Free CBIC CIC Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 3

Standard Precautions are sufficient for congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV), which means that gloves should be used when handling body fluids. CMV is primarily transmitted via direct contact with saliva, urine, or blood.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect?

A. Wear masks and gloves – Masks are not necessary unless performing high-risk aerosol-generating procedures.

C. No barrier precautions are needed – Gloves are required when handling bodily fluids to prevent transmission.

D. Use gowns, masks, gloves, and a private room – CMV does not require Contact or Airborne Precautions.

CBIC Infection Control Reference

APIC guidelines state that CMV transmission is prevented using Standard Precautions, primarily with glove use for body fluid contact​.

There is no strong evidence that isolating infected cases in a separate surgical suite reduces SSI risk.

Step-by-Step Justification:

SSI Prevention Strategies Supported by Evidence:

Preoperative hospital stay limitation reduces exposure to hospital-acquired pathogens​.

Antimicrobial preoperative scrubs lower bacterial load on the skin​.

Adequate nutrition improves immune function and wound healing​.

Why Designating a Separate Surgical Suite Is Not Effective:

Operating room environmental controls (e.g., laminar airflow, sterilization protocols) are more important than suite designation.

No significant reduction in SSIs has been observed by segregating infected cases into specific OR suites​.

Why Other Options Are Correct:

A. Limiting preoperative hospital stay: Reduces nosocomial bacterial exposure.

B. Antimicrobial preoperative scrub: Decreases skin flora contamination.

C. Assuring adequate patient nutrition: Enhances immune defense against infections.

CBIC Infection Control References:

APIC Text, "Surgical Site Infection Prevention Strategies"​.

The correct answer is A, "Pertussis," as healthcare personnel should suspect this condition based on the presented symptoms and the patient’s incomplete vaccination history. According to the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) guidelines, pertussis, caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis, is characterized by an initial phase of mild respiratory symptoms (e.g., runny nose, low-grade fever) followed by a distinctive uncontrollable, rapid, and violent cough, often described as a "whooping" cough. This presentation is particularly concerning in adults with incomplete vaccination histories, as the pertussis vaccine’s immunity (e.g., DTaP or Tdap) wanes over time, increasing susceptibility (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain I: Identification of Infectious Disease Processes, Competency 1.1 - Identify infectious disease processes). Pertussis is highly contagious and poses a significant risk in healthcare settings, necessitating prompt suspicion and isolation to prevent transmission.

Option B (rhinovirus) typically causes the common cold with symptoms like runny nose, sore throat, and mild cough, but it lacks the violent, paroxysmal cough characteristic of pertussis. Option C (bronchitis) may involve cough and fever, often due to viral or bacterial infection, but it is not typically associated with the rapid and violent cough pattern or linked to vaccination status in the same way as pertussis. Option D (adenovirus) can cause respiratory symptoms, including cough and fever, but it is more commonly associated with conjunctivitis or pharyngitis and does not feature the hallmark violent cough of pertussis.

The suspicion of pertussis aligns with CBIC’s emphasis on recognizing infectious disease patterns to initiate timely infection control measures, such as droplet precautions and prophylaxis for exposed individuals (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.2 - Implement measures to prevent transmission of infectious agents). Early identification is critical, especially in healthcare settings, to protect vulnerable patients and staff, and the incomplete vaccination history supports this differential diagnosis given pertussis’s vaccine-preventable nature (CDC Pink Book: Pertussis, 2021).

References: CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain I: Identification of Infectious Disease Processes, Competency 1.1 - Identify infectious disease processes; Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.2 - Implement measures to prevent transmission of infectious agents. CDC Pink Book: Pertussis, 2021.

The correct answer is D, "staff education related to loaner instrument reprocessing has occurred," as this is the infection prevention process that should be ensured when a surgeon is beginning a new procedure requiring loaner instruments within the next two weeks. According to the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) guidelines, loaner instruments—those borrowed from external sources for temporary use—pose unique infection prevention challenges due to potential variability in reprocessing standards and unfamiliarity among staff. Ensuring that staff are educated on proper reprocessing protocols (e.g., cleaning, sterilization, and handling per manufacturer instructions and AAMI ST79) is critical to prevent healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.3 - Ensure safe reprocessing of medical equipment). This education should cover the specific requirements for loaner instruments, including documentation and verification of sterilization, and should occur proactively before the instruments are used to ensure competency and compliance.

