CPHRM Certified Professional in Health Care Risk Management (CPHRM) Questions and Answers

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, a 22-year-old patient is a legal adult and retains full rights to privacy and control over disclosure of protected health information under HIPAA and applicable state confidentiality laws. Psychiatric records are subject to heightened confidentiality protections in many jurisdictions.

Absent a court order or legal guardianship determination, a parent does not have automatic access to an adult child’s medical records. Therefore, before releasing any information, the organization must verify that the patient has executed a valid, specific authorization for release of information that complies with HIPAA requirements. The authorization must clearly identify the recipient, the information to be disclosed, and be properly signed and dated.

Consulting legal counsel or a treating psychiatrist does not substitute for proper authorization. Similarly, requesting guardianship documentation would only be appropriate if the mother asserts legal guardianship status; however, in the absence of such documentation, release cannot occur.

Legal and regulatory objectives emphasize strict adherence to privacy laws, protection of psychiatric records, and proper authorization procedures. Therefore, verification of a signed release of information from the patient is required before disclosure.

Leaving an at-risk patient unattended during/after medication administration is typically anactive failureoccurring at thesharp end—the point of direct care delivery. Active errors are the observable actions/omissions by frontline personnel that can immediately contribute to harm (e.g., failure to monitor sedation, failure to reassess after opioids). Risk management objectives, however, require looking beyond the individual act: Was staffing insufficient? Was monitoring policy unclear? Were alarms ineffective? Was there inadequate training or workload overload? Those “blunt end” conditions create latent risk that increases the likelihood of sharp-end failures. Proper classification helps organizations respond with systems fixes (monitoring standards, escalation triggers, staffing acuity tools, continuous pulse oximetry/capnography policies where appropriate) rather than blaming individuals alone.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, standardization of abbreviations, acronyms, and symbols directly supports the Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goal focused on improving the effectiveness of communication among caregivers. Inconsistent or ambiguous abbreviations can lead to misinterpretation of orders, delays in treatment, medication errors, and breakdowns in interdisciplinary communication.

The Joint Commission has historically emphasized the elimination of dangerous or error-prone abbreviations as part of its efforts to enhance clarity in documentation and verbal communication. By standardizing terminology and limiting the use of unapproved abbreviations, healthcare organizations reduce variability and promote accurate transfer of information during handoffs, documentation, and order entry.

While standardized terminology may indirectly support medication safety and reconciliation processes, its primary impact is on communication effectiveness. Accurate communication among caregivers is foundational to patient safety and reduces preventable adverse events resulting from misunderstanding or incomplete information.

Clinical and patient safety objectives emphasize clear, consistent documentation and communication practices. Therefore, standardizing abbreviations and symbols most directly improves the effectiveness of communication among caregivers.

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.

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 supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, projecting contributions to a self-insured retention fund requires actuarially sound financial forecasting. Actuarial reports use historical claims data, trend analyses, loss development factors, and exposure projections to estimate future liabilities and required funding levels. Loss run reports provide detailed historical claims information, including paid losses, reserves, and claim status, which serve as foundational data for actuarial modeling.

Professional and general liability premiums are relevant to insured layers above the retention but do not determine funding requirements for the retained portion. Frequency and severity analyses of pending claims are important components of actuarial evaluation but, standing alone, may not capture long-tail development or incurred but not reported claims. Total incurred losses for the current year provide limited insight without considering historical patterns and future projections.

Risk financing objectives emphasize accurate funding of retained risk to ensure financial stability, regulatory compliance, and protection of organizational assets. Therefore, actuarial reports, supported by comprehensive loss run data, provide the most reliable basis for determining projected contributions to a self-insured retention fund.

Within Health Care Risk Management frameworks supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, effective incident reporting systems depend heavily on organizational culture. When underreporting is identified, the most appropriate first step is to evaluate whether a just culture exists and whether staff perceive reporting as safe, nonpunitive, and constructive. Fear of retaliation, lack of feedback, time constraints, and unclear reporting procedures are common barriers that suppress reporting rates.

A punitive response such as disciplining staff may further discourage transparency and undermine patient safety initiatives. Conducting a root cause analysis may be appropriate if a specific adverse event occurred, but in this scenario the systemic issue is underreporting itself, which is primarily cultural and operational in nature. Immediate notification of the liability insurer would not address the underlying safety system weakness.

