improving systems can lead to better outcomes, increased safety, and more efficient and cost-effective healthcare delivery2.

The NAHQ CPHQ competency framework identifies groupthink as a leadership risk that can impair decision-making and innovation. Leaders play a key role in preventing it by fostering psychological safety and open dialogue.

Option A is correct because encouraging dissenting opinions ensures that alternative viewpoints are considered, reducing the risk of premature consensus and flawed decisions. This approach supports critical thinking and better quality outcomes.

Options B, C, and D may support team functioning but do not directly counteract groupthink.

The CPHQ exam emphasizes leadership behaviors that promote inclusive decision-making and high reliability, making encouragement of dissent the most effective strategy.

Before patient outcome data can be used for benchmarking, the data should be adjusted for severity of illness. Severity adjustment ensures that comparisons are fair and meaningful by accounting for differences in patient populations. Without this adjustment, outcomes could appear worse or better simply because one organization is treating sicker patients than another, rather than due to differences in quality of care.

Organized by patient age (A): While age might be a factor in some cases, severity of illness is more critical for ensuring fair comparisons.

Adjusted for length of stay (B): Length of stay adjustments might be necessary in some cases, but severity of illness is more fundamental for outcome comparisons.

Organized by patient gender (D): Gender is less relevant compared to the need for severity adjustment in outcome benchmarking.

References

NAHQ Body of Knowledge: Data Standardization and Benchmarking

NAHQ CPHQ Exam Preparation Materials: Adjusting Data for Benchmarking

=========