Free NAHQ CPHQ Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 3

The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) promotes collaborative approaches to quality improvement, emphasizing rapid-cycle testing to achieve measurable results. The model at the core of IHI’s methodology is well-documented in quality improvement frameworks.

Option A (DMAIC): DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) is a Six Sigma methodology focused on reducing variation, not the core of IHI’s approach, which emphasizes rapid testing.

Option B (PDSA): This is the correct answer. The NAHQ CPHQ study guide states, “The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is the core performance improvement model used by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement for its collaborative approach, enabling rapid-cycle testing and iterative improvements” (Domain 4). PDSA involves planning a change, testing it, studying results, and acting on findings, aligning with IHI’s Breakthrough Series model.

Option C (Lean): Lean focuses on eliminating waste, which IHI may incorporate, but it is not the primary model for IHI collaboratives.

Option D (Six Sigma): Six Sigma uses data-driven methods like DMAIC, not IHI’s rapid-cycle focus.

CPHQ Objective Reference: Domain 4: Performance and Process Improvement, Objective 4.3, “Apply performance improvement models,” emphasizes PDSA as IHI’s core methodology. The NAHQ study guide notes, “IHI’s collaborative approach relies on PDSA cycles to test and scale improvements across organizations” (Domain 4).

Rationale: PDSA’s rapid-cycle testing is central to IHI’s collaborative framework, enabling iterative improvements, as per CPHQ’s improvement principles.

Detailed Explanation:

Resilience refers to an organization’s ability to adapt, recover from errors, and continue safe operations under stress.

Option B: Resilience

Resilience encompasses the skills described, essential formaintaining safety in high-pressure environments.

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a proactive tool used to identify potential failure points in a new process and assess their impact. By analyzing possible failures before implementation, organizations can develop strategies to mitigate risks and enhance patient safety.

Detailed Explanation:

To improve compliance with a corrective action plan, the QI professional should first identify the reasons for non-compliance. Conducting a root cause analysis (RCA) allows the QI professional to examine underlying factors and obstacles that may be hindering compliance. This information can then guide targeted interventions.

Option D: Determine areas of non-compliance through a root cause analysis

RCA is a structured approach to identifying underlying issues, which is critical in understanding why certain departments or individuals may not comply withcorrective actions. Once causes are identified, solutions can be tailored to address those specific barriers.

Option A: Provide disciplinary action to non-compliant departments

Disciplinary actions may not address the actual reasons behind non-compliance and can create resistance.

Option B: Provide an analysis for the Patient Safety Committee

This could be useful later but is not the first step to directly address compliance issues.

Option C: Determine if the action plan is in compliance with the national standards

Compliance with national standards is important but does not address specific compliance challenges within the organization.

To properly assess the cost and utilization patterns in the population health program, it is essential tounderstand the volume of patients being discharged to various post-acute care settings. By requesting the total number of patients discharged to each location, the healthcare quality professional can calculate the average cost per patient, which is crucial for assessing efficiency and for comparing costs across different discharge locations. This data will also allow for an evaluation of utilization patterns and help identify if certain locations are being used more frequently and if the associated costs are justified based on patient outcomes.

A sponsor in a quality improvement project provides high-level support, ensuring the team has the resources and authority to succeed.

Option A (Perform data analysis to identify gaps or opportunities): Data analysis is typically the team’s responsibility, not the sponsor’s.

Option B (Influence peers to adopt proposed changes): While sponsors may advocate, this is secondary to their primary role of resource allocation.

Option C (Demonstrate the ideal process to the staff): Demonstrating processes is a team or leader task, not the sponsor’s role.

Option D (Allocate resources to support the team’s work): This is the correct answer. The NAHQ CPHQ study guide states, “The sponsor’s primary role is to allocate resources (e.g., staff, budget, time) and remove barriers to support the quality improvement team’s work” (Domain 3). Discussing this ensures the CMO understands their role.