Health care operations objectives emphasize creating a culture of safety that encourages voluntary reporting, learning, and system improvement. By assessing and strengthening reporting culture, leadership can improve data accuracy, enhance early risk identification, and support proactive patient safety management.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, periodic review of policies and procedures is essential to ensure alignment with current laws, regulatory standards, accreditation requirements, and best practices. Reviewing policies helps ensure consistency between written procedures and actual clinical practice, thereby reducing liability exposure.

Policy review also supports identification of potential risk exposures by detecting outdated language, conflicting guidance, or gaps in processes that could lead to adverse events. Additionally, monitoring compliance with standards—such as federal regulations, state statutes, and accreditation requirements—is a central purpose of policy review, ensuring that organizational practices meet required benchmarks.

Maintaining staff competency, however, is primarily addressed through education, training programs, credentialing, and performance evaluation processes. While policies provide guidance for staff conduct, competency assessment is not the primary objective of policy review itself.

Health Care Operations objectives emphasize governance oversight, regulatory compliance, and risk mitigation through clear, current policies. Therefore, maintaining staff competency is not a direct reason for performing risk management review of policies and procedures, making it the correct exception.

Voluntary reporting systems often generatemore reports, especially ofnear-misses and low-harm events, because staff perceive less punitive risk and greater learning value. This is crucial for proactive risk management: near-misses expose weak signals and system vulnerabilities before a patient is harmed. A robust voluntary culture supports a “just culture” approach—encouraging reporting while still holding people accountable for reckless behavior. Compared with mandatory systems (typically limited to defined serious events), voluntary systems improve the organization’s ability to identify patterns (communication failures, workflow traps, labeling issues, staffing risks), prioritize interventions, and measure improvement over time. Risk management objectives include earlier hazard detection, better trend analysis, and stronger safety culture. To maximize effectiveness, leadership must provide feedback loops (“you reported, we improved”), protect confidentiality where permitted, and couple reporting with structured analysis (RCA/FMEA). While voluntary reporting does not automatically confer legal privilege, it is a foundational learning system in high-reliability healthcare operations.

Under Health Care Risk Management standards aligned with ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, employment interview questions must comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act ADA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

Questions about prescription medications may violate ADA provisions by eliciting information about potential disabilities prior to a conditional offer of employment. Asking whether a candidate plans to have children may constitute unlawful discrimination based on sex or family status. Inquiring directly about citizenship may violate federal employment eligibility standards; employers may instead ask whether the applicant is legally authorized to work in the United States.

In contrast, asking whether a candidate can meet the organization’s attendance requirements is permissible because it relates directly to essential job functions and business necessity. Employers may inquire about the ability to perform job-related duties, provided questions are applied consistently to all applicants and are not designed to screen out protected classes.

Legal and regulatory objectives emphasize nondiscriminatory hiring practices and adherence to equal employment laws. Therefore, questions regarding attendance requirements are appropriate in a job interview setting.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards defined by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, a formal risk management plan is a governance document that outlines the framework, scope, and operational processes of the program. It is intended to define how risk management activities support organizational objectives and regulatory compliance.

The plan should clearly state the purpose of the program, establishing its mission, goals, and alignment with patient safety and enterprise risk management strategies. It must also describe the structure of the program, including reporting relationships, committee oversight, leadership roles, and accountability mechanisms. Additionally, the process of risk management activities should be detailed, including event reporting, investigation procedures, claims management, education initiatives, and performance evaluation methods.

While financial planning is important for departmental operations, the budget for the department is typically addressed in administrative or financial planning documents rather than the risk management plan itself. The plan focuses on governance, structure, and operational processes rather than line-item budgeting.

Therefore, inclusion of the program’s purpose, structural framework, and operational processes appropriately defines a comprehensive risk management plan.

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.

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.

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.

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.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, an indemnification clause is a contractual risk transfer mechanism that defines one party’s obligation to compensate another for specified losses, liabilities, damages, or claims arising from the contract relationship. Its purpose is to allocate financial responsibility and clarify which party will bear costs if certain events occur.

Indemnification provisions typically address responsibility for defense costs, settlements, judgments, and related expenses. The scope of indemnity depends on negotiated language and may include limitations, exclusions, or requirements for notice and cooperation. Properly drafted indemnification clauses are critical in vendor agreements, physician contracts, and service arrangements to manage exposure and reduce organizational liability.

