CPHRM ASHRM Certified Professional in Health Care Risk Management (CPHRM) Free Practice Exam Questions (2026 Updated)

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and patient safety principles endorsed by The Joint Commission, the most likely root cause of medication errors is system or process failure. Modern patient safety frameworks emphasize that errors rarely result from isolated individual mistakes. Instead, they typically arise from weaknesses in processes, workflow design, communication systems, technology integration, or inadequate safeguards.

Illegible handwriting, manual systems, and look-alike or sound-alike drugs are recognized contributing factors. However, these elements represent components within a broader system. For example, illegible handwriting becomes problematic when standardized order entry systems are lacking. Look-alike medications pose risks when storage, labeling, or verification processes are insufficient. Manual medication delivery systems increase risk when redundancy and double-check mechanisms are absent.

Root cause analysis methodologies consistently demonstrate that unsafe system design, poor communication processes, lack of standardized procedures, and inadequate training contribute to medication errors. A systems-based approach aligns with just culture principles and focuses on improving processes rather than assigning individual blame.

Clinical and patient safety objectives emphasize system redesign, standardization, and continuous quality improvement. Therefore, system or process failure is the most likely root cause of medication errors.

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.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards outlined by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, telemedicine risk assessment must extend beyond clinical quality of care to include operational risks. Operational considerations encompass technology infrastructure reliability, cybersecurity protections, credentialing and privileging of providers across state lines, licensing compliance, documentation workflows, data storage, and continuity planning for system outages.

Telemedicine platforms rely heavily on secure networks, interoperability with electronic health records, and protection of protected health information. Operational failures such as system downtime, inadequate bandwidth, or insufficient training can disrupt care delivery and increase liability exposure. Additionally, compliance with regulatory requirements regarding interstate practice and reimbursement policies falls within operational risk management.

Behavioral and public awareness considerations may influence patient engagement but are not primary risk assessment categories. Financial risks are relevant in enterprise risk management; however, the question specifically contrasts clinical risk exposures with other telemedicine-related risks, making operational risk the most directly applicable.

Health Care Operations objectives emphasize comprehensive evaluation of technological, regulatory, and workflow factors in emerging service models. Therefore, operational risks should be evaluated alongside clinical exposures when assessing telemedicine programs.

The IOM’s quality framing highlights three categories of quality problems:underuse(failing to provide beneficial care),overuse(providing care where harms outweigh benefits), andmisuse(errors/defects in delivering appropriate care). This triad matters to risk management because harm arises not only from mistakes (misuse) but also fromomissions(underuse) andunnecessary interventions(overuse). For example, missing a diagnostic test can cause deterioration (underuse), while ordering a risky, non-indicated procedure can cause avoidable complications (overuse). Misuse connects strongly to patient safety incident analysis and reliability engineering. Together, these categories provide a comprehensive lens for prioritizing improvement: reduce preventable adverse events, close evidence-based gaps, and avoid low-value care that increases complications and cost. Using this IOM model supports a balanced quality/risk program that prevents harm across the full spectrum of clinical decision-making and care delivery.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, determining coverage requires careful review of the applicable insurance policies and policy structure. Because the alleged negligence occurred 10 years earlier, the risk manager must first review both the current policy and the policy in effect at the time of the delivery. Coverage depends on the specific policy terms, limits, endorsements, and retroactive dates applicable during the relevant policy period.

It is also critical to determine whether the policy is written on an occurrence or claims-made basis. Under an occurrence policy, coverage is triggered by the date of the incident, regardless of when the claim is filed. Under a claims-made policy, coverage depends on when the claim was reported and whether appropriate tail or extended reporting coverage exists.

Identifying co-defendants’ coverage may be relevant to contribution or indemnification but does not determine the hospital’s own coverage. Discussion with defense counsel may assist in strategy but should follow preliminary internal coverage analysis.

Risk financing objectives emphasize accurate policy review and understanding of trigger mechanisms before executive discussions. Therefore, reviewing the relevant policies and determining policy type are essential first steps.

