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

Under Health Care Risk Management standards recognized by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, the Safe Medical Devices Act SMDA is part of the FDA’s post market surveillance system for medical devices. The SMDA requires healthcare facilities to report to the FDA and, in some cases, to the manufacturer when a medical device has or may have caused or contributed to a patient death or serious injury. This mandatory reporting system enhances device safety monitoring and supports regulatory oversight after products enter the market.

EMTALA governs emergency medical screening and stabilization obligations, not device reporting. The Occupational Safety and Health Act focuses on workplace safety for employees rather than patient device-related injuries. Patient Safety Organizations operate under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act and facilitate voluntary reporting of patient safety events, but they do not replace FDA-mandated device reporting requirements.

Legal and regulatory objectives in healthcare risk management emphasize compliance with federal reporting statutes, timely submission of required reports, and maintenance of documentation to mitigate regulatory exposure. Therefore, the Safe Medical Devices Act is the correct answer regarding mandatory FDA post market surveillance reporting for device-related deaths or injuries.

According to Health Care Risk Management principles supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, organizations operating vehicle fleets must implement structured fleet risk management controls to reduce liability exposure. One of the most fundamental annual requirements is verification of each driver’s driving record, typically obtained through a motor vehicle record MVR review.

An annual driving record review allows the organization to confirm that drivers maintain valid licensure, identify traffic violations, detect patterns of unsafe driving behavior, and assess risk exposure. This proactive screening supports loss prevention, reduces the likelihood of negligent entrustment claims, and ensures compliance with organizational driving policies.

Mileage logs are operational tools used for tracking usage and reimbursement but do not assess driver eligibility or risk. Driver training is important for safety programs but is not the minimum required documentation to confirm driver qualification status. Proof of insurance may be required when employees use personal vehicles for business purposes, but it does not replace the need to review the driver’s official record.

Health Care Operations objectives emphasize credential verification, regulatory compliance, and proactive liability mitigation. Therefore, obtaining and reviewing each driver’s driving record annually is the minimum required documentation.

In Lean terms,extra processingis work that does not add value from the patient’s perspective and often introduces defect risk. Cutting and reformatting labels is a classic extra-processing waste: it consumes time, creates variability, and increases the likelihood of mislabeling—one of the most serious medication safety hazards. Risk management objectives prioritize eliminating rework and standardizing the labeling process through right-sized labels, standardized print templates by container type, barcode integration, and human factors design (font size, tall-man lettering where appropriate). Removing extra processing improves efficiency and reduces cognitive load and workaround culture—both strongly associated with error. Operationally, this is a system design failure: staff are compensating for poor equipment/process fit. Fixing the system reduces the chance of a high-severity adverse event and strengthens defensibility by demonstrating proactive hazard elimination.

Sentinel event “most common” can change by reporting year and classification approach. Recent summaries of 2023 sentinel event reporting indicatefallswere the most frequently reported category in that dataset, with wrong surgery and unintended retention also high-ranking. Risk management objectives treat this as a dynamic signal: the organization should use current event data, internal trends, and unit-specific hazards to prioritize controls. Falls prevention requires layered interventions—risk stratification, mobility support, medication review, environmental controls, and post-fall huddles to learn and redesign. Leaders should avoid over-fixating on one historical “most common” event type and instead use current surveillance to target the biggest preventable harm burdens.

Under Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, two federal laws are most directly implicated in this scenario: the Americans with Disabilities Act ADA and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act EMTALA, formerly enacted under COBRA.

EMTALA requires hospitals with emergency departments to provide an appropriate medical screening examination, stabilization of emergency medical conditions, and appropriate transfer or admission regardless of ability to pay. Since the emergency physician has evaluated and stabilized the patient and the on-call physician is being consulted for admission, EMTALA obligations remain central to ensuring compliant continuation of care.

The ADA is also directly relevant because it mandates that health care organizations provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities, including effective communication. For a patient requiring a sign language interpreter, the hospital must provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services to ensure meaningful access to care.