Creating a forum for dispute resolution is addressed through arbitration or venue clauses. Holding another party responsible for fulfilling contract terms relates to performance obligations rather than indemnification. Automatically deferring all legal costs is inaccurate because indemnification is triggered only under specific contractual conditions.

Legal and regulatory objectives emphasize careful contract review, clear allocation of liability, and structured risk transfer. Therefore, an indemnification clause clarifies commitments to compensate the other party for harm, liability, or loss.

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.

Air intake protection is a facility security and safety engineering control to reduce vulnerability to intentional contamination. Elevating intakes reduces easy access; security zones create stand-off distance; lighting and surveillance deter and improve detection. Risk management objectives emphasize layered physical security: access control, environmental design, monitoring, and emergency response planning. In healthcare operations, these measures support resilience and continuity of care, reducing risk of mass exposure events that can overwhelm clinical capacity and cause severe harm.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, occurrence coverage provides protection for incidents that occur during the policy period, regardless of when the claim is reported. The triggering event is the date of the occurrence. As long as the alleged act or omission took place while the policy was in force, coverage applies even if the claim is filed years later.

Option A is incorrect because occurrence coverage does not extend to incidents that occur prior to the policy’s effective date. Coverage is strictly tied to the policy period.

Option C is incorrect because in claims-made coverage, the retroactive date is critical. Coverage applies only to claims made during the policy period for incidents that occurred on or after the retroactive date.

Option D is incorrect because the “nose” period, also known as prior acts coverage, is highly significant in claims-made policies. It determines whether earlier acts are covered when switching carriers.

Risk financing objectives emphasize understanding policy triggers, retroactive dates, and reporting requirements. Therefore, occurrence coverage applies to incidents that occur while the policy is in effect.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, insurance policy information is generally discoverable in litigation. Most jurisdictions require disclosure of applicable liability coverage, including policy limits, pursuant to civil procedure rules governing discovery. Therefore, when an interrogatory properly requests insurance policy information, the organization should provide the specifically requested information in coordination with defense counsel.

Providing more information than requested, such as automatically including excess limits if not asked, may exceed the scope of the interrogatory and should be guided by legal counsel. A certificate of insurance is not a substitute for responding to formal discovery requests, as it may not contain all required details regarding coverage, limits, and applicable policy periods.

Objecting to the interrogatory without valid legal grounds is generally inappropriate, as insurance coverage information is typically relevant to potential satisfaction of judgment.

Claims and litigation objectives emphasize cooperation with counsel, compliance with discovery rules, and accurate disclosure of coverage information. Therefore, the appropriate response is to provide the specifically requested insurance policy information in accordance with legal guidance.

Access to NPDB information is restricted to authorized entities for credentialing, privileging, and oversight—not public browsing. HRSA’s NPDB rules identify who can query and report;professional societies with formal peer revieware listed among entities that may query under certain circumstances. This limited-access model supports patient safety objectives by enabling credentialing bodies to identify adverse licensure actions, certain negative clinical privilege actions, and other reportable events, while protecting due process and confidentiality. From a risk management perspective, proper querying supports defensible credentialing and reduces negligent credentialing exposure. Equally important: organizations must maintain secure handling of NPDB responses and follow permitted-use rules to avoid compliance violations.

According to Health Care Risk Management principles supported by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, total incurred amounts include both paid amounts and reserves. Incurred expense equals expense paid plus expense reserves. Incurred indemnity equals indemnity paid plus indemnity reserves.

For Year 4:

Total incurred expense = $25,000 reserves + $15,000 paid = $40,000.

Total incurred indemnity = $150,000 reserves + $75,000 paid = $225,000.

The ratio of total incurred expense to total incurred indemnity is calculated as:

$40,000 ÷ $225,000 = 0.1778, which rounds to approximately 0.18.

However, among the answer options provided, the closest value is 0.20 only if rounded broadly. Since precise calculation yields approximately 0.18, the mathematically correct ratio is approximately 0.18.

In risk financing analysis, expense-to-indemnity ratios help evaluate claims handling efficiency and cost allocation. Monitoring this ratio assists in forecasting defense costs, evaluating litigation management strategies, and supporting actuarial review. Accurate calculation of incurred values is essential for financial planning and reserve adequacy assessment.

