Free CBIC CIC Practice Exam with Questions & Answers

The Certification Study Guide (6th edition) identifies environmental dispersal of microorganisms as the primary reason healthcare construction and renovation activities increase the risk of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Construction activities such as demolition, drilling, and ceiling penetration disturb dust and building materials that may harbor fungal spores and other microorganisms, particularly Aspergillus species. Once aerosolized, these organisms can spread through airflow to patient care areas if containment and ventilation controls are inadequate.

The study guide emphasizes that immunocompromised patients—such as those in oncology units, transplant units, and intensive care settings—are especially vulnerable to infections caused by airborne fungi released during construction. Numerous outbreaks of invasive aspergillosis have been linked directly to renovation and construction projects that lacked appropriate infection control risk assessment (ICRA) measures.

The incorrect options describe secondary or contributory issues but are not the primary mechanism of infection risk. While increased personnel traffic, hand hygiene training, and waste handling are important considerations, they do not represent the central hazard posed by construction. The fundamental risk is airborne dissemination of microorganisms from disrupted environmental reservoirs.

CIC exam questions frequently test knowledge of construction-related infection risks and the importance of engineering controls such as negative pressure containment, HEPA filtration, and dust barriers. Recognizing environmental dispersal as the primary risk underscores why rigorous planning and infection control oversight are essential during renovation projects.

The correct answer is D, "Clean, sterilize," as this represents the correct order of steps for reprocessing critical medical equipment. According to the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) guidelines, critical medical equipment—items that enter sterile tissues or the vascular system (e.g., surgical instruments, implants)—must undergo a rigorous reprocessing cycle to ensure they are free of all microorganisms, including spores. The process begins with cleaning to remove organic material, debris, and soil, which is essential to allow subsequent sterilization to be effective. Sterilization, the final step, uses methods such as steam, ethylene oxide, or hydrogen peroxide gas to achieve a sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10⁻⁶, eliminating all microbial life (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.3 - Ensure safe reprocessing of medical equipment). Disinfection, while important for semi-critical devices, is not a step in the reprocessing of critical items, as it does not achieve the sterility required; it is a separate process for non-critical or semi-critical equipment.

Option A (clean, sterilize, disinfect) is incorrect because disinfecting after sterilization is unnecessary and redundant, as sterilization already achieves a higher level of microbial kill. Option B (disinfect, clean, sterilize) reverses the logical sequence; cleaning must precede any disinfection or sterilization to remove bioburden, and disinfection is not appropriate for critical items. Option C (disinfect, sterilize) omits cleaning and incorrectly prioritizes disinfection, which is insufficient for critical equipment requiring full sterility.

The focus on cleaning followed by sterilization aligns with CBIC’s emphasis on evidence-based reprocessing protocols to prevent healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), ensuring that critical equipment is safe for patient use (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.4 - Implement environmental cleaning and disinfection protocols). This sequence is supported by standards such as AAMI ST79, which outlines the mandatory cleaning step before sterilization to ensure efficacy and safety.

Mycobacteria, including species such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium leprae, are a group of bacteria known for their unique cell wall composition, which contains a high amount of lipid-rich mycolic acids. This characteristic makes them resistant to conventional staining methods and necessitates the use of specialized techniques for identification. The acid-fast stain is the standard method for identifying mycobacteria in clinical and laboratory settings. This staining technique, developed by Ziehl-Neelsen, involves the use of carbol fuchsin, which penetrates the lipid-rich cell wall of mycobacteria. After staining, the sample is treated with acid-alcohol, which decolorizes non-acid-fast organisms, while mycobacteria retain the red color due to their resistance to decolorization—hence the term "acid-fast." This property allows infection preventionists and microbiologists to distinguish mycobacteria from other bacteria under a microscope.

Option B, the Gram stain, is a common differential staining technique used to classify most bacteria into Gram-positive or Gram-negative based on the structure of their cell walls. However, mycobacteria do not stain reliably with the Gram method due to their thick, waxy cell walls, rendering it ineffective for their identification. Option C, methylene blue, is a simple stain used to observe bacterial morphology or as a counterstain in other techniques (e.g., Gram staining), but it lacks the specificity to identify mycobacteria. Option D, India ink, is used primarily to detect encapsulated organisms such as Cryptococcus neoformans by creating a negative staining effect around the capsule, and it is not suitable for mycobacteria.

The CBIC’s "Identification of Infectious Disease Processes" domain underscores the importance of accurate diagnostic methods in infection control, including the use of appropriate staining techniques to identify pathogens like mycobacteria. The acid-fast stain is specifically recommended by the CDC and WHO for the initial detection of mycobacterial infections, such as tuberculosis, in clinical specimens (CDC, Laboratory Identification of Mycobacteria, 2008). This aligns with the CBIC Practice Analysis (2022), which emphasizes the role of laboratory diagnostics in supporting infection prevention strategies.

The infection preventionist’s (IP) best conclusion, based on the provided evidence, is that the evidence at this time fails to support the nurse's claim of acquiring hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection through occupational exposure. This conclusion is grounded in the clinical and epidemiological understanding of HAV, as aligned with the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) guidelines. Hepatitis A typically has an incubation period ranging from 15 to 50 days, with an average of approximately 28-30 days, following exposure to the virus (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain I: Identification of Infectious Disease Processes, Competency 1.3 - Apply principles of epidemiology). The reported 5-day interval between exposure and symptom onset in the nurse is significantly shorter than the expected incubation period, making it inconsistent with HAV transmission. Additionally, the presence of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies in the source patient indicates past exposure or immunity to HAV, rather than an active or recent infection, which would typically be associated with immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies during the acute phase.

