Pass the ASHRM Advancing Health Care Risk Management CPHRM Questions and answers with CertsForce

Under Health Care Risk Management principles outlined by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, cases involving sterilization of minors, particularly those who are developmentally disabled, raise significant legal and regulatory concerns. The risk manager’s primary responsibility is to ensure compliance with applicable consent laws and protect patient rights while minimizing organizational liability.

First, determining who has legal consent authority is essential. When parents disagree, state law typically governs whether both parents must consent, whether one parent’s consent is sufficient, or whether court involvement is required. Second, evaluating the competency level of the patient is critical because decision-making capacity influences whether the patient can participate in consent or assent processes. Capacity assessments may require clinical and legal evaluation.

Third, state statutes and laws are highly relevant, as many jurisdictions impose strict legal requirements or court approval for sterilization of minors or individuals with developmental disabilities. These laws are designed to protect vulnerable populations.

The patient’s diagnosis alone is not the determining legal factor; rather, decision-making capacity and statutory requirements are central. Therefore, the risk manager must evaluate consent authority, competency, and applicable state laws to ensure regulatory compliance and ethical integrity.

Under Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, obligations under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act EMTALA govern on-call physician responsibilities. When a hospital maintains an on-call roster to provide specialty services for emergency department patients, physicians listed on call are required to respond and participate in the evaluation and stabilization of patients with emergency medical conditions.

An on-call physician may only be relieved of duty if legitimately unavailable due to circumstances beyond their control, such as actively caring for another patient or being otherwise unable to respond in accordance with hospital policy. Refusal to treat for convenience or non-clinical reasons may constitute an EMTALA violation and expose both the hospital and physician to regulatory penalties.

A blanket right to refuse care is inconsistent with EMTALA requirements. While financial discrimination is prohibited, refusal for other non-justifiable reasons may still violate federal law. Conversely, stating that a physician is never relieved of duty is inaccurate, as legitimate unavailability may excuse performance under specific circumstances.

Legal and regulatory objectives emphasize compliance with EMTALA, proper on-call coverage policies, and documentation of availability. Therefore, the correct statement is that relief occurs only when the physician is unavailable due to circumstances outside their control.

According to Health Care Risk Management principles established by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, indemnity reserves represent the estimated amount the organization expects to pay in settlement or judgment to a claimant. Indemnity refers specifically to damages paid to compensate the injured party, not defense or administrative expenses.

Incurred medical expenses are a core component of economic damages and must be included in indemnity reserve calculations. Emotional pain and suffering fall under non-economic damages and are also considered when estimating potential settlement or verdict value. Future cost of medical care is another essential factor, particularly in cases involving long-term injury or disability, as it represents projected economic damages that may substantially increase exposure.

Medical expert witness costs, however, are categorized as defense expenses and are typically included in allocated loss adjustment expenses rather than indemnity reserves. These costs relate to the defense of the claim rather than compensation to the plaintiff.

Risk management objectives emphasize accurate differentiation between indemnity and expense reserves to ensure proper financial reporting and regulatory compliance. Therefore, incurred medical expenses, pain and suffering, and future medical costs should be considered when setting indemnity reserves, while expert witness costs should not.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, a standard loss run is a report generated by an insurer or third-party administrator summarizing claims activity for a specific period. Loss runs are critical tools in risk financing, underwriting review, actuarial analysis, and budgeting for self-insured retentions.

Essential elements of a standard loss run include the date of loss, indemnity payments, and expense payments. Indemnity reflects amounts paid or reserved for compensation to claimants, while expense represents allocated loss adjustment expenses such as defense costs, expert witness fees, and investigation costs. These data elements allow the organization to evaluate financial exposure, trends in claim development, and adequacy of reserves.

While frequency and severity are important analytical concepts derived from loss data, they are not typically listed as standalone fields within the basic loss run report. Legal analysis, case law references, and root cause analyses are not standard components of loss run documentation.

Risk financing objectives emphasize accurate tracking of financial exposure and informed forecasting. Therefore, date, expense, and indemnity are essential elements of a standard loss run report.

