Free Practice Questions for NAHQ CPHQ Exam

When a healthcare organization identifies a problem that is impacting its performance, such as post-surgical respiratory failure rates negatively impacting reimbursement projections, the first step is typically to gather more information about the issue123.

In this case, the best way to do that would be to obtain a list of the patients identified by this code and conduct a retrospective review (Option D)123. This would allow the organization to look back at the medical records of these patients to understand more about their cases, including potential risk factors, the course of their treatment, and the outcomes they experienced123.

This information can then be used to identify patterns or trends that might be contributing to the high rates of post-surgical respiratory failure123. For example, the review might reveal that certain surgical procedures, patient characteristics, or care practices are associated with a higher risk of respiratory failure123.

Once this information has been gathered and analyzed, the organization can then move on to the next steps in the quality improvement process, such as identifying potential interventions, implementing changes, and monitoring their impact123.

The data shows neighborhoods with higher percentages of non-English speakers had less success, indicating a language barrier. Making program materials available in common languages will improve accessibility and engagement, addressing a key social determinant of health (CDC, Health Literacy and Language Access, 2023; NAHQ, Health Equity Resources, 2024).

Subsidizing food addresses financial barriers but doesn’t directly address language.

Outreach by dieticians and senior center efforts may not target language needs.

Detailed Explanation:

Offering an evening follow-up clinic could address potential scheduling conflicts, which may be a barrier for attendance in this community.

Option B: Offer an evening follow-up smoking cessation clinic

Evening hours may better accommodate patients’ work schedules and family obligations, improving accessibility and participation.

Other Options:

Although other options could provide useful insights or resources, scheduling flexibility directly addresses the attendance issue.

Accountability for quality ultimately rests with the governing body of a health care organization, such as the board of directors or trustees. The governing body is responsible for setting the vision, mission, values, and strategic goals of the organization, as well as overseeing its performance, compliance, and risk management. The governing body also appoints, evaluates, and supports the CEO, who is accountable to the governing body for implementing the organization’s strategy and ensuring quality and safety throughout the organization.

The quality manager, the CEO, and the department leader are all important roles in ensuring quality within their respective scopes of authority and responsibility, but they are not the ultimate source of accountability for quality. The quality manager is responsible for designing, coordinating, and evaluating quality improvement initiatives, as well as providing education, training, and support to staff and leaders on quality methods and tools. The CEO is responsible for providing leadership, direction, andoversight to the organization’s operations, finances, and culture, as well as ensuring alignment and integration of quality across all functions and levels. The department leader is responsible for managing the daily activities, resources, and performance of a specific unit or service, as well as ensuring compliance with quality standards and policies within their area of responsibility.

However, none of these roles can ensure quality without the support, guidance, and accountability of the governing body, which has the ultimate authority and responsibility for the organization’s quality and safety. The governing body sets the tone and expectations for quality at the top, and holds the CEO and other leaders accountable for delivering quality outcomes and improving quality processes. The governing body also monitors and evaluates the organization’s quality performance and improvement efforts, and ensures that the organization has the necessary resources, structures, and systems to support quality. The governing body also ensures that the organization engages with external stakeholders, such as regulators, accreditors, payers, and patients, to demonstrate its commitment and accountability for quality.

The provider’s Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation (OPPE) profile suggests that the provider partially meets expectations, meaning 40% to 64% of measures are at the threshold. According to the organization's criteria, this level of performance warrants retaining privileges but likely with closer monitoring or additional support.

Partial Meeting of Expectations: When a provider partially meets expectations, it indicates that there are areas of performance that need improvement, but the provider is still performing sufficiently in enough areas to retain privileges.

Next Steps: The provider should likely undergo further evaluation or targeted support to address the areas where performance is lacking. This might involve additional training, mentoring, or a Focused Professional Practice Evaluation (FPPE) if specific concerns are identified.

Comparison to Other Options:

A. The provider fully meets expectations; do nothing is not applicable since the provider does not fully meet the performance criteria.

B. The provider does not meet expectations; refer to peer review would be appropriate if the provider's performance was below 40%, but that is not the case here.

D. The provider meets expectations; retain privileges would be correct if the provider was in the 65% to 80% range, which is not the situation here.

Detailed Explanation:

The logical sequence of phases when shifting to a participatory management approach is based on ensuring commitment, baseline data collection,implementation, and then evaluation.

Option C: 3, 1, 4, 2

This sequence begins with making the commitment (3), which is crucial for setting the foundation and securing leadership buy-in. Gathering baseline data (1) follows, allowing the organization to understand current performance levels. Implementing the program (4) is the next logical step, with evaluating effectiveness and improvement (2) as the final step to assess outcomes.

Other Options

Options A, B, and D present sequences that are less logically aligned with program implementation. They either suggest gathering data before commitment or evaluating without a fully implemented program.

The governing body holds the ultimate accountability for patient safety and quality of care within a healthcare organization. They are responsible for setting policies, ensuring compliance with regulations, and overseeing the organization's overall performance in these areas.

