CBIC CIC - CBIC Certified Infection Control Exam

Multi-drug resistant (MDR) Klebsiella pneumoniae in a high-risk area like the ICU requires urgent investigationbecause:

It spreads rapidly via contaminated hands or equipment.

It poses a serious risk to immunocompromised patients.

An outbreak could lead to severe hospital-acquired infections (HAIs).

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect?

A. One blood isolate of Streptococcus agalactiae in the nursery–Single cases are not indicative of an outbreak.

B. Two isolates of Staphylococcus aureus in postoperative surgical sites–Common post-surgical pathogen; requires monitoring but not immediate outbreak investigation.

D. Two blood isolates of coagulase-negative staphylococci in the oncology unit–Common contaminants in blood culturesandnot immediately alarming.

CBIC Infection Control Reference

APIC guidelines prioritizeinvestigating MDR pathogens in high-risk units, such as ICU, to prevent transmission​.

The scenario involves an infection preventionist (IP) assisting pharmacists in addressing medication contamination at the hospital’s compounding pharmacy, with a focus on the medication recall process. The IP’s role is to apply infection control expertise to mitigate risks, guided by the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) principles and best practices. The recall process requires a systematic approach to identify, contain, and resolve the issue, and the “first” or most critical step must be determined. Let’s evaluate each option:

A. Have laboratory culture all medication: Culturing all medication to confirm contamination is a valuable step to identify affected batches and guide the recall. However, this is a resource-intensive process that depends on first understanding the scope and source of the problem. Without identifying the potential source of contamination, culturing all medication could be inefficient and delay the recall. This step is important but secondary to initial investigation.

B. Inspect for safe injection practices: Inspecting for safe injection practices (e.g., single-use vials, proper hand hygiene, sterile technique) is a critical infection control measure, especially in compounding pharmacies where contamination often arises from procedural errors (e.g., reuse of syringes, improper cleaning). While this is a proactive step to preventfuture contamination, it addresses ongoing practices rather than the immediate recall process for the current contamination event. It is a complementary action but not the first priority.

C. Identify the potential source of contamination: Identifying the potential source of contamination is the foundational step in the recall process. This involves investigating the compounding environment (e.g., water quality, equipment, personnel practices), raw materials, and production processes to pinpoint where the contamination occurred (e.g., bacterial ingress, cross-contamination). The CBIC emphasizes root cause analysis as a key infection prevention strategy, enabling targeted recalls, corrective actions, and prevention of recurrence. This step is essential before culturing, inspecting, or notifying patients, making it the IP’s primary responsibility in this context.

D. Inform all discharged patients of potential medication contamination: Notifying patients is a critical step to ensure public safety and allow for medical follow-up if they received contaminated medication. However, this action requires prior identification of the contaminated batches and their distribution, which depends on determining the source and confirming the extent of the issue. Premature notification without evidence could cause unnecessary alarm and is not the first step in the recall process.

The best answer is C, as identifying the potential source of contamination is the initial and most critical step in the medication recall process. This allows the IP to collaborate with pharmacists to trace the contamination, define the affected products, and guide subsequent actions (e.g., culturing, inspections, notifications). This aligns with CBIC’s focus on systematic investigation and risk mitigation in healthcare-associated infection events.

The correct answer is B, "Fishbone diagram," as this is the most appropriate quality tool for the team to use when determining what has contributed to the recent increase in catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs). According to the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) guidelines, the fishbone diagram, also known as an Ishikawa or cause-and-effect diagram, is a structured tool used to identify and categorize potential causes of a problem. In this case, the team needs to explore the root causes of the CAUTI increase, which could include factors such as improper catheter insertion techniques, inadequate maintenance, staff training gaps, or environmental issues (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain II: Surveillance and Epidemiologic Investigation, Competency 2.2 - Analyze surveillance data). The fishbone diagram organizes these causes into categories (e.g., people, process, equipment, environment), facilitating a comprehensive analysis and guiding further investigation or intervention.