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.

Marketing claims can create liability exposure when they reasonably induce reliance and the patient suffers harm. Depending on jurisdiction and facts, plaintiffs may allegeapparent agency(belief that physicians acted as the HMO’s agents),vicarious liability, negligent credentialing, or negligent misrepresentation/consumer protection claims if statements are misleading. Risk management objectives include reviewing public claims for accuracy, ensuring marketing does not overpromise clinical capability, and aligning network adequacy and credentialing with representations. Clear disclosures about independent contractors may help but do not always defeat apparent agency claims. Controls include legal review of advertising, credentialing rigor, quality oversight, and complaint surveillance to detect mismatches between marketing and actual service capability.

RCA and systems safety models (e.g., Swiss Cheese) emphasize that adverse events typically requiremultiple contributing factors—small process breakdowns, latent conditions, and active failures—to align. This is why focusing only on the last person who touched the patient (“sharp end blame”) rarely prevents recurrence. Risk management objectives are to identify and strengthen defenses: policies, training, equipment design, staffing models, communication standards, and redundancy where needed. A series-of-events understanding enables targeted corrective actions (forcing functions, standardization, automation with safeguards, independent double checks for high-alert processes). It also supports just culture: accountability is preserved for reckless behavior, but most improvement comes from redesigning systems that make errors more likely. This approach improves reliability, reduces repeat harm, and provides defensible evidence of organizational learning and corrective action.

Healthcare contracting is a risk control tool. Core terms include effective date, scope, responsibilities, performance standards, indemnification, andinsurance requirements(limits, additional insured, notice of cancellation). Clear terms reduce disputes, clarify liability allocation, and strengthen compliance (HIPAA BAAs, data security, subcontractor controls). Risk management objectives focus on preventing uninsured exposures and ensuring vendors meet safety, credentialing, and regulatory requirements—especially for clinical services, technology, and facility operations.

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.

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.

Due diligence is a structured risk-identification and validation process used in mergers/acquisitions to understand clinical, legal, regulatory, operational, and financial exposures before closing. Objectives include discovering hidden liabilities (claims history, compliance gaps, credentialing issues, cybersecurity risks), validating revenue assumptions, assessing quality and safety maturity, and estimating integration costs. This informs valuation (including potential price adjustments), deal terms (representations/warranties, indemnities), and post-close priorities to improve performance and reduce adverse surprises. Risk management objectives include ensuring continuity of safe care during transition, aligning policies and governance, and preventing inherited regulatory violations or claims tail exposures.

According to Health Care Risk Management standards outlined by ASHRM and the American Hospital Association Certification Center, the Occupational Safety and Health Act includes a provision known as the General Duty Clause. This clause requires employers to furnish a workplace free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm, even when no specific OSHA standard addresses the hazard.

The General Duty Clause grants OSHA authority to cite employers for unsafe conditions not explicitly covered by a detailed regulation. To issue a citation under this clause, OSHA must demonstrate that a recognized hazard exists, that the hazard poses a risk of serious harm, and that feasible methods exist to correct or mitigate the hazard.

Therefore, OSHA retains enforcement authority even in the absence of a specific standard. The agency’s jurisdiction does not disappear simply because no detailed regulation addresses the particular risk.

Legal and regulatory objectives in healthcare risk management emphasize maintaining compliance with federal occupational safety laws and proactively identifying workplace hazards. Accordingly, OSHA may govern the hazard under the General Duty Clause when no specific standard applies.

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.

Inpatient suicide prevention is a high-stakes patient safety domain where RCAs frequently identifyenvironmental hazards—particularly ligature risks, blind spots, and unit design that limits observation. Joint Commission–style reviews and published analyses note that thephysical environmentis commonly “incriminated” in inpatient suicides, emphasizing design/engineering controls alongside clinical monitoring. Risk management objectives prioritize layered defenses: ligature-resistant fixtures, environmental rounding, safe room standards, removal control for risky items, and observation policies matched to patient risk. Environmental mitigation is especially powerful because it reduces reliance on perfect human vigilance (which is not realistic). By treating suicide prevention as a systems problem—not an individual failure—organizations improve reliability and reduce recurrence. Environmental corrections also strengthen regulatory readiness and demonstrate that the facility addressed known hazards with sustainable controls.