CPHQ Reviews Questions

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

Under the Patient Safety domain, the most effective and sustainable approach to preventing serious errors is to implement system-level and design-based solutions rather than relying solely on education or policy changes.

Selecting and purchasing equipment designed with engineering controls (e.g., tubing connectors that are incompatible between oral and IV routes) eliminates the possibility of misconnections, addressing the root cause of the sentinel event.

Labeling or education (options A and B) are weaker controls that depend on human compliance, while reducing overtime (option C) may mitigate fatigue but does not remove the mechanical risk. The hierarchy of safety controls prioritizes engineering and design changes as the strongest preventive measures.

Sentinel events are serious patient safety incidents that signal a need for immediate investigation or response1. Reducing sentinel events in a care delivery system requires a comprehensive approach that includes various strategies2. One of the most effective strategies is layering methods of mistake-proofing2. This involves designing or redesigning systems to reduce and prevent errors2. It also includes enhancing education and training, teamwork, self-assessment, and information management2. These proactive efforts have been shown to reduce and prevent errors2.

The question implies that the readmission data for the 2nd quarter has been reviewed, and specific units (e.g., 2 South and 3 North) likely show higher readmission rates, prompting the need to identify improvement opportunities. Health data analytics involves using data to identify trends, prioritize areas of concern, and drive targeted interventions. Further analysis of specific units with elevated readmissions is a logical next step to uncover root causes.

Option A (Take no further action because the data is not definitive): This option is inappropriate, as quality professionals are expected to act on data trends, even if preliminary, to drive improvement. Waiting for “definitive” data risks delaying interventions and contradicts CPHQ principles of proactive quality management.

Option B (Use a scattergram to look for an association between readmissions and unit): A scattergram (or scatter plot) is useful for exploring correlations between two variables (e.g., readmissions vs. staffing levels). However, the question suggests the data already highlights specific units (2 South and 3 North), so a scattergram is less relevant than analyzing those units directly.

Option C (Further analyze 2 South and 3 North to determine possible causes): This is the most appropriate action, as it focuses on the units with likely higher readmission rates. According to NAHQ study materials, quality professionals should use data to drill down into specific areas of concern, applying tools like root cause analysis or process mapping to identify underlying causes. This aligns with the CPHQ domain of Health Data Analytics, which emphasizes targeted data analysis to drive improvement.

Option D (Meet with the Quality Council to share the results for 4 North and 4 South): The question does not indicate that 4 North and 4 South are the units with high readmissions. Focusing on these units without evidence is premature, and meeting with the Quality Council is a later step after causes are identified.

The concept of care quality that remains consistent across diverse patient characteristics is rooted in the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) six aims for healthcare improvement, as outlined in Crossing the Quality Chasm (2001).

Option A (Efficient): Efficient care minimizes waste, not addressing variation across demographics.

Option B (Effective): Effective care delivers evidence-based results, not specifically ensuring consistency across groups.

Option C (Equitable): This is the correct answer. The NAHQ CPHQ study guide states, “Equitable care, as defined by the IOM, ensures quality does not vary due to gender, ethnicity, geographic location, or socioeconomic status” (Domain 4). Equity is one of the six IOM aims, focusing on fairness in care delivery.

Option D (Evidence-based): Evidence-based care relies on scientific evidence, not directly addressing demographic disparities.

CPHQ Objective Reference: Domain 4: Performance and Process Improvement, Objective 4.1, “Apply quality principles to care delivery,” includes the IOM’s equitable care aim. The NAHQ study guide notes, “Equitable care ensures fairness across all patient populations” (Domain 4).

Rationale: Equitable care directly addresses consistent quality across diverse groups, aligning with CPHQ’s improvement principles and IOM standards.