Option A (gap analysis) is useful for comparing current performance against a desired standard or benchmark, but it is more suited for identifying deficiencies in existing processes rather thanuncovering the specific causes of a recent increase. Option C (plan, do, study, act [PDSA]) is a cyclical quality improvement methodology for testing and implementing changes, which would be relevant after identifying causes and designing interventions, not as the initial tool for root cause analysis. Option D (failure mode and effect analysis [FMEA]) is a proactive risk assessment tool used to predict and mitigate potential failures in a process before they occur, making it less applicable to analyzing an existing increase in CAUTIs.

The use of a fishbone diagram aligns with CBIC’s emphasis on using data-driven tools to investigate and address healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) like CAUTIs, supporting the team’s goal of pinpointing contributory factors (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain II: Surveillance and Epidemiologic Investigation, Competency 2.3 - Identify risk factors for healthcare-associated infections). This tool’s visual and collaborative nature also fosters team engagement, which is essential for effective problem-solving in infection prevention.

Pregnant healthcare workerswho are not immune to varicella (chickenpox)are atincreased risk for severe complicationsif infected. These employees should be excluded from areas like pediatrics where exposure risk is elevated.

TheAPIC Textspecifies:

“Healthcare personnel who are not immune to varicella should avoid exposure to patients with active disease. In high-risk areas such as pediatrics, nonimmune pregnant employees should be reassigned”.

TheCIC Study Guidealso supports work exclusion or reassignment of nonimmune pregnant staff who have had exposure to varicella or are at risk.

Explanation of incorrect options:

A. Pregnant employees rarely require reassignment– False; reassignment is required in specific high-risk scenarios.

B. Hepatitis B surface antibody positivitymeans the employee is immune and can care for HBV patients.

C. Broad exclusion from all infected patientsis unnecessary and impractical.

Theoptimal specimen for identifying the etiologic agentin a prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is ajoint aspirate(synovial fluid). This is because:

It provides direct access to the infected sitewithout contamination from external sources.

It allows for accurate microbiologic culture, Gram stain, and leukocyte count analysis.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect?

A. Blood– Blood cultures may help detecthematogenous spreadbut are not the best sample for identifyinglocalizedprosthetic joint infections.

B. Wound drainage– Wound cultures oftencontain contaminantsfrom surrounding skin flora and do not accurately reflect joint space infection.

D. Sinus tract tissue– Cultures from sinus tracts often representcolonization rather than the primary infecting organism.

CBIC Infection Control Reference

APIC guidelines confirm thatjoint aspirate is the most reliable specimen for diagnosing prosthetic joint infections​.

The correct answer is D, "Cost benefit analysis and safety considerations," as this provides the best information to support the selection of a new catheter aimed at decreasing the rate of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs). According to the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) guidelines, selecting medical devices like catheters for infection prevention involves a comprehensive evaluation that balances efficacy, safety, and economic impact. A cost-benefit analysis assesses the financial implications (e.g., reduced infection rates leading to lower treatment costs) against the cost of the new catheter, while safety considerations ensure the device minimizes patient risk, such as reducing biofilm formation or irritation that contributes to CAUTIs (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.3 - Ensure safe reprocessing of medical equipment). This dual focus provides evidence-based data to justify the catheter’s adoption, aligning with the goal of improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs).

Option A (staff member preference and product availability) is subjective and logistical rather than evidence-based, making it insufficient for a decision that impacts infection rates. Option B (product materials and vendor information) offers technical details but lacks the broader context of efficacy and cost-effectiveness needed for a comprehensive evaluation. Option C (value analysis and information provided by the manufacturer) includes a structured assessment of value, but it may be biased toward the manufacturer’s claims and lacks the independent safety and cost-benefit perspective critical for infection prevention decisions.