CPHQ Objective Reference: Domain 3: Organizational Leadership, Objective 3.1, “Define roles for quality improvement teams,” includes the sponsor’s resource allocation role. The NAHQ study guide notes, “Sponsors ensure teams have the necessary support to achieve goals” (Domain 3).

Rationale: Resource allocation is the sponsor’s core responsibility, making it the key task to discuss, as per CPHQ’s leadership principles.

Population health strategies aim to improve the health outcomes of a group of individuals and reduce health disparities among populations1. They often involve collaboration across sectors, including healthcare, politics, charity, education, and business1. An employee wellness program is an example of a population health strategy because it targets a specific population (employees) and aims to improve their health outcomes. This can include initiatives to promote healthy behaviors, provide access to qualityhealthcare, and create a supportive work environment1.

Physician quality data reports for all credentialed physicians disseminated at regular intervals, as generally mandated by accreditation standards, are referred to as ongoing professional practice evaluation (OPPE).

Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation (OPPE): OPPE is a continuous evaluation of a provider’s performance at a frequency greater than every 12 months1. It involves a peer review process, where practitioners are reviewed by other practitioners of the same discipline and have personal knowledge of the applicant2. The purpose of OPPE is to ensure that the hospital, through the activities of its medical staff, assesses a practitioner’s clinical competence and professional behavior on an ongoing basis3.

Focused Professional Practice Evaluation (FPPE): FPPE is a process whereby the medical staff evaluates the privilege-specific competence of the practitioner that lacks documented evidence ofcompetently performing the requested privilege(s) at the organization4. It is not a regular, ongoing process, but rather is implemented whenever a question arises regarding a practitioner’s ability to provide safe, high-quality patient care5.

CMS Star Ratings: The CMS Star Ratings system is a consumer-oriented system developed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to help consumers compare the quality of health and drug plans67. It is not a regular report disseminated for all credentialed physicians.

Quality Spot Checks: Quality spot checks refer to a random inspection or review of a specific aspect or area within a company’s operations8. They are often used to monitor quality control, identify fraud, or ensure adherence to regulations. However, they are not specifically related to physician quality data reports910.

Therefore, the correct answer is D. ongoing professional practice evaluation (OPPE), as it best fits the description of physician quality data reports for all credentialed physicians disseminated at regular intervals, as generally mandated by accreditation standards.

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.

The accreditation readiness coordinator’s first step should be to review the standards required for accreditation. Understanding the specific standards and requirements of the new accreditation body is critical to guide the organization's preparation process. This review will inform the development of education plans, readiness assessments, and any necessary adjustments to policies or procedures to ensure compliance with the accreditation standards.

Establish an operating budget for staff accreditation education (B): Budgeting is important but should follow the understanding of accreditation standards to ensure that the budget aligns with the specific needs.

Obtain accreditation results from other facilities (C): While this can provide valuable insights, it is secondary to understanding the actual standards that need to be met.

Assess staff education needs related to accreditation (D): This is an important step but should be done after the standards are reviewed, as it will guide what specific educational needs to address.

References

NAHQBody of Knowledge: Accreditation Readiness and Standards Review

NAHQ CPHQ Exam Preparation Materials: Preparing for Accreditation

=========

The first step for a quality improvement professional who believes that their MRSA facility rates are high is to contact the infection control practitioner to obtain benchmark data. Benchmark data are comparative data that can help identify gaps in performance and set realistic and achievable goals for improvement 1. Benchmark data can be obtained from various sources, such as national or regional databases, professional organizations, peer-reviewed literature, or other similar facilities 2.

By contacting the infection control practitioner, the quality improvement professional can access reliable and valid data on MRSA rates in their facility and compare them with other facilities or standards. This can help them determine the magnitude and significance of the problem, and whether it warrants further investigation and action. The infection control practitioner can also provide guidance on the best practices and protocols for preventing and controlling MRSA infections, and the potential risk factors and causes of high MRSA rates 3.