Option A (items arrive in time for immediate use steam sterilization) is a logistical consideration, but it does not address the infection prevention process itself; timely arrival is necessary but insufficient without proper reprocessing validation. Option B (instruments are able to be used prior to the biological indicator results) is unsafe, as biological indicators are essential to confirm sterilization efficacy, and using instruments before results are available violates infection control standards. Option C (the planning process takes place after the instruments have arrived) is impractical, as planning (e.g., coordinating with vendors, assessing reprocessing needs) must occur in advance to ensure readiness and safety, not as a reactive step.

The focus on staff education aligns with CBIC’s emphasis on preparing healthcare personnel to handle loaner instruments safely, reducing the risk of contamination and ensuring patient safety (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain IV: Education and Research, Competency 4.1 - Develop and implement educational programs). This proactive measure is supported by AAMI and CDC guidelines, which stress the importance of training for reprocessing complex or unfamiliar devices.

References: CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.3 - Ensure safe reprocessing of medical equipment; Domain IV: Education and Research, Competency 4.1 - Develop and implement educational programs. AAMI ST79:2017, Comprehensive guide to steam sterilization and sterility assurance in health care facilities.

Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-associated bloodstream infections (BSIs) are a significant concern in healthcare settings, and identifying factors contributing to their increase is critical for infection prevention. The Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) emphasizes the "Surveillance and Epidemiologic Investigation" and "Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases" domains, which align with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for preventing intravascular catheter-related infections. The question asks for the intervention most likely to have contributed to the rise in PICC-associated BSIs over four months, requiring an evaluation of each option based on evidence-based practices.

Option C, "Replacement of the intravenous administration sets every 72 hours," is the most likely contributor to the increase. The CDC’s "Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections" (2017) recommend that intravenous administration sets (e.g., tubing for fluids or medications) be replaced no more frequently than every 72-96 hours unless clinically indicated (e.g., contamination or specific therapy requirements). Frequent replacement, such as every 72 hours as a routine practice, can introduce opportunities for contamination during the change process, especially if aseptic technique is not strictly followed. Studies cited in the CDC guidelines, including those by O’Grady et al. (2011), indicate that unnecessary manipulation of catheter systems increases the risk of introducing pathogens, potentially leading to BSIs. A change to a 72-hour replacement schedule, if not previously standard, could explain the observed increase over the past four months.

Option A, "Use of chlorhexidine skin antisepsis during insertion of the PICC," is a recommended practice to reduce BSIs. Chlorhexidine, particularly in a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate with 70% alcohol solution, is the preferred skin antiseptic for catheter insertion due to its broad-spectrum activity and residual effect, as supported by the CDC (2017). This intervention should decrease, not increase, infection rates, making it an unlikely contributor. Option B, "Daily bathing adult intensive care unit patients with chlorhexidine," is another evidence-based strategy to reduce healthcare-associated infections, including BSIs, by decolonizing the skin of pathogens like Staphylococcus aureus. The CDC and SHEA (Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America) guidelines (2014) endorse chlorhexidine bathing in intensive care units, suggesting it should lower, not raise, BSI rates. Option D, "Use of a positive pressure device on the PICC," aims to prevent catheter occlusion and reduce the need for frequent flushing, which could theoretically decrease infection risk by minimizing manipulation. However, there is no strong evidence linking positive pressure devices to increased BSIs; if improperly used or maintained, they might contribute marginally, but this is less likely than the impact of frequent tubing changes.

The CBIC Practice Analysis (2022) and CDC guidelines highlight that deviations from optimal catheter maintenance practices, such as overly frequent administration set replacements, can increase infection risk. Given the four-month timeframe and the focus on an intervention’s potential negative impact, Option C stands out as the most plausible contributor due to the increased manipulation and contamination risk associated with routine 72-hour replacements.