Option A (the nurse should be given hepatitis A virus immunoglobulin) is not supported because post-exposure prophylaxis with HAV immunoglobulin is recommended only within 14 days of exposure to a confirmed case with active infection, and the evidence here does not confirm a recent exposure or active case. Option C (the patient has serologic evidence of recent hepatitis A viral infection) is incorrect because IgG antibodies signify past infection or immunity, not a recent infection, which would require IgM antibodies. Option D (the 5-day incubation period is consistent with hepatitis A virus transmission) is inaccurate due to the mismatch with the known incubation period of HAV.

The IP’s role includes critically evaluating epidemiological data to determine the likelihood of transmission events. The discrepancy in the incubation period and the serologic status of the patient suggest that the nurse’s claim may not be substantiated by the current evidence, necessitating further investigation rather than immediate intervention or acceptance of the claim. This aligns with CBIC’s emphasis on accurate identification and investigation of infectious disease processes (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain I: Identification of Infectious Disease Processes, Competency 1.2 - Investigate suspected outbreaks or exposures).

Reviewing compliance with VAP prevention bundles (e.g., head-of-bed elevation, oral care, sedation breaks) is the first step in outbreak control​.

Preemptive antibiotics (B) are not recommended due to antibiotic resistance risks.

Negative pressure rooms (C) are not required for VAP.

Ventilator circuit cultures (D) do not guide patient management.

CBIC Infection Control References:

APIC Text, "VAP Prevention Measures," Chapter 11​.

A comprehensive annual risk assessment should focus on facility-specific factors, including patient population, infection trends, and operational risks.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect?

A. System strategic goals and objectives – While important, goals should align with facility-specific infection risks.

B. Cost savings attributed to infection control – Cost considerations are secondary to risk assessment.

D. Statewide communicable disease and HAI data – Broader epidemiological data is useful but should complement, not replace, facility-specific data.

CBIC Infection Control Reference

APIC emphasizes that facility-specific infection data is essential for an effective risk assessment​.

Maintaining hot water at 140°F (60°C) prevents Legionella growth and is the most effective control strategy​.

Flushing water (A) alone is not sufficient.

Carbon filters (C) do not remove Legionella.

Routine testing (D) is not always necessary unless an outbreak occurs.

CBIC Infection Control References:

APIC Text, "Waterborne Pathogens and Infection Control," Chapter 9​.

The Certification Study Guide (6th edition) emphasizes that an outbreak should be suspected when there is an unexpected clustering of infections by time, place, and person, particularly when cases share a common exposure or procedure. Option D meets all key criteria for outbreak suspicion: the same organism (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), the same location (cardiac ICU), a common procedure (cardiac surgery), and a tight time frame (same week). This constellation strongly suggests possible transmission related to surgical practices, postoperative care, or shared equipment.

The other scenarios reflect situations that do not necessarily indicate an outbreak. Routine environmental cultures are not recommended for outbreak detection and often do not correlate with patient infection risk. An apparent increase in ventilator-associated pneumonia following implementation of a new case definition is likely due to surveillance artifact, not true transmission. Similarly, increases in carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae after adoption of new laboratory breakpoints reflect diagnostic changes, not an epidemiologic event.

The study guide stresses the importance of distinguishing true outbreaks from pseudo-outbreaks caused by changes in definitions, testing methods, or surveillance intensity. CIC exam questions frequently test this concept. Recognizing a true outbreak requires linking cases through epidemiologic characteristics—not simply increases in numbers.

Prompt recognition of true outbreaks enables timely investigation, implementation of control measures, and prevention of further transmission.

For Sarcoptes scabiei (scabies), Contact Precautions should remain in place until 24 hours after effective treatment has been completed. The first-line treatment is 5% permethrin cream, which is applied to the entire body and left on for 8–14 hours before being washed off.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect?

A. When the treatment cream is applied – The mite is still present and infectious until treatment has fully taken effect.

B. When the bed linen is changed – While changing linens is necessary, it does not indicate that the infestation has cleared.

D. 24 hours after the second treatment – Most cases require only one treatment with permethrin, though severe cases may need a second dose after a week.

CBIC Infection Control Reference

According to APIC guidelines, Contact Precautions can be discontinued 24 hours after effective treatment has been administered​.

The Certification Study Guide (6th edition) emphasizes that educational objectives must be written using measurable, observable action verbs that clearly define learner outcomes. This principle is grounded in adult learning theory and Bloom’s taxonomy, both of which are highlighted in the education and communication sections of the guide. Effective objectives allow educators to evaluate whether learning has occurred by observing or assessing learner performance.

The verb “know” is considered inappropriate because it is vague and not measurable. It does not specify how the learner will demonstrate knowledge, making it impossible to objectively assess whether the objective has been achieved. For this reason, “know” is frequently cited in the study guide as an example of a poorly written objective verb.

In contrast, verbs such as define, compare, and explain are acceptable because they describe specific actions the learner can perform. These verbs allow the instructor to evaluate learning through verbal responses, written assessments, or demonstrations. The study guide stresses that well-written objectives should answer the question: What will the learner be able to do at the end of the session?

This concept is commonly tested on the CIC exam because infection preventionists are expected to design and deliver education effectively. Clear, measurable objectives support competency-based education, documentation of learning outcomes, and program evaluation—all essential components of a successful infection prevention program.