The best test to provide assurance that a health care organization is handling patient data appropriately is compliance with local laws and regulations, as these are the primary sources of authority and obligation for data protection and privacy. Compliance with action plans, industry standards, or organizational policies and procedures are also important, but they may not cover all the legal requirements or reflect the current best practices for handling patient data. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section
2.3

The overall effectiveness of an organization's disaster recovery planning process depends on how well the plan reflects the current and future needs and risks of the organization, and how well the plan is tested, communicated, and maintained. Among the four options given, the most important one for the IS auditor to verify is that management reviews and updates the plan annually or as changes occur.
A disaster recovery plan is not a static document that can be created once and forgotten. It is a dynamic and evolving process that requires regular review and update to ensure that it remains relevant, accurate, and effective. A disaster recovery plan should be reviewed and updated at least annually, or whenever there are significant changes in the organization's structure, operations, environment, or regulations. These changes could affect the business impact analysis, risk assessment, recovery objectives, recovery strategies, roles and responsibilities, or resources of the disaster recovery plan. If the plan is not updated to reflect these changes, it could become obsolete, incomplete, or inconsistent, and fail to meet the organization's recovery needs or expectations.
The other three options are not as important as reviewing and updating the plan, although they may also contribute to the effectiveness of the disaster recovery planning process. Contracting with a third party for warm site services is a possible recovery strategy that involves using a partially equipped facility that can be quickly activated in case of a disaster. However, this strategy may not be suitable or sufficient for every organization or scenario, and it does not guarantee the success of the disaster recovery plan. Scheduling an annual tabletop exercise is a good practice that involves simulating a disaster scenario and testing the plan in a hypothetical setting. However, this exercise may not be enough to evaluate the feasibility or readiness of the plan, and it should be complemented by other types of tests, such as walkthroughs, drills, or full-scale exercises. Documenting and distributing a copy of the plan to all personnel is an essential step that ensures that everyone involved in or affected by the plan is aware of their roles and responsibilities, and has access to the relevant information and instructions. However, this step alone does not ensure that the plan is understood or followed by all personnel, and it should be accompanied by proper training, education, and awareness programs.
Therefore, reviewing and updating the plan annually or as changes occur is the best answer.

A hardware-based media write blocker (Option A) ensures that forensic investigators can acquire digital evidence without altering the original data, maintaining its integrity for legal proceedings.
ISACA CISA Reference: Digital forensics best practices emphasize write-blocking devices to prevent contamination of evidence.
Risk Implication: Without a write blocker, evidence may be tampered with, compromising its admissibility in court.

The most effective method for detecting the presence of an unauthorized wireless access point on an internal network is A. Continuous network monitoring. This is because continuous network monitoring can capture and analyze all the wireless traffic in the network and identify any rogue or spoofed devices that may be connected to the network without authorization. Continuous network monitoring can also alert the system administrator of any suspicious or anomalous activities on the network and help to locate and remove the unauthorized wireless access point quickly.
Periodic network vulnerability assessments (B) can also help to detect unauthorized wireless access points, but they are not as effective as continuous network monitoring, because they are performed at fixed intervals and may miss some devices that are added or removed between the assessments. Review of electronic access logs can provide some information about the devices that access the network, but they may not be able to detect devices that use fake or stolen credentials or devices that do not generate any logs. Physical security reviews (D) can help to prevent unauthorized physical access to the network ports or devices, but they may not be able to detect wireless access points that are hidden or disguised as legitimate devices.