References:

CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022.

CDC Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections, 2017.

O’Grady, N. P., et al. (2011). Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections. Clinical Infectious Diseases.

SHEA Compendium, Strategies to Prevent Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections, 2014.

To determine the best study design for providing evidence of a direct causal relationship between an experimental factor and an outcome, it is essential to understand the strengths and limitations of each study design listed. The goal is to identify a design that minimizes bias, controls for confounding variables, and establishes a clear cause-and-effect relationship.

A. A case report: A case report is a detailed description of a single patient or a small group of patients with a particular condition or outcome, often including the experimental factor of interest. While case reports can generate hypotheses and highlight rare occurrences, they lack a control group and are highly susceptible to bias. They do not provide evidence of causality because they are observational and anecdotal in nature. This makes them the weakest design for establishing a direct causal relationship.

B. A descriptive study: Descriptive studies, such as cross-sectional or cohort studies, describe the characteristics or outcomes of a population without manipulating variables. These studies can identify associations between an experimental factor and an outcome, but they do not establish causality due to the absence of randomization or control over confounding variables. For example, a descriptive study might show that a certain infection rate is higher in a group exposed to a specific factor, but it cannot prove the factor caused the infection without further evidence.

C. A case control study: A case control study compares individuals with a specific outcome (cases) to those without (controls) to identify factors that may contribute to the outcome. This retrospective design is useful for studying rare diseases or outcomes and can suggest associations. However, it is prone to recall bias and confounding, and it cannot definitively prove causation because the exposure is not controlled or randomized. It is stronger than case reports or descriptive studies but still falls short of establishing direct causality.

D. A randomized-controlled trial (RCT): An RCT is considered the gold standard for establishing causality in medical and scientific research. In an RCT, participants are randomly assigned to either an experimental group (exposed to the factor) or a control group (not exposed or given a placebo). Randomization minimizes selection bias and confounding variables, while the controlled environment allows researchers to isolate the effect of the experimental factor on the outcome. The ability to compare outcomes between groups under controlled conditions provides the strongest evidence of a direct causal relationship. This aligns with the principles of evidence-based practice, which the CBIC (Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology) emphasizes for infection prevention and control strategies.

Based on this analysis, the randomized-controlled trial (D) is the study design that provides the best evidence of a direct causal relationship. This conclusion is consistent with the CBIC's focus on high-quality evidence to inform infection control practices, as RCTs are prioritized in the hierarchy of evidence for establishing cause-and-effect relationships.

References:

CBIC Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Core Competency Model (updated guidelines, 2023), which emphasizes the use of high-quality evidence, including RCTs, for validating infection control interventions.

CBIC Examination Content Outline, Domain I: Identification of Infectious Disease Processes, which underscores the importance of evidence-based study designs in infection control research.

To determine which water type is suitable for drinking yet may still pose a risk for disease transmission, we need to evaluate each option based on its definition, treatment process, and potential for contamination, aligning with infection control principles as outlined by the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC).

A. Purified water: Purified water undergoes a rigorous treatment process (e.g., reverse osmosis, distillation, or deionization) to remove impurities, contaminants, and microorganisms. This results in water that is generally safe for drinking and has a very low risk of disease transmission when properly handled and stored. However, if the purification process is compromised or if contamination occurs post-purification (e.g., due to improper storage or distribution), there could be a theoretical risk. Nonetheless, purified water is not typically considered a primary source of disease transmission under standard conditions.

B. Grey water: Grey water refers to wastewater generated from domestic activities such as washing dishes, laundry, or bathing, which may contain soap, food particles, and small amounts of organic matter. It is not suitable for drinking due to its potential contamination with pathogens (e.g., bacteria, viruses) and chemicals. Grey water is explicitly excluded from potable water standards and poses a significant risk for disease transmission, making it an unsuitable choice for this question.

C. Potable water: Potable water is water that meets regulatory standards for human consumption, as defined by organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is treated to remove harmful pathogens and contaminants, making it safe for drinking under normal circumstances. However, despite treatment, potable water can still pose a risk for disease transmission if the distribution system is contaminated (e.g., through biofilms, cross-connections, or inadequate maintenance of pipes). Outbreaks of waterborne diseases like Legionnaires' disease or gastrointestinal infections have been linked to potable water systems, especially in healthcare settings. This makes potable water the best answer, as it is suitable for drinking yet can still carry a risk under certain conditions.

