CPHQ Leak Questions

The goal is to identify the group with the greatest disparity in 30-day readmission rates for heart failure patients, focusing on primary language and gender, to prioritize interventions for reducing disparities. NAHQ CPHQ study materials emphasize that addressing disparities in population health involves targeting groups with the highest rates of adverse outcomes, such as readmissions, to achieve health equity. Disparities are often influenced by social determinants of health, including language barriers, which can affect communication, understanding of discharge instructions, and access to follow-up care.

The data shows readmission rates by language and gender, with 95% confidence intervals indicating the range of uncertainty around the point estimates. Let’s analyze the rates:

English: Males 15% (14-16%), Females 16% (13-19%)

Spanish: Males 18% (15-21%), Females 19% (15-23%)

Russian: Males 20% (15-25%), Females 21% (20-22%)

Arabic: Males 22% (15-29%), Females 23% (15-31%)

First, compare the point estimates across groups. Arabic-speaking patients have the highest readmission rates: 22% for males and 23% for females, followed by Russian-speaking patients at 20% for males and 21% for females. English-speaking patients have the lowest rates at 15% for males and 16% for females. The confidence intervals show overlap between groups (e.g., Arabic males 15-29% overlaps with Russian males 15-25%), but the point estimates provide a clear ranking, with Arabic speakers consistently highest.

To assess disparities, calculate the overall rates for language groups by averaging male and female rates (since the options include “All Arabic speakers” and “All Russian speakers”):

Arabic speakers: (22% + 23%) / 2 = 22.5%

Russian speakers: (20% + 21%) / 2 = 20.5%

Spanish speakers: (18% + 19%) / 2 = 18.5%

English speakers: (15% + 16%) / 2 = 15.5%

Arabic speakers have the highest average readmission rate (22.5%), indicating the greatest disparity compared to English speakers (15.5%), a difference of 7 percentage points. Russian speakers have a 20.5% average rate, a 5-point difference from English speakers.

Now, compare the gender-specific options: Arabic-speaking females (A) have a rate of 23%, and Russian-speaking females (B) have a rate of 21%. While Arabic-speaking females have the highest single rate, the question asks for the priority group to reduce disparities, which often involves targeting the broadest group with the largest overall disparity. Option C, “All Arabic speakers,” encompasses both males (22%) and females (23%), with an average of 22.5%, making it the group with the most significant disparity across both genders. Option D, “All Russian speakers,” has a lower average rate (20.5%).

The confidence intervals, while wide for smaller groups like Arabic and Russian speakers, do not change the prioritization, as the point estimates consistently show Arabic speakers with the highest rates. NAHQ emphasizes targeting the group with the greatest disparity in outcomes to address health equity, particularly when language barriers (e.g., Arabic speakers) may contribute to higher readmissions due to communication challenges. Therefore, “All Arabic speakers” (C) should be the priority target for interventions, such as language-specific education or interpreter services, to reduce disparities in readmission rates.

Patient safety goals, such as those established by The Joint Commission (e.g., National Patient Safety Goals), are designed to address specific, high-priority safety issues in healthcare settings to drive targeted improvements.

Option A (Evaluate safety-related near misses): While near-miss reporting is part of patient safety, patient safety goals focus on proactive interventions to prevent errors, not evaluating near misses after they occur.

Option B (Assist surveyors during the accreditation process): Patient safety goals are not primarily for surveyors but for guiding organizations to improve safety practices. They may be reviewed during accreditation, but this is a secondary function.

Option C (Aggregate safety data to improve performance): Aggregating safety data supports quality improvement, but patient safety goals are specific, actionable objectives (e.g., correct patient identification) rather than a data aggregation process.

Option D (Promote specific improvements in safety): This is the correct answer. NAHQ CPHQ study materials and The Joint Commission define patient safety goals as targeted initiatives to address critical safety issues, such as reducing medication errors or preventing surgical mistakes, by promoting evidence-based practices.

Demonstrating that a medication error reduction team will improve patient safety (D) aligns with leadership’s focus on quality and risk reduction. Inadequate technology (A), past compliance (B), and new strategic goals (C) are less compelling. NAHQ prioritizes patient safety outcomes.

NAHQ CPHQ Study Guide, Patient Safety Section, “Medication Safety and Leadership Engagement”; NAHQ CPHQ Practice Questions, Quality Initiative Justification.

Deterioration in a clinical outcome measure (e.g., infection rates) suggests an underlying issue in care delivery. The initial step should investigate contributing factors.

Option A (Analyze related process measure performance): This is the correct answer. The NAHQ CPHQ study guide states, “When outcomes deteriorate, analyzing related process measures (e.g., hand hygiene compliance for infection rates) identifies root causes” (Domain 4). This aligns with the Donabedian model, linking processes to outcomes.

Option B (Re-educate staff on appropriate clinical outcomes): Re-education assumes a knowledge gap, which is premature without identifying the cause of deterioration.

Option C (Review current best practices on areas of deterioration): Best practice review is a later step after understanding the specific issue.

Option D (Assess data entry errors in areas of deficiency): Data errors are a possible cause but not the first step, as process issues are more likely to drive clinical outcomes.

CPHQ Objective Reference: Domain 4: Performance and Process Improvement, Objective 4.5, “Analyze performance data to identify improvement opportunities,” emphasizes linking outcome deterioration to process measures. The NAHQ study guide advocates for process analysis as the initial step in outcome investigations.

Rationale: Analyzing process measures provides insight into why outcomes deteriorated, guiding targeted interventions, as per CPHQ improvement methodologies.