Free practice quiz
CHPOP Prep Course (CHPOP): free quiz
10 questions from the program. See your score right away, then unlock the explanation of every answer.
- Question 1 of 10
A CHPOP candidate is assisting a pharmacist with order review. A fictional 78-year-old patient has apixaban 5 mg by mouth twice daily for atrial fibrillation and a new clarithromycin 500 mg by mouth twice daily for 7 days; estimated CrCl is 24 mL/min. Within CHPOP role boundaries, what is the best next step?
Role-bound anticoagulant review
A is correct: apixaban exposure rises with renal impairment and strong CYP3A4/P-gp inhibitors; a CHPOP candidate should identify risk and escalate, not independently alter therapy. C is tempting because dose reduction may be considered, but unauthorized dose changes exceed role boundaries. D is tempting because rivaroxaban has renal dosing, but substitution is a therapeutic decision and interaction/bleeding risk remains. B is tempting for short antibiotics, but clarithromycin can significantly increase DOAC exposure.
NOTICE interaction plus CrCl 24; SAY concern to pharmacist; MONITOR bleeding/renal labs per policy; HOLD/CLARIFY/ESCALATE before dispensing if unresolved.
- Question 2 of 10A pharmacist-scope CHPOP candidate reviews a practice item about apixaban 5 mg by mouth twice daily for atrial fibrillation in a patient also taking diltiazem 240 mg by mouth daily. The candidate missed it because renal dosing, interaction screening, and documentation terms were mixed across domains. The CHPOP outline gives domains but no item weights. Which study structure best follows domain-based blueprint logic?
Domain-based study structure
C is correct: it maps terminology, rules, scenarios, and calculations to broad competency domains and uses uniform coverage when weights are unstated. A is tempting because apixaban has dose-reduction criteria, but memorizing one table misses domain mapping. B is tempting because diltiazem is a CYP3A4/P-gp interaction screen, but interaction focus alone is too narrow. D is tempting because renal dosing is tested often, but it misclassifies ethics and documentation. Review Domain-Based Study Structure — focus on blueprint mapping, weak-domain tracking, and unstated weighting.
Pharmacist Action: NOTICE missed items crossing dosing, interaction, and documentation domains; SAY the review plan will be domain-mapped; MONITOR weak-domain scores weekly; HOLD/CLARIFY/ESCALATE if a task requires local policy or authority beyond pharmacist/CHPOP scope. - Question 3 of 10
An ambulatory-care pharmacist reviews a new prescription for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300 mg/100 mg by mouth twice daily for 5 days. The patient takes apixaban 5 mg by mouth twice daily for atrial fibrillation, and estimated CrCl is 72 mL/min. Using the Task-Fact-Rule-Action framework, which action best fits the pharmacist’s scope?
Task-Fact-Rule-Action
C is correct. Ritonavir strongly inhibits CYP3A4/P-gp, increasing apixaban exposure; labeling supports 50% apixaban dose reduction when the usual dose is 5 mg twice daily. B is tempting because CrCl is normal, but interaction risk remains. A is tempting as an anticoagulant substitution, but rivaroxaban also has major CYP3A4/P-gp interaction risk with ritonavir. D is a dose/role trap: holding anticoagulation may increase stroke risk and requires prescriber-directed planning.
NOTICE ritonavir plus apixaban; SAY “interaction clarification needed”; MONITOR bleeding daily during therapy; HOLD/CLARIFY/ESCALATE before dispensing if no approved plan. - Question 4 of 10
While verifying nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300 mg/100 mg by mouth twice daily for 5 days for a fictional patient, a CHPOP candidate working under pharmacist supervision sees eGFR 45 mL/min and simvastatin 40 mg nightly. The prescriber is unavailable for 20 minutes; a technician suggests telling the patient you are the pharmacist and dispensing the standard dose. Which action best applies professional ethics principles?
Ethical order handling
C is correct. Ritonavir inhibits CYP3A; simvastatin is contraindicated, and eGFR 30–59 requires nirmatrelvir 150 mg with ritonavir 100 mg twice daily. Honesty requires stating your role; accountability requires pharmacist/prescriber clarification. A is tempting for speed, but standard dosing and simvastatin continuation violate labeling. B fixes renal dosing but misses the interaction. D avoids CYP3A issues but exceeds scope without authorization.
Pharmacist Action: NOTICE eGFR 45 and simvastatin; SAY role and need to clarify; MONITOR renal function and interactions at verification/follow-up; HOLD/CLARIFY/ESCALATE before dispensing. - Question 5 of 10
In a community pharmacy, a pharmacist is reviewing warfarin 5 mg by mouth once daily for fictional patient Daniel Reed. A caller claiming to be Daniel’s employer asks whether Daniel picked up the prescription and whether he is taking it correctly. Within pharmacist-scope confidentiality practice, what is the best response?
Confidentiality Core Terms
A is correct: warfarin has high interaction risk, but PK/PD concerns do not override privacy rules; verify authority and disclose minimum necessary. D is tempting for safety, but employer status alone is not authorization. C is tempting because warfarin interactions matter, but full-profile disclosure exceeds minimum necessary. B is tempting as a “limited” disclosure, but dose and pickup data are protected health information.