The emphasis on cost-benefit analysis and safety considerations reflects CBIC’s priority on using data-driven and patient-centered approaches to select interventions that enhance infection control (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain II: Surveillance and Epidemiologic Investigation, Competency 2.5 - Use data to guide infection prevention and control strategies). This approach ensures the catheter’s selection is supported by robust evidence, optimizing both clinical and economic outcomes in the prevention of CAUTIs.

A patient withactive shingles (herpes zoster)is contagious to individuals who havenever had varicella (chickenpox) or the varicella vaccine.The best roommate selectionis someone who has received thevaricella vaccine, as they are consideredimmune and not at riskfor contracting the virus.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect?

B. Treatment with acyclovir– Acyclovirtreatsherpes zoster but does notprevent transmissionto others.

C. A history of herpes simplex– Priorherpes simplex virus (HSV) infection does not confer immunity to varicella-zoster virus (VZV).

D. Varicella zoster immunoglobulin (VZIG)–VZIG provides temporary immunitybut does not offerlong-term protectionlike the vaccine.

CBIC Infection Control Reference

APIC guidelines recommendplacing patients with active shingles in a room with individuals immune to varicella, such as those vaccinated​.

The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Hepatitis B virus (HBV) are both bloodborne pathogens that pose significant risks in healthcare settings, and understanding their similarities is crucial for infection prevention and control. The Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) emphasizes the importance of recognizing transmission modes and implementing appropriate precautions in the "Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases" domain, aligning with guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Comparing these viruses involves evaluating their epidemiology, transmission routes, and occupational risks.

Option C, "Transmission may occur from asymptomatic carriers," is the correct answer. Both HIV and HBV can be transmitted by individuals who are infected but show no symptoms, making asymptomatic carriage a significant similarity. For HBV, chronic carriers (estimated at 257 million globally per WHO, 2019) can transmit the virus through blood, semen, or other bodily fluids without overt signs of disease. Similarly, HIV-infected individuals can remain asymptomatic for years during the latent phase, yet still transmit the virus through sexual contact, blood exposure, or perinatal transmission. The CDC’s "Guidelines for Prevention of Transmission of HIV and HBV to Healthcare Workers" (1987, updated 2011) and "Epidemiology and Prevention of Viral Hepatitis" (2018) highlight this shared characteristic, underscoring the need for universal precautions regardless of symptom status.

Option A, "The primary mechanism of transmission for both is maternal-fetal," is incorrect. While maternal-fetal transmission (perinatal transmission) is a significant route for both HIV and HBV—occurring in 5-10% of cases without intervention for HBV and 15-45% for HIV without antiretroviral therapy—it is not the primary mechanism. For HBV, the primary mode is horizontal transmission through unprotected sexual contact or percutaneous exposure (e.g., needlesticks), accounting for the majority of cases. For HIV, sexual transmission and intravenous drug use are the leading modes globally, with maternal-fetal transmission being a smaller proportion despite its importance. Option B, "Needlestick exposure leads to a high frequency of healthcare workerinfection," is partially true but not a precise similarity. Needlestick exposures carry a high risk for HBV (transmission risk ~30% if the source is HBeAg-positive) and a lower risk for HIV (~0.3%), but the frequency of infection among healthcare workers is significantly higher for HBV due to its greater infectivity and stability outside the host. This makes the statement more characteristic of HBV than a shared trait. Option D, "The risk of infection from mucous membrane exposure is the same," is false. The risk of HIV transmission via mucous membrane exposure (e.g., splash to eyes or mouth) is approximately 0.09%, while for HBV it is higher (up to 1-2% depending on viral load and exposure type), reflecting HBV’s greater infectivity.

The CBIC Practice Analysis (2022) and CDC guidelines emphasize the role of asymptomatic transmission in shaping infection control strategies, such as routine testing and post-exposure prophylaxis. This shared feature of HIV and HBV justifies Option C as the most accurate similarity.