D. Distilled water: Distilled water is produced by boiling water and condensing the steam, which removes most impurities, minerals, and microorganisms. It is highly pure and safe for drinking, often used in medical and laboratory settings. Similar to purified water, the risk of disease transmission is extremely low unless contamination occurs after distillation due to improper handling or storage. Like purified water, it is not typically associated with disease transmission risks in standard use.

The key to this question lies in identifying a water type that is both suitable for drinking and has a documented potential for disease transmission. Potable water fits this criterion because, while it is intended for consumption and meets safety standards, it can still be a vector for disease if the water supply or distribution system is compromised. This is particularly relevant in infection control, where maintaining water safety in healthcare facilities is a critical concern addressed by CBIC guidelines.

References:

CBIC Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Core Competency Model (updated 2023), Domain III: Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases, which highlights the importance of water safety and the risks of contamination in potable water systems.

CBIC Examination Content Outline, Domain IV: Environment of Care, which includes managing waterborne pathogens (e.g., Legionella) in potable water supplies.

When an infection preventionist (IP) identifies an increase in primary bloodstream infections (BSIs) associated with peripheral intravenous (IV) catheter insertion, the initial step in outbreak investigation and process improvement is to stratify the data to identify potential sources or patterns of infection. According to the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC), the "Surveillance and Epidemiologic Investigation" domain emphasizes the importance of systematically analyzing data to pinpoint contributing factors, such as location, technique, or equipment use, in healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The question specifies poor technique as a suspected cause, and the first step should focus on contextual factors that could influence technique variability.

Option A, stratifying infections by the location of IV insertion (pre-hospital, Emergency Department, or in-patient unit), is the most logical first step. Different settings may involve varying levels of training, staffing, time pressure, or adherence to aseptic technique, all of which can impact infection rates. For example, pre-hospital settings (e.g., ambulance services) may have less controlled environments or less experienced personnel compared to in-patient units, potentially leading to technique inconsistencies. The CDC’s Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections (2017) recommend evaluating the context of catheter insertion as a critical initial step in investigating BSIs, making this a priority for the IP to identify where the issue is most prevalent.

Option B, stratifying by the type of dressing used (gauze, CHG impregnated sponge, or transparent), is important but should follow initial location-based analysis. Dressings play a role in maintaining catheter site integrity and preventing infection, but their impact is secondary to the insertion technique itself. Option C, stratifying by the site of insertion (hand, forearm, or antecubital fossa), is also relevant, as anatomical sites differ in infection risk (e.g., the hand may be more prone to contamination), but this is a more specific factor to explore after broader contextual data is assessed. Option D, stratifying by the type of skin preparation used (alcohol, CHG/alcohol, or iodophor), addresses antiseptic efficacy, which is a key component of technique. However, without first understanding where the insertions occur, it’s premature to focus on skin preparation alone, as technique issues may stem from systemic factors across locations.

The CBIC Practice Analysis (2022) supports a stepwise approach to HAI investigation, starting with broad stratification (e.g., by location) to guide subsequent detailed analysis (e.g., technique-specific factors). This aligns with the CDC’s hierarchical approach to infection prevention, where contextual data collection precedes granular process evaluation. Therefore, the IP should first stratify by location to establish a baseline for further investigation.

References:

CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022.

CDC Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections, 2017.

The scenario describes a potential outbreak of multidrug-resistant Enterococcus faecium in an extended-care facility (ECF) wing, indicated by four positive cultures (including the current case and three prior cases from urine and a draining wound) within a month. The organism exhibits resistance to ampicillin, vancomycin, and penicillin, but sensitivity to linezolid, suggesting a possible vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) strain, which is a significant concern in healthcare settings. The Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) emphasizes the importance of rapid outbreak detection and response in the "Surveillance and Epidemiologic Investigation" domain, aligning with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for managing multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs).