Multiple studies showphysicians report fewer incidentsthan nurses and other hospital staff in many voluntary reporting systems, influenced by cultural norms, fear of blame, time constraints, and preference to manage issues “in-house.” This matters because underreporting distorts risk signals: leadership may miss trends in diagnostic delays, handoff failures, and near-misses that physicians uniquely observe. Risk management objectives therefore focus on reducing barriers: simplifying reporting, enabling quick mobile submissions, emphasizing psychological safety, and providing credible feedback that reporting leads to improvement (not punishment). Another proven strategy is integrating reporting into professional practice expectations and aligning medical leadership with “just culture” principles. Increasing physician reporting improves system learning, strengthens peer review insight, and supports defensibility by showing hazards were identified and addressed.

ERM integrates clinical, operational, financial, legal, and strategic risks into a single governance approach so leadership can prioritize resources based on enterprise objectives—patient safety, quality, financial sustainability, and regulatory compliance. The goal is not “zero risk,” butoptimized risk response: reduce likelihood and severity where feasible, and alignrisk financing(insurance, reserves, captives, contractual transfer) to the organization’s risk appetite and volatility. Risk management objectives in healthcare ERM include strengthening high-reliability clinical systems, improving compliance, preventing reputational harm, and ensuring continuity of operations during crises. ERM also improves board oversight by providing a transparent risk register, consistent scoring, and accountability for mitigation plans. Ultimately, ERM is a decision system that helps leaders invest where risk reduction and value are highest.

Under Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, the implantation of a medical device that lacks FDA approval and Institutional Review Board oversight presents significant legal and regulatory violations. Use of an unapproved device outside of an approved investigational protocol may violate federal regulations governing human subject research and medical device approval processes.

The risk manager’s primary responsibility is to immediately mitigate regulatory and liability exposure. Because the procedure is scheduled for the next day, urgent intervention is required. Contacting the FDA would not resolve the immediate risk. Verifying informed consent is insufficient, as patient consent cannot legitimize use of an unapproved device outside regulatory pathways. Calling a special IRB meeting would not retroactively authorize an unapproved device without appropriate investigational device exemption processes.

Escalating the issue to the chief of surgery to halt or cancel the procedure is the most appropriate immediate step. This ensures that organizational leadership addresses the compliance violation before patient harm occurs. Risk management objectives emphasize proactive prevention of regulatory breaches, protection of patient safety, and preservation of institutional integrity. Therefore, stopping the procedure is the correct and immediate action.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, coverage determination depends on both the policy trigger and relevant dates. The alleged negligence occurred on September 5, 2003. Under an occurrence policy in effect from 1/1/03 to 1/1/04, coverage applies because the event occurred during that policy period, regardless of when the claim was filed. Therefore, option 2 applies.

For a claims-made policy covering 1/1/03 to 1/1/04, coverage would require that the claim be made and reported during the policy period unless tail coverage is in place. Because the claim was received on July 3, 2004, after expiration of the 1/1/03 to 1/1/04 claims-made policy, coverage would apply only if a 1-year tail was purchased. Thus, option 3 applies.

Option 1 would not apply because the claim was made after the claims-made policy period ended, and no tail is specified. Option 4 would not apply because occurrence coverage from 1/1/04 to 1/1/05 would not cover an event that occurred in 2003.

Risk financing objectives emphasize understanding policy triggers, reporting requirements, and tail coverage. Therefore, the applicable coverage scenarios are the occurrence policy for 2003 and the claims-made policy with tail coverage.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards established by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, deaths resulting from criminal acts fall under medico-legal jurisdiction and are typically subject to coroner or medical examiner review. Even when a patient is a documented organ donor, as indicated on a driver's license under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act framework, the circumstances of death may require legal investigation.

When a death is associated with trauma from a criminal act, it is generally considered a reportable death. The medical examiner or coroner has statutory authority to determine whether an autopsy is required and to ensure preservation of forensic evidence. Organ procurement activities must not interfere with legal investigation obligations. Therefore, prior to organ retrieval or withdrawal of life support, the appropriate legal authorities must be notified.

