CPHRM Exam Dumps - ASHRM Advancing Health Care Risk Management Questions and Answers

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, deaths resulting from violent, traumatic, or suspicious circumstances are legally reportable to the appropriate medico-legal authority, typically the Office of the Medical Examiner or Coroner. A gunshot wound constitutes a violent and potentially criminal cause of death, triggering statutory reporting requirements.

When a patient is pronounced dead on arrival due to trauma, particularly with a history suggestive of domestic violence, the death falls within the jurisdiction of the medical examiner. The medical examiner has authority to determine cause and manner of death, order autopsy if indicated, and coordinate with law enforcement to preserve forensic evidence. Hospitals are required by state law to notify this office promptly.

The state Board of Medicine oversees professional licensure and discipline, not death investigation. The Department of Health and Family Services may have reporting roles for public health matters, but traumatic deaths are typically handled by the medical examiner. The public relations department may manage communications but is not a regulatory notification requirement.

Legal and regulatory objectives emphasize compliance with mandatory reporting statutes and preservation of evidence. Therefore, the appropriate entity to notify is the Office of the Medical Examiner.

Under Health Care Risk Management principles aligned with ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities. However, the obligation to provide accommodation is generally triggered when the applicant or employee makes the employer aware of the need for accommodation.

The interactive process required by the ADA begins once the applicant requests an accommodation or discloses a need related to a disability. Employers are not required to speculate about potential disabilities or initiate accommodations without notice. While documentation may be requested to verify the disability in certain circumstances, proof is not the triggering requirement. Instead, the request itself initiates the employer’s duty to engage in good faith discussion to determine reasonable accommodation.

Withholding accommodation that creates an unsafe condition may raise separate workplace safety concerns, but that is not the threshold requirement under the ADA. Similarly, an employer’s recognition alone does not automatically impose an obligation absent a request or clear disclosure.

Legal and regulatory objectives emphasize proper documentation, consistent application of ADA standards, and engagement in the interactive process once accommodation is requested. Therefore, the employer’s duty arises when the applicant requests the accommodation.

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.

Telemedicine licensure is largely state-based in the U.S., and many states require the consulting clinician to be licensed in the state where the patient is located (with exceptions such as specific compacts, special telehealth registrations, or emergency provisions). Risk management objectives include verifying licensure/credentialing before services, ensuring privileging-by-proxy processes where applicable, confirming malpractice coverage for telehealth and cross-state practice, and ensuring informed consent/privacy safeguards. Failure to comply can trigger regulatory penalties, payer issues, and liability exposure if care is delivered without proper authorization.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, occurrence coverage provides protection for incidents that occur during the policy period, regardless of when the claim is reported. The triggering event is the date of the occurrence. As long as the alleged act or omission took place while the policy was in force, coverage applies even if the claim is filed years later.

Option A is incorrect because occurrence coverage does not extend to incidents that occur prior to the policy’s effective date. Coverage is strictly tied to the policy period.

Option C is incorrect because in claims-made coverage, the retroactive date is critical. Coverage applies only to claims made during the policy period for incidents that occurred on or after the retroactive date.

Option D is incorrect because the “nose” period, also known as prior acts coverage, is highly significant in claims-made policies. It determines whether earlier acts are covered when switching carriers.

Risk financing objectives emphasize understanding policy triggers, retroactive dates, and reporting requirements. Therefore, occurrence coverage applies to incidents that occur while the policy is in effect.

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 IOM’s quality framing highlights three categories of quality problems:underuse(failing to provide beneficial care),overuse(providing care where harms outweigh benefits), andmisuse(errors/defects in delivering appropriate care). This triad matters to risk management because harm arises not only from mistakes (misuse) but also fromomissions(underuse) andunnecessary interventions(overuse). For example, missing a diagnostic test can cause deterioration (underuse), while ordering a risky, non-indicated procedure can cause avoidable complications (overuse). Misuse connects strongly to patient safety incident analysis and reliability engineering. Together, these categories provide a comprehensive lens for prioritizing improvement: reduce preventable adverse events, close evidence-based gaps, and avoid low-value care that increases complications and cost. Using this IOM model supports a balanced quality/risk program that prevents harm across the full spectrum of clinical decision-making and care delivery.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards endorsed by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, a risk manager’s role in community disaster preparedness extends beyond narrow liability analysis. The appropriate scope involves integration of emergency management into the organization’s broader enterprise risk management framework.

Enterprise risk management ERM is a structured, organization-wide approach to identifying, assessing, and managing risks that may affect strategic objectives, operations, financial stability, and reputation. Disaster preparedness is a critical operational risk that must be aligned with governance, compliance, continuity planning, and asset protection strategies. By incorporating emergency management into ERM, the risk manager ensures coordination across clinical services, facilities, supply chain, communications, and leadership structures.

Option A focuses only on post-event liability. Option C limits involvement to quantification without strategic integration. Option D addresses reimbursement processes rather than preparedness strategy.

Health Care Operations objectives emphasize collaboration with emergency management teams, regulatory compliance with preparedness standards, and resilience planning to protect patients, staff, and assets. Therefore, integrating emergency management into a comprehensive enterprise risk management plan best defines the risk manager’s appropriate scope of involvement.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and patient safety principles endorsed by The Joint Commission, the most likely root cause of medication errors is system or process failure. Modern patient safety frameworks emphasize that errors rarely result from isolated individual mistakes. Instead, they typically arise from weaknesses in processes, workflow design, communication systems, technology integration, or inadequate safeguards.

Illegible handwriting, manual systems, and look-alike or sound-alike drugs are recognized contributing factors. However, these elements represent components within a broader system. For example, illegible handwriting becomes problematic when standardized order entry systems are lacking. Look-alike medications pose risks when storage, labeling, or verification processes are insufficient. Manual medication delivery systems increase risk when redundancy and double-check mechanisms are absent.

Root cause analysis methodologies consistently demonstrate that unsafe system design, poor communication processes, lack of standardized procedures, and inadequate training contribute to medication errors. A systems-based approach aligns with just culture principles and focuses on improving processes rather than assigning individual blame.

Clinical and patient safety objectives emphasize system redesign, standardization, and continuous quality improvement. Therefore, system or process failure is the most likely root cause of medication errors.

Under Health Care Risk Management principles supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, patient autonomy is upheld by honoring valid advance directives and durable powers of attorney for healthcare. When multiple documents are presented that designate different decision makers, the most recent properly executed document typically supersedes earlier versions, unless state law provides otherwise.

Durable powers of attorney for healthcare may be revoked or replaced by executing a newer document. Therefore, determining the effective document requires reviewing execution dates and ensuring validity under applicable state statutes, including witnessing and notarization requirements. The document with the more recent date generally reflects the patient’s latest expressed wishes and controls decision-making authority.

Referring immediately to an ethics committee may be appropriate in unresolved value conflicts, but first establishing legal authority is essential. Asking the family to resolve the dispute independently delays necessary medical decisions and does not clarify legal standing. Selecting the older document would contradict the principle that later directives replace earlier ones.

Legal and regulatory objectives emphasize verification of surrogate authority, compliance with state advance directive laws, and protection of patient autonomy. Therefore, the risk manager should confirm which document is most recent and legally valid.