The other options are not the best first steps for the quality improvement professional. Reporting the concerns to senior management and the Quality Council (option B) may be premature and unnecessary without having sufficient evidence and analysis of the problem. Forming a quality improvement team (option C) may be helpful later in the process, but not before defining and measuring the problem. Repeating the data collection process to justify the new rate (option D) may be wasteful and inaccurate, as it may not account for the variability and trends in the data, and it may not address the underlying causes of the problem . References:

1: NAHQ Healthcare Quality Competency Framework, Domain 5: Data Analytics, Skill 5.1.1

2: Benchmarking in Healthcare: A Practical Approach | NAHQ

3: Success and failures in MRSA infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic | Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control | Full Text 2

NAHQ Healthcare Quality Competency Framework, Domain 3: Performance and Process Improvement, Skill 3.1.1

This question is identical to Question 95, indicating a potential duplication in the document. The analysis remains the same: a significant medication error causing harm requires a reactive investigation to identify causes and prevent recurrence.

Option A (Multiple regression analysis): Inappropriate for analyzing specific incidents, as it is a statistical tool for relationships.

Option B (Variation analysis): Not suitable for investigating a single harmful event, as it focuses on process variability.

Option C (Root cause analysis): Correct answer. The NAHQ CPHQ study guide reiterates, “RCA is the standard approach for analyzing serious safety events like medication errors with harm, using a multidisciplinary team to identify root causes” (Domain 1).

Option D (Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA)): FMEA is proactive, not for post-incident analysis.

CPHQ Objective Reference: Domain 1: Patient Safety, Objective 1.5, “Conduct root cause analysis for significant safety events.” The NAHQ study guide emphasizes, “RCA ensures thorough investigation of harmful errors to improve safety” (Domain 1).

Rationale: RCA is the correct tool for a harmful medication error, consistent with CPHQ’s safety investigation principles.

The question is about the type of waste that should be recorded when a pharmacy’s compounding process consistently yields more drug than is needed. This excess is stored until it is used or expired. In the context of waste in healthcare, this scenario is a clear example of overproduction. Overproduction refers to situations where more product is produced than is required at that time. This is a form of waste because it leads to unnecessary storage and potential disposal if the product expires or becomes obsolete1.

Managing an accreditation survey preparation initiative requires a tool to organize tasks, timelines, and dependencies across multiple stakeholders.

Option A (Gantt chart): This is the correct answer. The NAHQ CPHQ study guide states, “A Gantt chart is a project management tool that sequences tasks, shows timelines, and tracks dependencies, making it ideal for managing complex initiatives like accreditation preparation” (Domain 4). It visualizes the schedule for training and activities.

Option B (Multi-voting method): Multi-voting prioritizes options, not suitable for scheduling tasks.

Option C (Affinity diagram): Affinity diagrams organize ideas, not manage project timelines.

Option D (Ishikawa diagram): Ishikawa diagrams identify causes, not manage initiatives.

CPHQ Objective Reference: Domain 4: Performance and Process Improvement, Objective 4.3, “Use project management tools,” includes Gantt charts for initiative planning. The NAHQ study guide notes, “Gantt charts are effective for managing accreditation preparation schedules” (Domain 4).

Rationale: A Gantt chart ensures clear task sequencing and tracking, aligning with CPHQ’s project management principles for accreditation.

The control chart shows a clear pattern of medication errors increasing above the upper control limit during the early months, indicating a period of instability or special cause variation. After this peak, there is a marked and consistent decline in error rates, falling well below the mean and approaching the lower control limit by the end of the year.

According to The Joint Commission and Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) guidelines on control charts and statistical process control:

When data points fall outside control limits, this indicates special cause variation that warrants investigation.

The sustained decrease below the mean and toward the lower control limit strongly suggests a significant reduction in the medication error rate over time, which is statistically and clinically important.

Option A is premature; improving patient safety is multifactorial and while error rates decreased, meeting a strategic goal requires additional evidence of sustained improvement and outcome measures.

Option B accurately reflects the data trend showing a significant reduction in reported medication errors.

Option C is not supported; while errors increased in spring and summer, the chart does not specify the severity of errors, only the rate.

Option D is incorrect as there is no evidence that reporting of errors improved; instead, errors themselves declined.