While honoring the patient’s documented donation wishes is important, compliance with state statutes governing reportable deaths and forensic investigations takes precedence. The family’s wishes do not override a valid donor designation, but coordination must occur within the legal framework.

Thus, the most appropriate action for the risk manager is to ensure that authorities are notified to determine autopsy requirements before proceeding.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards established by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, investigation of a liability claim requires careful evaluation of both clinical and legal components. Determining the applicable standard of care is essential to assess whether the provider’s actions met accepted professional practice. This typically involves review of medical records, consultation with clinical experts, and comparison to established guidelines or customary practices within the specialty.

Assessing applicable legal principles is also critical. This includes analysis of duty, breach, causation, and damages, as well as jurisdiction-specific statutes of limitation, comparative negligence standards, and evidentiary considerations. Understanding the legal framework allows the risk manager to evaluate exposure and advise counsel appropriately.

Providing a root cause analysis to the insurance company may compromise privilege protections, depending on jurisdiction and policy structure. RCA documents are often protected under peer review or patient safety statutes and should not be disclosed without legal guidance. Obtaining an incident report from the claimant is not appropriate, as internal incident reports are generated by the organization and are not requested from claimants.

Claims and litigation objectives emphasize structured legal and clinical evaluation. Therefore, determining the standard of care and assessing applicable legal principles are required investigative steps.

Subrogation is the insurer’s right to seek recovery from a responsible third party after paying a loss. Awaiver of subrogationclause means the insurer (or self-insured entity) gives up that recovery right, usually to support business relationships and reduce litigation between contracting parties. Risk financing objectives include understanding when waivers are acceptable (balanced against increased retained loss), ensuring the waiver aligns with insurance policy endorsements, and preventing unintended coverage gaps. Poorly managed waivers can shift costs back onto the organization and complicate recovery efforts. Contracts should be reviewed to ensure the waiver is mutual when appropriate and consistent with the organization’s risk appetite and insurance program.

Laboratory testing is best understood as atotal testing process(from test ordering through specimen collection, analysis, and result reporting). Across this chain, error risk is heavily influenced byvariability—especially inpre-analytical steps(patient identification, tube labeling, specimen handling, transport conditions) andpost-analytical steps(timely reporting, critical value communication, interpretation). Risk management objectives emphasize controlling variation through standard work, barcoding, competency training, environmental controls, and quality indicators for each phase. Importantly, many lab failures arise outside the analyzer itself; focusing only on the analytical instrument misses major sources of harm. Reducing variability improves reliability, reduces redraws and diagnostic delay, and supports defensible performance in accreditation and event review. In short: the lab process chain is a high-volume, multi-step clinical production system—variation is inevitable, but unmanaged variation increases patient safety risk.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards outlined by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, proactive workplace violence prevention focuses on measures implemented before an incident occurs. These strategies aim to identify risks, strengthen preparedness, and reduce the likelihood or severity of violent events.

Pre-employment background screening helps identify applicants with histories that may pose safety concerns, consistent with legal hiring standards. Ongoing staff training enhances awareness of warning signs, communication skills, and reporting procedures. Leadership rounding increases visibility, supports early identification of environmental or behavioral risks, and reinforces safety culture. Active shooter drills and emergency preparedness exercises ensure that staff understand response protocols and can act effectively under stress.

Options B, C, and D primarily describe reactive or post-incident measures. Law enforcement notification, restraining orders, crisis intervention, DEA notification, documentation, and emergency command activation occur after an event has taken place or when an immediate threat is present.

Health Care Operations objectives emphasize prevention, preparedness, environmental assessment, and workforce education as foundational elements of a workplace violence program. Therefore, pre-employment screening, training, rounding, and drills represent proactive components of an effective prevention strategy.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution designed to facilitate voluntary settlement between parties. In mediation, a neutral third party assists disputing parties in communicating, clarifying issues, and exploring mutually acceptable resolutions. The mediator does not impose a binding decision but guides negotiation toward compromise and reconciliation.

