HSRT Practice Questions (2026) — Free Sample Questions with Answers

Answer: B

Hand sanitizer is more effective than soap and water against every pathogen: The argument does not compare sanitizer with soap; it only claims the new stations caused the drop.

No other change on Unit 4 during that period could explain the decrease: Correct. Concluding cause from a before-and-after change assumes no competing explanation, such as new staff, fewer high-risk patients or a cleaning protocol change.

Infection rates on the hospital's other units rose during the same quarters: Rates elsewhere are not needed for the argument; if anything, a hospital-wide drop would weaken it.

Staff on Unit 4 preferred the new stations over the older dispensers: Staff preference is not required for the stations to have caused the decrease.

A before-after causal claim silently assumes that nothing else changed; look for the alternative explanation the author ignores.

Answer: B

About 40% of inpatients taking a sedative had a fall: This reverses the conditional: the data give the share of fallers on sedatives, not the share of sedative users who fell.

Sedative use was more common among fallers than non-fallers: Correct. This restates the comparison exactly: 40% of fallers versus 10% of non-fallers were on sedatives.

Sedatives caused about 30% of the falls on the units reviewed: A difference in exposure rates does not establish causation or show what fraction of falls sedatives caused.

Stopping all sedatives would cut the number of falls by 75%: This assumes causation and calculates an effect the data cannot support.

'Percent of fallers taking sedatives' is not the same as 'percent of sedative users who fall'; keep the conditional direction straight.

Answer: A

It was larger, randomized and blinded, which reduces bias and chance: Correct. Randomization balances patient factors, blinding prevents biased ratings, and a larger sample reduces random error.

It was published more recently than Study B in the same journal: Publication date alone does not make a study more valid; the scenario does not even give dates.

Its result is the one that most nurses on the unit already expected: Agreement with expectations is not evidence of validity and can reflect bias.

Its patients were rated by nurses who knew them and their wounds well: That describes Study B, and unblinded raters who choose the treatment introduce bias.

Weigh studies by design: randomization, blinding and adequate sample size outweigh small, unblinded, self-selected comparisons.

Answer: C

Hospital A must have miscounted deaths in at least one severity group: The pattern is mathematically possible without any counting error, so an error is not the best explanation.

Hospital B performs more operations each year than Hospital A does: Total volume alone does not explain why the group-level and overall comparisons reverse.

Hospital A operates on a much larger share of severely ill patients: Correct. If A's case mix is weighted toward high-risk patients, its overall rate rises even though it does better within each group (Simpson's paradox).

Severity grouping makes every hospital's death rate look better: Grouping does not improve rates; it reveals that case mix differs between the hospitals.

When subgroup and overall comparisons reverse, look for unequal group sizes (case mix): Simpson's paradox.

Answer: A

Diaz is assigned to the ICU: Correct. Chen takes the OR, so Ames (not ICU or ED) must take Pediatrics; Brooks must then take the ED, leaving the ICU for Diaz, which fits Diaz's rule.

Brooks is assigned to Pediatrics: Pediatrics must go to Ames, the only unit left for Ames once Chen has the OR.

Ames is assigned to the ED: The premises state directly that Ames is not in the ED.

Diaz is assigned to the ED: Brooks must take the ED once Ames has Pediatrics, so Diaz cannot.

Fix the certain assignments first, then eliminate options step by step until each placement is forced.

Answer: D

It cuts the complication rate by 2%, which is the relative reduction: 2 percentage points is the absolute reduction; the relative reduction is 2 ÷ 8 = 25%.

It cuts complications by 25%, so 25 patients must be treated: 25% is the relative reduction, but the number needed to treat comes from the absolute reduction: 1 ÷ 0.02 = 50.

It prevents complications in 6 of every 8 patients who receive it: This misreads the two rates as a ratio of patients helped.

About 50 patients need the protocol to prevent one complication: Correct. Absolute risk reduction = 8% − 6% = 2% = 0.02; number needed to treat = 1 ÷ 0.02 = 50.

ARR = control rate − treatment rate; RRR = ARR ÷ control rate; NNT = 1 ÷ ARR.