CIC Exam Dumps - CBIC Certified Infection Control Exam

Chlorhexidine soap is a widely used antiseptic agent in healthcare settings for hand hygiene and skin preparation due to its effective antimicrobial properties. The Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) underscores the importance of proper hand hygiene and antiseptic use in the "Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases" domain, aligning with guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Understanding the microbial activity of chlorhexidine is essential for infection preventionists to recommend its appropriate use.

Option D, "Persistent activity with a broad spectrum effect," is the true statement. Chlorhexidine exhibits a broad spectrum of activity, meaning it is effective against a wide range of microorganisms, including gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, some fungi, and certainviruses. Its persistent activity is a key feature, as it binds to the skin and provides a residual antimicrobial effect that continues to inhibit microbial growth for several hours after application. This residual effect is due to chlorhexidine’s ability to adhere to the skin’s outer layers, releasing slowly over time, which enhances its efficacy in preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The CDC’s "Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Settings" (2002) and WHO’s "Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care" (2009) highlight chlorhexidine’s prolonged action as a significant advantage over other agents like alcohol.

Option A, "As fast as alcohol," is incorrect. Alcohol (e.g., 60-70% isopropyl or ethyl alcohol) acts rapidly by denaturing proteins and disrupting microbial cell membranes, providing immediate kill rates within seconds. Chlorhexidine, while effective, has a slower onset of action, requiring contact times of 15-30 seconds or more to achieve optimal microbial reduction. Its strength lies in persistence rather than speed. Option B, "Can be used with any hand lotion," is false. Chlorhexidine’s activity can be diminished or inactivated by certain hand lotions or creams containing anionic compounds (e.g., soaps or moisturizers with high pH), which neutralize its cationic properties. The CDC advises against combining chlorhexidine with incompatible products to maintain its efficacy. Option C, "Poor against gram positive bacteria," is incorrect. Chlorhexidine is highly effective against gram-positive bacteria (e.g., Staphylococcus aureus) and is often more potent against them than against gram-negative bacteria due to differences in cell wall structure, though it still has broad-spectrum activity.

The CBIC Practice Analysis (2022) supports the use of evidence-based antiseptics like chlorhexidine, and its persistent, broad-spectrum activity is well-documented in clinical studies (e.g., Larson, 1988, Journal of Hospital Infection). This makes Option D the most accurate statement regarding chlorhexidine soap’s microbial activity.

In an outbreak investigation,the first critical stepis tonotify facility administrationand other key stakeholders.This ensures the rapid mobilization of resources, coordination with infection control teams, and compliance with regulatory reporting requirements.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect?

A. Conduct environmental cultures– Whileenvironmental sampling may be necessary, it isnot the first step. The outbreak must first be confirmed and administration alerted.

B. Plan to prevent future outbreaks–Prevention planning happens laterafter the outbreak has been investigated and controlled.

D. Perform analytical studies–Data analysis occurs after case definition and initial response measures are in place.

CBIC Infection Control Reference

APIC guidelines state thatthe first step in an outbreak investigation is confirming the outbreak and notifying key stakeholders​.

The correct answer is A, "Type of floor material," as it is the least important operating suite design feature for the prevention of infection compared to the other options. According to the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) guidelines, the design of operating suites plays a critical role in infection prevention, particularly for surgical site infections (SSIs). While the type of floor material (e.g., vinyl, tile, or epoxy) can affect ease of cleaning and durability, its impact on infection prevention is secondary to other design elements that directly influence air quality, hygiene practices, and personnel movement (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.5 - Evaluate the environment for infection risks). Modern flooring materials are generally designed to be non-porous and easily disinfected, mitigating their role as a primary infection risk factor when proper cleaning protocols are followed.

Option B (positive pressure air handling) is highly important because it prevents the influx ofcontaminated air into the operating suite, reducing the risk of airborne pathogens, including those causing SSIs. This is a standard feature in operating rooms to maintain a sterile environment (AORN Guidelines for Perioperative Practice, 2023). Option C (placement of sinks for surgical scrubs) is critical for ensuring that surgical staff can perform effective hand and forearm antisepsis, a key step in preventing SSIs by reducing microbial load before surgery. Option D (control of traffic and traffic flow patterns) is essential to minimize the introduction of contaminants from outside the operating suite, as excessive or uncontrolled movement can increase the risk of airborne and contact transmission (CDC Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Healthcare Facilities, 2019).