HIPAA relates primarily to privacy and protected health information, while HCQIA addresses peer review immunity and credentialing matters. Therefore, ADA and EMTALA are the most relevant regulatory frameworks in this case.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, patient and family engagement is a critical element of patient safety programs. Including lay persons on select committees, such as patient safety or quality committees, allows patients and families to contribute perspectives that enhance transparency and system improvement. Structured patient education opportunities empower individuals to understand their care, ask questions, and actively participate in safety practices, such as medication verification and infection prevention.

Event reporting by patients and families is another proactive strategy that promotes open communication and early identification of safety concerns. Encouraging patients to report perceived errors or near misses supports a culture of safety and partnership.

Referring patient events for peer review is an internal professional evaluation process focused on provider performance and quality improvement. While important for clinical oversight, it is not a technique designed to directly include patients and families in educational safety programs.

Clinical and patient safety objectives emphasize collaboration, transparency, and patient-centered care. Therefore, inclusion of lay persons on committees, patient education initiatives, and patient or family event reporting are appropriate techniques for involving patients in safety programs.

The Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank (HIPDB) was created to combat healthcare fraud and abuse; it isno longer operational as a separate bank, and its content was merged into the NPDB. Reporting and querying are governed by HRSA rules defining authorized entities, including certain peer review and oversight organizations in specific reporting frameworks. Risk management objectives include ensuring organizations understand which actions must be reported, ensure due process, and comply with data handling rules. Proper reporting supports system integrity by preventing practitioners or entities with serious adverse actions from moving undetected across organizations. For hospitals and health plans, this strengthens credentialing and contracting decisions, reducing organizational exposure to negligent credentialing and improper network participation risks.

The HIPDB was established to help combathealthcare fraud and abuse, while the NPDB historically focused on practitioner competence and professional conduct (including items like malpractice payments and certain adverse actions). HRSA explains that HIPDB is no longer separate and that its information is now collected and disclosed through the NPDB following the 2013 merger. For risk managers, the objective is to ensure credentialing, contracting, and compliance teams understand the expanded scope and proper use: querying supports safer hiring/privileging decisions and reduces negligent credentialing risk, while reporting supports system integrity. Organizations must also ensure due process and correct categorization of reportable events to avoid wrongful reporting exposure.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and The Joint Commission’s sentinel event policy, a sentinel event is defined as a patient safety event that results in death, permanent harm, or severe temporary harm. Severe temporary harm is harm that is critical, life-threatening, or requires major intervention to sustain life, even if the patient ultimately recovers.

Sentinel events signal the need for immediate investigation and response because of the seriousness of the outcome. The Joint Commission requires completion of a root cause analysis and development of an action plan within specified timeframes following awareness of such an event. The focus is on identifying system vulnerabilities and preventing recurrence.

Temporary or moderate harm alone does not meet the sentinel event threshold unless it rises to the level of severe temporary harm. Increased length of stay, without death or significant harm, does not qualify as a sentinel event under the formal definition.

Clinical and patient safety objectives emphasize accurate event classification, structured investigation, and corrective action. Therefore, a sentinel event is one that results in death, permanent harm, or severe temporary harm.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards outlined by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, the selection of defense counsel should be based primarily on demonstrated expertise in the relevant area of law. Medical malpractice litigation involves complex clinical issues, evolving standards of care, expert witness coordination, and familiarity with healthcare regulations. Counsel with specialized experience in healthcare liability defense is better equipped to manage case strategy, assess exposure, and navigate jurisdiction-specific procedural rules.

Proximity to the facility may offer logistical convenience but does not ensure competency in complex medical litigation. Percentage of defense verdicts can be misleading, as case mix, settlement strategy, and jurisdictional tendencies influence outcomes. A high defense verdict rate does not necessarily reflect effective risk management or cost control. Fee schedule is an important financial consideration; however, cost alone should not override qualifications and experience.

Claims and litigation objectives emphasize effective case management, accurate evaluation of liability exposure, and protection of organizational reputation. Selecting counsel based on specialized expertise supports stronger legal defense, strategic settlement evaluation, and improved coordination with clinical experts. Therefore, area of expertise is the best reason for selecting defense counsel.