The correct answer is B, "Demonstrate the appropriate sterilization procedure," as this method of evaluation will best identify a staff member’s competency with reprocessing medical devices. According to the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) guidelines, competency in reprocessing medical devices—such as cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization—requires not only theoretical knowledge but also the practical ability to perform the tasks correctly and safely. Demonstration allows the infection preventionist (IP) to directly observe the staff member’s hands-on skills, adherence to protocols (e.g., AAMI ST79), and ability to handle equipment, ensuring that the reprocessing process effectively prevents healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain IV: Education and Research, Competency 4.3 - Assess competence of healthcare personnel). This method provides tangible evidence of proficiency, as it tests the application of knowledge in a real or simulated setting, which is critical for ensuring patient safety.

Option A (verbalize the importance of reprocessing) assesses understanding and awareness, but it is a theoretical exercise that does not confirm the ability to perform the task, making it insufficient for evaluating competency. Option C (describe the facility’s sterilization policies and procedures) tests knowledge of guidelines, which is a component of competence but lacks the practical demonstration needed to verify skill execution. Option D (obtain a score of 100% on a post-test following a reprocessing course) measures theoretical knowledge and retention, but a perfect score does not guarantee practical ability, as it does not assess hands-on performance or problem-solving under real conditions.

The focus on demonstration aligns with CBIC’s emphasis on assessing competence through observable performance, ensuring that staff can reliably reprocess devices to maintain a sterile environment (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.3 - Ensure safe reprocessing of medical equipment). This method supports a comprehensive evaluation, aligning with best practices for training and competency assessment in healthcare settings.

The selection of an appropriate antiseptic for the insertion of an intravascular device (e.g., peripheral or central venous catheters) is a critical infection prevention measure to reduce the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs). The Certification Board of Infection Control andEpidemiology (CBIC) emphasizes evidence-based practices in the "Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases" domain, which includes adhering to guidelines for aseptic technique during invasive procedures. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides specific recommendations for skin antisepsis, as outlined in the "Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections" (2017).

Option A, chlorhexidine, is the preferred antiseptic for skin preparation prior to intravascular device insertion in adults with no contraindications. Chlorhexidine, particularly in a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) with 70% isopropyl alcohol solution, is recommended by the CDC due to its broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity, residual effect (which continues to kill bacteria after application), and superior efficacy compared to other agents in reducing CRBSI rates. Studies cited in the CDC guidelines demonstrate that chlorhexidine-based preparations significantly lower infection rates compared to povidone-iodine or alcohol alone, making it the gold standard for this procedure when tolerated by the patient.

Option B, povidone-iodine, is an alternative antiseptic that can be used for skin preparation. It is effective against a wide range of microorganisms and is often used when chlorhexidine is contraindicated (e.g., in patients with chlorhexidine allergy). However, its efficacy is less persistent than chlorhexidine, and it requires longer drying time, which can be a limitation in busy clinical settings. The CDC considers povidone-iodine a second-line option unless chlorhexidine is unavailable or unsuitable. Option C, alcohol (e.g., 70% isopropyl or ethyl alcohol), has rapid bactericidal activity but lacks a residual effect, making it less effective for prolonged protection during catheter dwell time. It is often used as a component of chlorhexidine-alcohol combinations but is not recommended as a standalone antiseptic for intravascular device insertion. Option D, antibiotic ointment, is not appropriate for skin preparation during insertion. Antibiotic ointments (e.g., bacitracin or mupirocin) are sometimes applied to catheter sites post-insertion to prevent infection, but their use is discouraged by the CDC due to the risk of promoting antibiotic resistance and fungal infections, and they are not classified as antiseptics for initial skin antisepsis.

The CBIC Practice Analysis (2022) supports the adoption of CDC-recommended practices, and the 2017 CDC guidelines explicitly state that chlorhexidine-based preparations with alcohol should be used for skin antisepsis unless contraindicated. For a patient with no contraindications, the infection preventionist should suggest chlorhexidine to optimize patient safety and align with best practices.