The relative unimportance of floor material type stems from the fact that infection prevention relies more on consistent cleaning practices and the aforementioned design features, which directly address pathogen transmission routes. This aligns with CBIC’s focus on evaluating environmental risks based on their direct impact on infection control (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.4 - Implement environmental cleaning and disinfection protocols).

The correct answer is A, "Pregnant persons," as they should be excluded from receiving the live attenuated influenza virus (LAIV) vaccine. According to the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) guidelines, which align with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the LAIV, commonly known as the nasal spray flu vaccine, contains a live attenuated form of the influenza virus. This vaccine is contraindicated in pregnant individuals due to the theoretical risk of the attenuated virus replicating and potentially harming the fetus, despite limited evidence of adverse outcomes (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.2 - Implement measures to prevent transmission of infectious agents). Pregnant persons are instead recommended to receive the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV), which is considered safe during pregnancy.

Option B (healthy persons aged 2 to 49) is incorrect because this group is generally eligible to receive LAIV, provided they have no other contraindications, as the vaccine is approved for healthy, non-pregnant individuals in this age range (CDC Immunization Schedules, 2024). Option C (persons with allergies to chicken feathers) is not a contraindication for LAIV; the vaccine isproduced in eggs, and while egg allergy was historically a concern, current guidelines indicate that LAIV can be administered to persons with egg allergies if they can tolerate egg in their diet, with precautions managed by healthcare providers. Option D (persons simultaneously receiving an inactivated vaccine) is also incorrect, as LAIV can be co-administered with inactivated vaccines without issue, according to ACIP recommendations, as there is no significant interference between the two vaccine types.

The exclusion of pregnant persons reflects CBIC’s emphasis on tailoring infection prevention strategies, including vaccination programs, to protect vulnerable populations while minimizing risks (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.1 - Collaborate with organizational leaders). This decision is based on precautionary principles outlined in CDC and ACIP guidelines to ensure maternal and fetal safety (CDC Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines, 2023).

ThePlan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) modelis awidely used performance improvement tool in infection prevention. It focuses oncontinuous quality improvementthroughplanning, implementing, analyzing data, and making adjustments. This model aligns withinfection control program evaluationsandThe Joint Commission’s infection prevention and control standards.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect?

A. Six Sigma– Adata-driven process improvement methodbut not as commonly used in infection control as PDSA.

B. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)– Used toidentify risks before implementation, rather than ongoing evaluation.

D. Root Cause Analysis (RCA)– Used toanalyze failures after they occur, rather than guiding continuous improvement.

CBIC Infection Control Reference

ThePDSA cycle is a recognized model for evaluating and improving infection control plans​.

The scenario describes an outbreak of Aspergillus infections among three patients on an oncology unit following recent renovations, with the infections suspected to be facility-acquired. Aspergillus is a mold commonly associated with environmental sources, particularly airborne spores, and its presence in immunocompromised patients (e.g., oncology patients) poses a significant risk. The infection preventionist must identify the appropriate environmental microbiological monitoring strategy, guided by the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) and CDC recommendations. Let’s evaluate each option:

A. Air: Aspergillus species are ubiquitous molds that thrive in soil, decaying vegetation, and construction dust, and they are primarily transmitted via airborne spores. Renovations can disturb these spores, leading to aerosolization and inhalation by vulnerable patients. Culturing the air using methods such as settle plates, air samplers, or high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration monitoring is a standard practice to detect Aspergillusduring construction or post-renovation in healthcare settings, especially oncology units where patients are at high risk for invasive aspergillosis. This aligns with CBIC’s emphasis on environmental monitoring for airborne pathogens, making it the most appropriate choice.

B. Ice: Ice can be a source of contamination with bacteria (e.g., Pseudomonas, Legionella) or other pathogens if improperly handled or stored, but it is not a typical reservoir for Aspergillus, which is a mold requiring organic material and moisture for growth. While ice safety is important in infection control, culturing ice is irrelevant to an Aspergillus outbreak linked to renovations and is not a priority in this context.