Option A, "Notify the medical director of the outbreak," is the most immediate and critical action. Identifying an outbreak—defined by the CDC as two or more cases of a similar illness linked by time and place—requires prompt notification to the facility’s leadership (e.g., medical director) to initiate a coordinated response. The presence of four Enterococcus cases, including a multidrug-resistant strain, within a single ECF wing over a month suggests a potential cluster, necessitating urgent action to assess the scope, implement control measures, and allocate resources. The CDC’s "Management of Multidrug-Resistant Organisms in Healthcare Settings" (2006) recommends immediate reporting to facility leadership as the first step to activate an outbreak investigation team, making this the priority.

Option B, "Compare the four culture reports and sensitivity patterns," is an important subsequent step in outbreak investigation. Analyzing the antibiotic susceptibility profiles and culture sources can confirm whether the cases are epidemiologically linked (e.g., clonal spread of VRE) and guide treatment and control strategies. However, this is a detailed analysis that follows initial notification and should not delay alerting the medical director. Option C, "Conduct surveillance cultures for this organism in all residents," is a proactive measure to determine the prevalence of Enterococcus faecium, especially VRE, within the wing. The CDC recommends targeted surveillance during outbreaks, but this requires prior authorization and planning by the outbreak team, making it a secondary action after notification. Option D, "Notify the nursing administrator to close the wing to new admissions," may be a control measure to prevent further spread, as suggested by the CDC for MDRO outbreaks. However, closing a unit is a significant decision that should be guided by the medical director and infection control team after assessing the situation, not an immediate independent action by the IP.

The CBIC Practice Analysis (2022) and CDC guidelines prioritize rapid communication with leadership to initiate a structured outbreak response, including resource allocation and policy adjustments. Given the multidrug-resistant nature and cluster pattern, notifying the medical director (Option A) is the most immediate and appropriate action to ensure a comprehensive response.

References:

CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022.

CDC Management of Multidrug-Resistant Organisms in Healthcare Settings, 2006.

The correct answer is C, "results of biologic indicators are unavailable prior to use of the item," as this is the primary reason immediate use steam sterilization (IUSS) is not recommended for implantable items requiring immediate use. According to the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) guidelines, IUSS is a process used for sterilizing items needed urgently when no other sterile options are available, typically involving a shortened cycle (e.g., flash sterilization). However, for implantable items—such as orthopedic hardware or prosthetic devices—ensuring absolute sterility is critical due to the risk of deep infection. Biologic indicators (BIs), which contain highly resistant spores to verify sterilization efficacy, require incubation (typically 24-48 hours) to confirm the kill, but IUSS does not allow time for BI results to be available before the item is used (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.3 - Ensure safe reprocessing of medical equipment). This lack of immediate verification poses a significant infection risk, making IUSS inappropriate for implants, as per AAMI ST79 standards.

Option A (the high temperature may damage the items) is a consideration for some heat-sensitive materials, but modern IUSS cycles are designed to minimize damage, and this is not the primary reason for the restriction on implants. Option B (chemical indicators may not be accurate at high temperatures) is incorrect, as chemical indicators (e.g., color-changing strips) are reliable at high temperatures and serve as an immediate check, though they are not a substitute for BIs. Option D (the length of time is inadequate for the steam to penetrate the pack) is not the main issue, as IUSS cycles are optimized for penetration, though the shortened time may be a secondary concern; the unavailability of BI results remains the decisive factor.

The focus on biologic indicator results aligns with CBIC’s emphasis on ensuring the safety and sterility of reprocessed medical devices, particularly for high-risk implantable items (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.5 - Evaluate the environment for infection risks). This recommendation is supported by AAMI and CDC guidelines, which prioritize BI confirmation for implants to prevent healthcare-associated infections (AAMI ST79:2017, CDC Sterilization Guidelines, 2019).

References: CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competencies 3.3 - Ensure safe reprocessing of medical equipment, 3.5 - Evaluate the environment for infection risks. AAMI ST79:2017, Comprehensive guide to steam sterilization and sterility assurance in health care facilities. CDC Guidelines for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2019.