Free NAHQ CPHQ Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 15

Within the Organizational Leadership domain, NAHQ expects quality professionals to understand the roles of accrediting and certifying bodies. The Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) is a nationally recognized accrediting organization that accredits opioid treatment programs (OTPs), among other behavioral health and rehabilitation services.

CHAP focuses primarily on home health, hospice, and community-based services. The AMA develops clinical guidance and policy but does not accredit organizations. NCQA accredits health plans, population health programs, and patient-centered medical homes, not opioid treatment programs. Therefore, CARF is the correct accrediting body, making Option A correct.

DetailedExplanation:

A pilot project allows for testing changes on a smaller scale, addressing concerns and gathering feedback before full implementation, which facilitates staff acceptance.

Option D: A pilot project

Piloting a change minimizes resistance by allowing for adjustments and staff involvement in the improvement process.

Clinical pathways (CPWs) are a common component in the quest to improve the quality of health1. They are used to reduce variation, improve quality of care, and maximize the outcomes for specific groups of patients1. The development of a clinical pathway involves a structured multidisciplinary plan of care1. This process includes translating guidelines or evidence into local structures1.

Therefore, during the development of a clinical pathway, a quality professional should consult peer-reviewed evidence. This is because the evidence forms the basis of the guidelines that are translated into the local structures during the development of the clinical pathway1. This ensures that the care provided is based on the most current and best practice, leading to improved patient outcomes2.

It’s important to note that while evaluating peer review committee findings, implementing bestpractice alerts, and gathering patient outcome data can be part of the overall quality improvement process, they are not specifically part of the development of a clinical pathway34. These activities may occur before or after the development of the clinical pathway but are not integral to the development process itself34.

Detailed Explanation:

The storming stage involves conflict and differing opinions, which can lead to premature dissolution if not managed effectively.

Option B: Storming

During this stage, teams often experience disagreements, which can lead to dissolution if members cannot resolve conflicts.

The assessment reveals that while team member satisfaction and growth scores are high (96% and 95% respectively), team productivity is slightly lower at 90%. Since the desired patient outcome has not been achieved, it is important to identify and address any barriers that may be hindering the team's productivity. By evaluating these barriers, the team can better understand the factors impacting their ability to meet their goals, such as workflow inefficiencies, resource limitations, or external factors affecting performance.

The other options are less relevant in this context:

Developing interventions to maintain team member satisfaction (B) is unnecessary at this point, as satisfaction is already high.

Continuing to monitor as the team is performing within acceptable limits (C) does not address the fact that the desired outcomes have not been achieved.

Creating a reward system based on team member growth (D) is unrelated to the immediate issue of productivity and patient outcomes.

Within the Health Data Analytics domain, NAHQ emphasizes the use of statistical process control (SPC) to evaluate process stability. A Shewhart chart (control chart) is the primary tool used to determine whether a process is stable and in control.

Shewhart charts include a centerline and statistically derived upper and lower control limits, allowing identification of common-cause versus special-cause variation. A stable process shows data points within control limits without non-random patterns.

Run charts display data over time but lack control limits. Histograms show distribution at a point in time, and scatter diagrams assess relationships between variables. Therefore, Option D is the correct tool for identifying process stability.

Incident reporting systems are tools to collect and analyze data onpatient safety incidents, such as medication errors, falls, infections, and adverse events12.

Incident reporting systems can help identify patterns, trends, and areas of improvement for patient safety and quality of care123.

The graph shows the incident rates for one facility compared to similar facilities in four categories: medication, falls, infection, and adverse events. The graph indicates that the facility has a higher incident rate for falls than the average of similar facilities, while the other categories are comparable or lower4.

Therefore, the first step after reviewing the graph should be to perform additional analysis on falls data, such as the types, causes, consequences, and contributing factors of falls incidents, and compare them with the best practices and standards for falls prevention and management567.

This will help the facility to understand the root causes of the high falls incident rate, and to develop and implement appropriate interventions to reduce the risk and harm of falls for patients567.