C. Carpet: Carpets can harbor dust, mold, and other microorganisms, especially in high-traffic or poorly maintained areas. Aspergillus spores could theoretically settle in carpet during renovations, but carpets are not a primary source of airborne transmission unless disturbed (e.g., vacuuming). Culturing carpet might be a secondary step if air sampling indicates widespread contamination, but it is less direct and less commonly recommended as the initial monitoring site compared to air sampling.

D. Aerators: Aerators (e.g., faucet aerators) can harbor waterborne pathogens like Pseudomonas or Legionella due to biofilm formation, but Aspergillus is not typically associated with water systems unless there is significant organic contamination or aerosolization from water sources (e.g., cooling towers). Culturing aerators is relevant for waterborne outbreaks, not for an Aspergillus outbreak linked to renovations, making this option inappropriate.

The best answer is A, culturing the air, as Aspergillus is an airborne pathogen, and renovations are a known risk factor for spore dispersal in healthcare settings. This monitoring strategy allows the infection preventionist to confirm the source, assess the extent of contamination, and implement control measures (e.g., enhanced filtration, construction barriers) to protect patients. This is consistent with CBIC and CDC guidelines for managing fungal outbreaks in high-risk units.

Assessing the effectiveness of an infection control action plan is a critical responsibility of an infection preventionist (IP) to ensure that interventions reduce healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and improve patient safety. The Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) highlights this process within the "Surveillance and Epidemiologic Investigation" and "Performance Improvement" domains, emphasizing the need for ongoing evaluation and data-driven decision-making. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other guidelines stress that the ultimate goal of an action plan is to achieve measurable outcomes, such as reduced infection rates, which requires systematic monitoring and validation.

Option D, "Monitor and validate the related outcome and process measures," is the most important consideration. Outcome measures (e.g., infection rates, morbidity, or mortality) indicate whether the action plan has successfully reduced the targeted infection risk, while process measures (e.g., compliance with hand hygiene or proper catheter insertion techniques) assess whether the implemented actions are being performed correctly. Monitoring involves continuous data collectionand analysis, while validation ensures the data’s accuracy and relevance to the plan’s objectives. The CBIC Practice Analysis (2022) underscores that effective infection control relies on evaluating both outcomes (e.g., decreased central line-associated bloodstream infections) and processes (e.g., adherence to aseptic protocols), making this a dynamic and essential step. The CDC’s "Compendium of Strategies to Prevent HAIs" (2016) further supports this by recommending regular surveillance and feedback as key to assessing intervention success.

Option A, "Re-evaluate the action plan every three years," suggests a periodic review, which is a good practice for long-term planning but is insufficient as the most important consideration. Infection control requires more frequent assessment (e.g., quarterly or annually) to respond to emerging risks or outbreaks, making this less critical than ongoing monitoring. Option B, "Update the plan before the risk assessment is completed," is illogical and counterproductive. Updating a plan without a completed risk assessment lacks evidence-based grounding, undermining the plan’s effectiveness and contradicting the CBIC’s emphasis on data-driven interventions. Option C, "Develop a timeline and assign responsibilities for the stated action," is an important initial step in implementing an action plan, ensuring structure and accountability. However, it is a preparatory activity rather than the most critical factor in assessing effectiveness, which hinges on post-implementation evaluation.

The CBIC Practice Analysis (2022) and CDC guidelines prioritize outcome and process monitoring as the cornerstone of infection control effectiveness, enabling IPs to adjust strategies based on real-time evidence. Thus, Option D represents the most important consideration for assessing an infection control action plan’s success.

The standard way to reportventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) ratesis:

A white paper with black text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect?

A. Ventilator-associated pneumonia rate of 2%– This does not use thecorrect denominator (ventilator days).

C. Postoperative pneumonia rate of 6% in SICU patients–Not relevant, as the data focuses onVAP, not postoperative pneumonia.

D. More information is needed regarding ventilator days per patient–The total ventilator days are already provided, so no additional data is required.

CBIC Infection Control Reference

APIC and NHSN recommend reporting VAP rates as cases per 1,000 ventilator days​.