Arbitration differs in that the neutral arbitrator typically renders a decision that may be binding, depending on the agreement between parties. Jury trials and bench trials involve formal court proceedings where a judge or jury determines liability and damages based on legal standards and evidence. These processes are adversarial and result in judicial determinations rather than negotiated compromise.

Claims and litigation objectives emphasize cost containment, early resolution, and reduction of adversarial conflict when appropriate. Mediation can reduce defense expenses, shorten case duration, and preserve professional relationships. It also provides greater confidentiality and flexibility than courtroom litigation.

Therefore, the intervention specifically intended to promote reconciliation, settlement, or compromise between parties is mediation.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, the Safe Medical Devices Act SMDA establishes mandatory reporting requirements for certain healthcare facilities when a medical device has or may have caused or contributed to a patient death or serious injury. These requirements apply to device user facilities, which include hospitals, nursing homes, and ambulatory surgical facilities.

Hospitals are explicitly required to report device-related deaths to both the FDA and the manufacturer, and serious injuries to the manufacturer or the FDA if the manufacturer is unknown. Nursing homes and ambulatory surgery centers are also considered device user facilities under the Act and must comply with similar reporting obligations.

Physician offices, however, are generally not classified as device user facilities under SMDA reporting rules and therefore are not subject to the same mandatory reporting requirements, although voluntary reporting is encouraged.

Legal and regulatory objectives emphasize timely compliance with FDA reporting mandates, maintenance of documentation, and coordination with manufacturers and regulatory authorities to mitigate risk and enhance patient safety. Therefore, the SMDA reporting requirements apply to nursing homes, ambulatory surgery facilities, and hospitals.

A frequent HIPAA Privacy Rule violation isimpermissible access or disclosureof protected health information—commonly including employee “snooping” (accessing records of family, friends, coworkers, or celebrities without a work-related need) and other unauthorized disclosures. Risk management objectives focus on preventing these events through role-based access, audit logs with active monitoring, sanctions policies consistently enforced, workforce training, and a culture that treats privacy as patient safety. Even when disclosures are not malicious, “minimum necessary” failures, misdirected faxes/emails, and unsecured devices can create reportable breaches. Effective prevention is layered: technical controls (access restrictions), administrative controls (policies, training), and detection/response (auditing, rapid mitigation). Privacy violations are high-risk because they harm patients, trigger regulatory action, and damage trust and reputation.

The “sharp end” refers to the point in a system where clinicians directly interact with patients and deliver care—nurses administering medications, physicians performing procedures, therapists mobilizing patients, and so on. Errors at the sharp end are typicallyactive failuresthat are immediately visible, but they are often shaped by “blunt end” factors—staffing levels, training, equipment design, policies, and workflow constraints. Risk management objectives discourage blaming the sharp end alone; instead, they use incident analysis (RCA) to identify latent system conditions that make frontline errors more likely. Improving sharp-end safety includes standardization, teamwork tools (SBAR/TeamSTEPPS), human factors engineering, and reducing hazardous variability in processes. This systems approach helps prevent repeat events and supports a just culture where learning is prioritized while accountability is preserved for reckless conduct.

Under Health Care Risk Management principles aligned with ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities. However, the obligation to provide accommodation is generally triggered when the applicant or employee makes the employer aware of the need for accommodation.

The interactive process required by the ADA begins once the applicant requests an accommodation or discloses a need related to a disability. Employers are not required to speculate about potential disabilities or initiate accommodations without notice. While documentation may be requested to verify the disability in certain circumstances, proof is not the triggering requirement. Instead, the request itself initiates the employer’s duty to engage in good faith discussion to determine reasonable accommodation.

Withholding accommodation that creates an unsafe condition may raise separate workplace safety concerns, but that is not the threshold requirement under the ADA. Similarly, an employer’s recognition alone does not automatically impose an obligation absent a request or clear disclosure.

Legal and regulatory objectives emphasize proper documentation, consistent application of ADA standards, and engagement in the interactive process once accommodation is requested. Therefore, the employer’s duty arises when the applicant requests the accommodation.