The significant variation in accuracy percentages among different reviewers (72% to 95%) strongly suggests a problem with interrater reliability. Interrater reliability refers to the degree of agreement or consistency between different reviewers or data abstractors assessing the same data set. Large discrepancies imply that reviewers are interpreting or applying the measure differently, leading to inconsistent results (The Joint Commission, 2024; NAHQ CPHQ Study Guide).

Measure definition (A) issues would typically cause systematic errors affecting all reviewers similarly, not wide discrepancies.

Construct validity (C) relates to whether the measure assesses what it intends to, which is different from reviewer agreement.

Random selection (D) concerns the method of choosing data samples and does not explain reviewer discrepancies.

Improving interrater reliability usually involves clarifying data definitions, enhanced training, and consistent abstraction protocols.

The goal is to ensure that preventable falls do not exceed 25% of the total falls in any unit. To determine which units meet this goal, we need to calculate the percentage of preventable falls for each unit:

Unit 1:

Total Falls: 14

Preventable Falls: 7

Percentage: (7/14) * 100 = 50%

Does not meet the goal (50% > 25%).

Unit 2:

Total Falls: 9

Preventable Falls: 3

Percentage: (3/9) * 100 = 33.33%

Does not meet the goal (33.33% > 25%).

Unit 3:

Total Falls: 3

Preventable Falls: 2

Percentage: (2/3) * 100 = 66.67%

Does not meet the goal (66.67% > 25%).

Unit 4:

Total Falls: 1

Preventable Falls: 0

Percentage: (0/1) * 100 = 0%

Meets the goal (0% < 25%).

Unit 5:

Total Falls: 2

Preventable Falls: 1

Percentage: (1/2) * 100 = 50%

Does not meet the goal (50% > 25%).

Based on these calculations, only Unit 4 meets the goal. However, the Unit 5 is incorrectly assessed, as 50% does not meet the threshold of 25%. Hence, the correct answer is Unit 4 only. Please ignore the earlier verified statement.

An accountable care organization (ACO) is a network of health care providers that agrees to be accountable for the quality, cost, and overall care of a defined population of patients1.

ACOs aim to improve population health outcomes by coordinating care across different settings and providers, and by implementing quality improvement initiatives1.

One of the quality improvement initiatives that ACOs may adopt is to increase the influenza vaccination rate among their staff, especially those who have direct contact with patients2.

Influenza vaccination canprevent flu-related morbidity and mortality, reduce absenteeism and presenteeism, and protect vulnerable patients from infection3.

To analyze staff flu vaccination trends for an ACO, a source of data that can be used is electronic health records (EHRs)4.

EHRs are digital versions of patients’ medical histories, diagnoses, treatments, medications, immunizations, and other health information that are maintained by health care providers5.

EHRs can provide data on staff flu vaccination trends for an ACO by:

Identifying the staff members who belong to the ACO and their roles, locations, and contact information6.

Tracking the dates and types of flu vaccines that staff members received, as well as any adverse reactions or contraindications7.

Comparing thevaccination rates of staff members across different departments, facilities, and time periods8.

Evaluating the impact of flu vaccination on staff health outcomes, such as flu-like illness, hospitalization, and mortality.

Generating reports and feedback for staff members and managers on their flu vaccination status and performance.

Therefore, the correct answer is A. electronic health records, as this is a source of data that can be used to analyze staff flu vaccination trends for an ACO. References:

1: Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs): General Information | CMS

2: Increasing Health and Social Care Worker Flu Vaccinations: Five Components

3: P141 FluCare: Improving flu vaccination rates in care home staff: A cluster randomised controlled trial | Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

4: Frontiers | Influenza vaccination rates among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis | Public Health

5: What is an electronic health record (EHR)? | HealthIT.gov

6: The National Association for Healthcare Quality

7: Flu vaccination guidance for social care workers and carers

8: CDC: COVID-19, flu vaccination rates for health care workers low last season

Utilization of Improvement Methodologies by Healthcare Quality Professionals During the COVID-19 Pandemic | Journal for Healthcare Quality

Healthcare Quality and Safety Workforce Report: New Imperatives for Quality and Safety Mean New Imperatives for Workforce Development

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

Under Patient Safety and Compliance with Privacy Regulations, HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) strictly prohibits unauthorized access to protected health information (PHI).

A caregiver accessing her spouse’s medical record without authorization constitutes a privacy breach because it violates patient confidentiality and lacks a legitimate treatment, payment, or operational purpose.

The other activities listed are permitted under healthcare operations or authorized representation exceptions.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

In the Patient Safety domain, leveraging technology for safety means implementing system-level design controls that prevent unsafe acts or enforce safety steps.

A required double check with dual log-in authentication is a strong process control that prevents a single user from bypassing a safety step, reducing the risk of medication errors.

A decrease in reported events (A) may reflect underreporting; increased workarounds (C) and reduced direct communication (D) are negative safety indicators.