Pharmacist Action: NOTICE third-party request; SAY authorization is needed; MONITOR disclosure log each request; HOLD/CLARIFY/ESCALATE when identity or authority is uncertain. - Question 6 of 10
As a CHPOP candidate supporting pharmacist-scope medication reconciliation, you review discharge documentation for apixaban 5 mg by mouth twice daily for atrial fibrillation. The patient is 82 years old, weighs 58 kg, has SCr 1.1 mg/dL, and takes verapamil ER 240 mg by mouth daily. The prescriber confirms changing apixaban to 2.5 mg by mouth twice daily. Which documentation entry best meets objective documentation standards?
Objective apixaban documentation
D is correct: it records time, source, action, and policy-based update without blame; apixaban exposure/bleeding risk supports 2.5 mg twice daily when 2 NVAF criteria are present: age ≥80 and weight ≤60 kg. A flags safety but assigns blame. A notes a real P-gp/CYP3A4 interaction concern, but verapamil is not the stated label reason for this dose change. A overweights SCr; age plus weight already meet the dose-reduction rule.
NOTICE age/weight and interacting drugs; SAY verified facts; MONITOR bleeding at each contact; HOLD/CLARIFY/ESCALATE undocumented or altered records.
- Question 7 of 10
A CHPOP candidate is reviewing a community pharmacy near miss. A patient taking clarithromycin 500 mg by mouth twice daily for 7 days and having serum creatinine suggesting reduced renal function was about to receive apixaban 5 mg by mouth twice daily for atrial fibrillation. The technician caught the interaction before dispensing and asks what safety-culture response best supports the pharmacist’s scope and safer systems.
Safety culture response
D is correct: apixaban exposure can rise with strong CYP3A4/P-gp inhibitors, and renal function affects dosing; safety culture prioritizes pause, pharmacist assessment, reporting, and learning. B is tempting because no harm occurred, but near misses are reportable learning opportunities. A is tempting because rivaroxaban is related, but unsupervised therapeutic substitution exceeds role and still has interaction/renal concerns. C is tempting as a renal-dose shortcut, but apixaban dose reduction requires specific criteria and interaction review. NOTICE interaction/renal red flags; SAY pharmacist must assess before dispensing; MONITOR renal function and bleeding risk per policy; HOLD/CLARIFY/ESCALATE when interaction or dose criteria are uncertain.
- Question 8 of 10During pharmacist verification, an order for metformin ER 1,000 mg PO twice daily is entered for a patient with eGFR 22 mL/min/1.73 m2 and a contrast CT scheduled today. The technician’s queue held the prescription, and no medication was dispensed or administered. As the pharmacist, which factual event type and reporting action best fits this situation, recognizing local reporting thresholds may vary?
Review Event and Near-Miss Types
B is correct. An intercepted metformin order that reaches no patient is a near miss; reporting supports system learning. The PK safety trigger is metformin accumulation risk with low eGFR, and iodinated contrast may require withholding. A is tempting because harm could occur, but an incident requires the error to reach the patient or cause harm; dose reduction is not enough. C is tempting because alert failure is an unsafe condition, but an erroneous order was also caught. D is tempting as optimization, but independent substitution exceeds scope and 100 mg sitagliptin is not the low-eGFR dose.
Pharmacist Action: NOTICE eGFR/contrast; SAY clarify with prescriber; MONITOR renal function per policy; HOLD/CLARIFY/ESCALATE before dispensing. - Question 9 of 10
A pharmacist is verifying apixaban 5 mg by mouth twice daily for stroke prevention in an 82-year-old patient weighing 58 kg. The profile also shows ketoconazole 400 mg by mouth daily, and the current serum creatinine is missing. Using risk severity factors, what is the most appropriate next step before dispensing?
Review Risk Severity Factors — focus on interaction and renal-data gaps
C is correct: apixaban exposure rises with strong CYP3A4/P-gp inhibitors, and missing renal function in an older, low-weight patient increases uncertainty and severity, warranting clarification. A is tempting as a standard dose, but ignores dose-reduction and interaction risk. D recognizes dose reduction, but a pharmacist should not unilaterally change therapy and still must address ketoconazole. B is tempting as another DOAC, but rivaroxaban also has clinically important strong CYP3A4/P-gp inhibitor concerns and renal requirements.
NOTICE: age, weight, ketoconazole, missing creatinine. SAY: “I need to clarify bleeding-risk factors before dispensing.” MONITOR: renal function and bleeding signs at initiation. HOLD/CLARIFY/ESCALATE: hold until prescriber confirms plan. - Question 10 of 10
A pharmacy receives a new e-prescription for apixaban 5 mg by mouth twice daily for atrial fibrillation. The patient profile shows ketoconazole 400 mg by mouth daily and CrCl 24 mL/min. As a CHPOP candidate supporting pharmacist-scope workflow, which next step best follows standard intake, verification, processing, and completion sequencing?
A is correct. Apixaban exposure rises with strong CYP3A4/P-gp inhibitors and renal impairment, so verification should interrupt processing before fill. C is tempting because counseling is a completion-stage check, but it delays a known interaction failure point. B recognizes risk but exceeds support-role authority and overstates renal impairment as an automatic cancellation. D is a dose-adjustment trap: changing dose requires prescriber/pharmacist authority and label-based criteria. NOTICE renal function plus ketoconazole; SAY clinical review is needed; MONITOR renal function and bleeding signs per policy; HOLD/CLARIFY/ESCALATE before processing.
See why each answer is right or wrong
Enter your email to unlock the explanation of every question, free.






