Free ASHRM CPHRM Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 3

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM, CMS Conditions of Participation, and The Joint Commission patient visitation standards, hospitals must have written visitation policies that respect patient rights. Patients generally have the right to designate visitors of their choosing, including individuals who are not immediate family members. Visitation cannot be restricted based on non-clinical factors such as relationship status or surrogate designation.

However, facilities may impose clinically reasonable or safety-based restrictions. If a visitor administers an unknown drug intravenously to a patient, this presents a clear and immediate threat to patient safety. Such conduct justifies restricting visitation to protect the patient from harm, maintain clinical control of treatment, and prevent unsafe interference with care.

Being known as a drug seeker in the community, without evidence of disruptive or harmful behavior during the visit, does not alone justify restriction under patient rights standards. Similarly, visitation cannot be denied solely because the individual is not the designated healthcare surrogate.

Legal and regulatory objectives emphasize balancing patient rights with safety and security. Therefore, a hospital may restrict visitation when a visitor’s actions pose a direct threat to patient safety.

The PSDA focuses onpatient autonomy and informed decision-making, especially aroundadvance directives. It requires certain healthcare organizations to inform patients of their rights under state law to make decisions about medical care, ask whether the patient has an advance directive, document it, and avoid discrimination based on whether an advance directive exists. The Act doesnotcreate a right for patients to select any medication they want irrespective of clinical appropriateness, prescribing laws, formularies, allergies, contraindications, or standards of care. Risk management objectives here include: ensuring compliant admission workflows (education + documentation), reducing disputes through early clarification of preferences, and preventing ethical/legal breakdowns during incapacity. Operationally, PSDA compliance improves care planning, reduces unwanted treatment, and lowers complaint/litigation risk by showing the organization respected patient rights and followed required processes.

Under Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, obligations under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act EMTALA govern on-call physician responsibilities. When a hospital maintains an on-call roster to provide specialty services for emergency department patients, physicians listed on call are required to respond and participate in the evaluation and stabilization of patients with emergency medical conditions.

An on-call physician may only be relieved of duty if legitimately unavailable due to circumstances beyond their control, such as actively caring for another patient or being otherwise unable to respond in accordance with hospital policy. Refusal to treat for convenience or non-clinical reasons may constitute an EMTALA violation and expose both the hospital and physician to regulatory penalties.

A blanket right to refuse care is inconsistent with EMTALA requirements. While financial discrimination is prohibited, refusal for other non-justifiable reasons may still violate federal law. Conversely, stating that a physician is never relieved of duty is inaccurate, as legitimate unavailability may excuse performance under specific circumstances.

Legal and regulatory objectives emphasize compliance with EMTALA, proper on-call coverage policies, and documentation of availability. Therefore, the correct statement is that relief occurs only when the physician is unavailable due to circumstances outside their control.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards outlined by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, proactive workplace violence prevention focuses on measures implemented before an incident occurs. These strategies aim to identify risks, strengthen preparedness, and reduce the likelihood or severity of violent events.

Pre-employment background screening helps identify applicants with histories that may pose safety concerns, consistent with legal hiring standards. Ongoing staff training enhances awareness of warning signs, communication skills, and reporting procedures. Leadership rounding increases visibility, supports early identification of environmental or behavioral risks, and reinforces safety culture. Active shooter drills and emergency preparedness exercises ensure that staff understand response protocols and can act effectively under stress.

Options B, C, and D primarily describe reactive or post-incident measures. Law enforcement notification, restraining orders, crisis intervention, DEA notification, documentation, and emergency command activation occur after an event has taken place or when an immediate threat is present.

Health Care Operations objectives emphasize prevention, preparedness, environmental assessment, and workforce education as foundational elements of a workplace violence program. Therefore, pre-employment screening, training, rounding, and drills represent proactive components of an effective prevention strategy.

Under Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, the implantation of a medical device that lacks FDA approval and Institutional Review Board oversight presents significant legal and regulatory violations. Use of an unapproved device outside of an approved investigational protocol may violate federal regulations governing human subject research and medical device approval processes.

The risk manager’s primary responsibility is to immediately mitigate regulatory and liability exposure. Because the procedure is scheduled for the next day, urgent intervention is required. Contacting the FDA would not resolve the immediate risk. Verifying informed consent is insufficient, as patient consent cannot legitimize use of an unapproved device outside regulatory pathways. Calling a special IRB meeting would not retroactively authorize an unapproved device without appropriate investigational device exemption processes.