Team-based care reduces errors by improving communication, cross-monitoring, workload distribution, and escalation when risk increases. TeamSTEPPS and related patient safety evidence show teamwork training can improve safety culture and reduce clinical error rates by creating predictable behaviors—briefs, huddles, check-backs, and mutual support. From a risk management standpoint, teamwork is a high-leverage control because many serious adverse events involve coordination failures (handoffs, unclear ownership, missed deterioration). Effective teams also reduce “single-point-of-failure” risk; when one clinician misses something, another can catch it. Organizations operationalize this through standardized communication (SBAR), structured handoffs, simulation, and leadership support for psychological safety so staff speak up. Team functioning is therefore not “soft skill”—it is a measurable safety barrier that reduces preventable harm and strengthens reliability in complex, high-acuity environments.

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 the American Hospital Association Certification Center, while parents generally serve as surrogate decision-makers for minors, their authority is not absolute. When refusal of treatment places a child at significant risk of serious harm or death, healthcare providers have an ethical and legal obligation to act in the best interests of the child.

In cases involving life-sustaining treatment for a premature infant, refusal of a medically necessary blood transfusion may constitute potential medical neglect if it threatens the infant’s survival. When disagreement persists after appropriate communication and ethics consultation, and the infant’s life is at risk, the appropriate step is to seek judicial intervention. Contacting legal counsel to obtain an emergency court order allows the state to exercise its parens patriae authority to protect the child’s welfare.

An ethics consultation may help clarify values and promote dialogue but does not override urgent medical necessity. Simply prohibiting or proceeding without legal authority exposes the organization to liability.

Legal and regulatory objectives emphasize protecting vulnerable patients while respecting due process. Therefore, seeking an emergency court order through legal counsel is the appropriate action.

Core risk treatment strategies includeavoidance(stop the activity),reduction/mitigation(controls that reduce likelihood/severity),retention(accept risk within appetite and fund losses via reserves/self-insurance), andtransfer(contracts/insurance shifting financial consequences). In healthcare, the highest priority is often mitigation for patient safety risks (standardization, technology, training), with financing mechanisms ensuring the organization can absorb residual loss without destabilizing operations. ERM aligns these strategies to enterprise objectives so leadership invests in the best mix of prevention and financing.

Discoverability of incident reports varies substantially by jurisdiction and depends on how state and federal laws define peer review privilege, quality improvement protections, and confidentiality—plus how courts interpret those protections. Risk management objectives include structuring reporting and investigation workflows to maximize protected quality review where legally available: routing analyses through designated committees, labeling and handling documents per policy, limiting distribution, and avoiding mixing risk/peer review materials with ordinary business records. However, privilege is not automatic; mishandling (broad email distribution, using reports for disciplinary actions outside protected structures, inconsistent committee practices) can weaken protections. A defensible program uses legal counsel guidance, staff training, and clear documentation rules so the organization learns from events while reducing unnecessary legal exposure.

According to Health Care Risk Management principles outlined by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, evaluation of a claims management program focuses on efficiency, financial accuracy, and proactive identification of risk exposures.

Indemnity-to-expense ratios are important performance indicators that measure the proportion of funds spent on compensation versus defense costs. A balanced ratio reflects efficient claim handling and appropriate litigation management. The percentage of cases resolved within reserves evaluates the accuracy of initial reserve setting and ongoing claims assessment, demonstrating financial forecasting effectiveness. Additionally, the percentage of cases identified prior to formal claim filing reflects proactive risk identification and early intervention practices, which may reduce litigation costs and improve resolution outcomes.

In contrast, the total number of cases reported alone does not measure program effectiveness, as volume may be influenced by patient population, service lines, or reporting culture rather than management quality.

Claims and litigation objectives emphasize accurate reserving, early case identification, and cost-effective resolution strategies. Therefore, indemnity-to-expense ratios, resolution within reserves, and early case identification are appropriate metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of a claims management program.