CPHQ Exam Questions Tutorials

A retained surgical sponge is a serious safety event (never event), requiring a thorough investigation to prevent recurrence. Changing procedures without understanding the cause risks ineffective solutions.

Option A (Enforce "time-outs"): Time-outs prevent wrong-site surgery but are not directly related to sponge retention, which involves counts.

Option B (Identify the root cause of the error): This is the correct answer. The NAHQ CPHQ study guide states, “Before changing procedures after a serious safety event, organizations should conduct a root cause analysis (RCA) to identify underlying causes and ensure effective solutions” (Domain 1). For example, RCA might reveal issues with sponge counting protocols.

Option C (Evaluate radiation exposure levels): Radiation evaluation is relevant for the new x-ray procedure but should follow RCA to ensure the change addresses the root cause.

Option D (Conduct a cost benefit analysis): Cost analysis is secondary to understanding the cause and ensuring patient safety.

CPHQ Objective Reference: Domain 1: Patient Safety, Objective 1.5, “Conduct root cause analysis for safety events,” emphasizes RCA before process changes. The NAHQ study guide notes, “RCA ensures changes target the true causes of errors” (Domain 1).

Rationale: Identifying the root cause via RCA ensures effective, targeted changes, as per CPHQ’s safety principles.

Achieving 100% compliance with patient safety goals (hand hygiene, time-out) requires addressing gaps in current performance (80% and 90%). The most effective approach is to understand why compliance is not met.

Option A (Projecting the number of preventable adverse events): Projections estimate impact but do not address how to improve compliance.

Option B (Prioritizing implementation of strategies): Strategies are premature without understanding barriers to compliance.

Option C (Determining barriers to compliance): This is the correct answer. The NAHQ CPHQ study guide states, “To improve compliance with safety goals, quality professionals should first identify barriers (e.g., workflow issues, lack of training) through methods like root cause analysis or staff interviews” (Domain 1). This informs targeted interventions.

Option D (Benchmarking with a similar facility): Benchmarking provides context but does not directly address internal barriers to compliance.

CPHQ Objective Reference: Domain 1: Patient Safety, Objective 1.3, “Identify barriers to safety goal achievement,” emphasizes analyzing compliance gaps. The NAHQ study guide notes, “Understanding barriers is the first step to improving safety compliance” (Domain 1).

Rationale: Determining barriers identifies root causes of non-compliance, enabling effective interventions, as per CPHQ’s patient safety principles.

The best information for a Quality Council to evaluate the effectiveness of quality improvement teams includes participant feedback about team dynamics, the ability of each team to meet pre-determined project milestones, and the results of the team's work. This combination provides a comprehensive assessment of how well teams functioned (dynamics), whether they met their goals on time (milestones), and the outcomes they achieved (results). This holistic approach allows the council to understand both the process and the results of the improvement efforts.

Comparative matrix of each team's goals and proficiency with statistical process control (B): While important, this focuses more on technical skills rather than overall effectiveness.

Team diversity and aggregate member satisfaction data (C): These factors contribute to team performance but are less direct measures of effectiveness.

Summary ofcharter, timeliness, and conflict prevention (D): These are important but do not address the actual outcomes and team dynamics as directly as option A.

References

NAHQ Body of Knowledge: Evaluating Quality Improvement Initiatives

NAHQ CPHQ Exam Preparation Materials: Measuring Team Effectiveness

=========

The table shows the compliance data by three different abstractors across four clinics. There is a noticeable variation in the data collected by different abstractors for the same clinic.

According to NAHQ’s resources, ensuring data accuracy and reliability is crucial in healthcare quality. One of the ways to achieve this is through an interrater reliability process, which assesses the degree of agreement among raters or evaluators.

Implementing an interrater reliability process will help in evaluating if the variations are due to errors or actual differences in compliance levels. It ensures that the data collected is consistent and reliable across all abstractors.

Educating Abstractor 1 and 3 or developing a corrective action plan for Clinic B might be necessary steps later on, but without first establishing the reliability of the data through an interrater reliability process, it would be premature to take these steps.

Studying best practices in Clinic D could be beneficial but does not directly address the issue of data accuracy and consistency among different abstractors.