Reviewing medication processes, researching best practices, and sharing data with the governing body are also important steps, but they should be done after the additional analysis on falls data, as they are more general and less specific to the problem identified by the graph4. References: 1: Patient Safety Incident Reporting and Learning Systems | WHO 2: Incident Reporting: Key to Successful Healthcare Organizations | SafeQual 3: Report a patient safety incident | NHS England 4: Data from an Incident reporting system compares Incident rates for one facility to similar facilities | User-uploaded image 5: Falls Prevention and Management | NAHQ 6: Preventing Falls in Hospitals | Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 7: Falls Prevention and Management | Institute for Healthcare Improvement

CMS Conditions of Participation (CoPs) are federal standards that hospitals must meet to participate in Medicare and Medicaid programs, directly tied to reimbursement eligibility.

Option A (Submit core measure data): Core measure submission is a quality reporting requirement, but it is not the primary purpose of CoPs, which focus on broader compliance.

Option B (Receive reimbursement): This is the correct answer. The NAHQ CPHQ study guide states, “Hospitals must comply with CMS Conditions of Participation to be eligible for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement” (Domain 3). CoPs ensure minimum standards for patient care and safety, a prerequisite for federal funding.

Option C (Be part of the state hospital association): State hospital associations are voluntary, not tied to CMS CoPs.

Option D (Be licensed): Licensing is a state function, not directly linked to CMS CoPs, which are federal requirements.

CPHQ Objective Reference: Domain 3: Organizational Leadership, Objective 3.5, “Ensure compliance with regulatory requirements,” includes understanding CMS CoPs as a condition for reimbursement. The NAHQ study guide notes, “CoPs are critical for maintaining eligibility for CMS funding, impacting hospital operations and quality” (Domain 3).

Rationale: Compliance with CoPs ensures hospitals meet federal standards for care, enabling reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, a core requirement for financial sustainability, as per CPHQ regulatory principles.

Detailed Explanation:

A gap analysis identifies areas of non-compliance or deficiencies in standards, allowing for targeted improvements before a regulatory or accreditation visit.

Option D: Complete a gap analysis

This is a proactive approach to ensure that all standards are met and any deficiencies are addressed.

Monitoring patient outcomes is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of a quality improvement project. According to the NAHQ CPHQ Detailed Content Outline, under the Performance and Process Improvement domain, professionals are expected to "evaluate the success of performance improvement projects and solutions" by assessing outcome measures.cdn.nahq.org

In the context of a transfusion quality improvement project, this involves tracking patient outcomes such as transfusion reactions, hemoglobin levels post-transfusion, and overall patient recovery metrics to determine if the interventions led to measurable improvements in patient care.

Intangible benefits are non-quantifiable outcomes that cannot be easily measured in monetary or numerical terms, such as emotional or psychological benefits. In the context of a free flu vaccination program, the intangible benefit relates to subjective improvements in well-being rather than direct, measurable outcomes like cost savings or reduced hospitalizations.

Option A (Prevention of hospital admissions): This is a tangible benefit, as hospital admissions can be quantified (e.g., number of admissions avoided) and often translated into cost savings, making it measurable.

Option B (Peace of mind among vaccinated persons): Peace of mind is an intangible benefit, as it reflects an emotional or psychological outcome (e.g., reduced anxiety about contracting the flu) that cannot be directly quantified. NAHQ CPHQ study materials recognize intangible benefits in population health initiatives as those that enhance quality of life or perception of safety, making this the correct answer.

Option C (Savings resulting from lower morbidity among unvaccinated persons): This is a tangible benefit, as it involves measurable cost savings due to reduced illness (e.g., fewer outpatient visits or treatments), often calculated through herd immunity effects.

Option D (Savings associated with prevented illness among vaccinated persons): This is also a tangible benefit, as it can be quantified in terms of reduced healthcare costs (e.g., avoided treatments or hospitalizations) for vaccinated individuals.

Anonymous surveys are one of the most effective tools for evaluating the current culture of safety in a healthcare organization123. These surveys, such as the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture123, are designed to measure the attitudes and perceptions of staff towards patient safety. They provide a confidential and non-punitive way for staff to express their views and experiences related to patient safety123.

Anonymous surveys can reach a large number of staff members, providing a broad view of the safety culture across the organization123. They can identify areas of strength and areas that need improvement, which can inform safety improvement strategies123.

Therefore, the answer is option A: anonymous surveys. This tool allows for a comprehensive and honest assessment of the safety culture, which is crucial for improving patient safety123.