Escalating the issue to the chief of surgery to halt or cancel the procedure is the most appropriate immediate step. This ensures that organizational leadership addresses the compliance violation before patient harm occurs. Risk management objectives emphasize proactive prevention of regulatory breaches, protection of patient safety, and preservation of institutional integrity. Therefore, stopping the procedure is the correct and immediate action.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, a standard loss run is a report generated by an insurer or third-party administrator summarizing claims activity for a specific period. Loss runs are critical tools in risk financing, underwriting review, actuarial analysis, and budgeting for self-insured retentions.

Essential elements of a standard loss run include the date of loss, indemnity payments, and expense payments. Indemnity reflects amounts paid or reserved for compensation to claimants, while expense represents allocated loss adjustment expenses such as defense costs, expert witness fees, and investigation costs. These data elements allow the organization to evaluate financial exposure, trends in claim development, and adequacy of reserves.

While frequency and severity are important analytical concepts derived from loss data, they are not typically listed as standalone fields within the basic loss run report. Legal analysis, case law references, and root cause analyses are not standard components of loss run documentation.

Risk financing objectives emphasize accurate tracking of financial exposure and informed forecasting. Therefore, date, expense, and indemnity are essential elements of a standard loss run report.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards endorsed by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, system-level issues in the informed consent process should first be addressed through quality improvement and educational interventions rather than immediate punitive action.

Conducting a medical record audit is an appropriate first step to identify patterns of incomplete documentation and determine whether the problem is isolated or systemic. Reviewing and revising policies and procedures ensures alignment with current legal standards and clarifies responsibilities for obtaining and documenting consent. Providing targeted education to physicians, nurses, and office staff reinforces understanding of required elements, including discussion of risks, benefits, alternatives, and patient questions.

Reporting physicians with incomplete consent forms directly to peer review may be appropriate in cases of persistent noncompliance or willful disregard of standards. However, when a systemic process problem is identified, immediate referral to peer review is not the appropriate primary intervention and may undermine a just culture approach.

Clinical and patient safety objectives emphasize root cause identification, education, and process improvement before disciplinary escalation. Therefore, reporting physicians to peer review in this context represents the inappropriate intervention.

According to Health Care Risk Management principles supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, insurance coverage for liability exposures is often structured in layers. The first layer of insurance that responds to a covered loss is known as the primary policy.

Primary insurance provides initial coverage once any applicable deductible or self-insured retention has been satisfied. It is responsible for defense and indemnity payments up to the policy’s stated per-occurrence and aggregate limits. Only after the primary policy limits are exhausted do excess or umbrella policies respond.

Terms such as baseline, foundation, and frontline are not recognized technical classifications in layered insurance structures. In professional and general liability programs, organizations commonly maintain a primary layer followed by one or more excess layers to protect against catastrophic losses.

Risk financing objectives emphasize understanding policy structure, limits, attachment points, and coordination between layers to ensure adequate protection of organizational assets. Therefore, the correct term for the first layer of insurance that responds to a loss is the primary policy.

SBAR is a standardized communication framework used to reduce preventable harm caused by incomplete, unclear, or delayed clinical communication—especially during handoffs, escalations, and urgent updates. The four elements areSituation(what is happening now),Background(clinical context and relevant history),Assessment(what you think the problem is based on data), andRecommendation(what you need/request as the next step). By forcing concise structure, SBAR improves shared situational awareness, supports early recognition of deterioration, and reduces ambiguity (“hinting and hoping”). From a risk management standpoint, SBAR strengthens frontline reliability, decreases communication-related sentinel events, and supports defensible care by demonstrating a consistent escalation process. It also aligns with patient safety objectives: clearer teamwork, faster response to clinical changes, and fewer omissions during transitions of care.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, evidence in a malpractice claim includes any relevant material that may help establish facts related to duty, breach, causation, or damages. Photographs of injuries are routinely admissible as demonstrative or documentary evidence to illustrate the nature and extent of harm. A thank you note from a patient to a physician may be introduced to reflect the patient’s contemporaneous perception of care, credibility, or satisfaction at a particular time, depending on context. A patient’s personal journal documenting experiences during hospitalization may also be considered evidence, particularly if it describes symptoms, interactions, or emotional distress relevant to damages.

A gift from a patient to a volunteer, however, is generally not probative of negligence or injury unless directly tied to issues of undue influence or misconduct. In typical malpractice litigation, such a gift does not establish standard of care, breach, or damages and would not ordinarily be considered relevant evidence.

Claims and litigation objectives emphasize careful documentation, preservation of relevant materials, and coordination with counsel regarding evidentiary matters. Therefore, photographs, written communications, and patient journals may be considered evidence in a malpractice claim.