Free CBIC CIC Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 7

The most likely reason for the recall of a steam-sterilized load is the failure of the biological indicator (BI), specifically Geobacillus stearothermophilus, which is used to monitor high-temperature steam (moist heat) sterilization processes. This organism is the biological indicator of choice because it has high resistance to moist heat and thus serves as a reliable marker for sterilization efficacy.

The APIC Text and AAMI ST79 guidelines confirm that Geobacillus stearothermophilus is used for steam sterilization and that a failed BI indicates a failure in the sterilization process, which requires immediate action, including recalling all items sterilized since the last negative BI and reprocessing them. This is a crucial aspect of ensuring patient safety and preventing the use of potentially non-sterile surgical instruments.

According to the APIC Text:

"BIs are the only process indicators that directly monitor the lethality of a given sterilization process. [...] Geobacillus stearothermophilus spores are used to monitor steam sterilization..."

The CIC Study Guide (6th ed.) also specifies that:

"Evidence of sterilization failures (e.g., positive biological indicators) is the most common reason for a recall."

Additionally, it is noted:

“With steam sterilization, the instrument load does not need to be recalled for a single positive biological indicator test, with the exception of implantable objects.”

However, multiple positive BIs or BI failure confirmation does require a recall.

The incorrect options explained:

A. Bacillus subtilis – This is not used in steam sterilization but rather in dry heat or EO processes.

C. Placement of the biological indicator on the bottom shelf over the drain – While incorrect placement can lead to test failure, the recall is prompted by BI failure, not just placement.

D. Incorrect placement of instruments – This can cause sterilization failure but is not the direct trigger for a recall unless it leads to a failed BI.

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 CBIC Certified Infection Control Exam Study Guide (6th edition) emphasizes that when evaluating new medical or surgical equipment, the first priority for the infection preventionist is reviewing the manufacturer’s instructions for use (IFU). The IFU provides critical information regarding cleaning, disinfection, sterilization, handling, storage, and maintenance requirements, all of which directly impact infection prevention and patient safety.

Robotic surgical equipment often includes complex components, lumens, joints, and reusable instruments that may require specialized reprocessing methods. The IP must ensure that the facility has the infrastructure, staffing, competency, and resources to meet the IFU requirements before purchase. Failure to comply with manufacturer instructions places the organization at risk for ineffective reprocessing, device contamination, healthcare-associated infections, and regulatory noncompliance.

The other options are secondary considerations. Cost (Option A) and operative time impact efficiency and budgeting but do not address infection risk. Storage between cases (Option C) is important but cannot be properly evaluated without first understanding IFU requirements. Length of surgery (Option B) may influence infection risk but is not within the primary evaluative scope of infection prevention during equipment selection.

For the CIC® exam, it is essential to recognize that IFU review is the foundational step in product evaluation. Infection preventionists must confirm that equipment can be safely and consistently reprocessed according to manufacturer specifications before any operational or financial considerations are addressed.

==========

The CBIC Certified Infection Control Exam Study Guide (6th edition) identifies the anterior nares (nose) as the most common and reliable site for colonization with Staphylococcus aureus, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). During suspected outbreaks, culturing the nares is the most effective method for identifying persistent carriers, particularly among healthcare personnel or patients who may serve as reservoirs for transmission.

Nasal carriage of S. aureus is well established in epidemiologic literature and infection prevention practice. Individuals may be persistent carriers, intermittent carriers, or non-carriers, with persistent nasal carriers posing the highest risk for transmission and subsequent infection. The Study Guide emphasizes that nasal colonization strongly correlates with both endogenous infection risk and spread to others, making it the preferred screening site during outbreak investigations.

Hands (Option B) may transiently harbor S. aureus, but hand contamination is temporary and highly variable, making it less useful for identifying long-term carriers. Throat (Option C) and rectum (Option D) are not primary colonization sites for S. aureus and are not routinely used in outbreak screening unless specifically indicated by epidemiologic data.

For CIC® exam purposes, this question reinforces a core infection prevention principle: the anterior nares are the primary reservoir for Staphylococcus aureus, and nasal cultures are the most effective method for identifying carriers during outbreak investigations.

The CBIC Certified Infection Control Exam Study Guide (6th edition) identifies the randomized controlled trial (RCT) as the gold standard study design for assessing the benefit of a new treatment. RCTs are specifically designed to determine causality by minimizing bias and confounding variables through random assignment of participants to intervention and control groups. This ensures that differences in outcomes can be attributed with the highest level of confidence to the treatment being studied rather than to external factors.

In an RCT, participants are randomly allocated to receive either the new treatment or a comparison intervention (such as standard therapy or placebo). Randomization balances known and unknown risk factors between groups, while controlled conditions allow precise measurement of treatment effects. This design is particularly important when evaluating new therapies, medications, or interventions where efficacy and safety must be clearly demonstrated.

The other study designs listed are less rigorous for assessing treatment benefit. An interrupted time series is useful for evaluating system-level interventions over time but is more susceptible to confounding influences. A correlational study can identify associations but cannot establish cause and effect. A parallel group study without randomization lacks adequate control for bias and confounding.

For CIC® exam preparation, it is essential to recognize that when the objective is to assess the benefit or effectiveness of a new treatment, a randomized controlled trial provides the strongest and most reliable evidence, making it the best answer.

Best practices for using a washer-disinfector include disassembling instruments and opening hinged instruments to ensure proper cleaning and decontamination.

The APIC Text explains:

“Open hinged instruments and disassemble all instruments… Confirm that spray will be able to reach all loaded items without impedance.”

This ensures water and detergents reach all surfaces. Avoid stacking instruments and ensure proper placement to allow full cleaning.

The correct answer is D, "Manufacturer representatives," as they are responsible for providing information regarding clinical trials when evaluating environmental cleaning and disinfectant products as part of the product evaluation committee. According to the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) guidelines, manufacturers are the primary source of data on the efficacy, safety, and performance of their products, including clinical trial results that demonstrate the disinfectant’s ability to reduce microbial load or prevent healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.4 - Implement environmental cleaning and disinfection protocols). This information is critical for the committee to assess whether the product meets regulatory standards (e.g., EPA registration) and aligns with infection prevention goals, and it is typically supported by documentation such as peer-reviewed studies or trial data provided by the manufacturer.

Option A (Infection Preventionist) plays a key role in evaluating the product’s fit within infection control practices and may contribute expertise or conduct internal assessments, but they are not responsible for providing clinical trial data, which originates from the manufacturer. Option B (Clinical representatives) can offer insights into clinical usage and outcomes but rely on manufacturer data for trial evidence rather than generating it. Option C (Environmental Services) focuses on the practical application and cleaning processes but lacks the authority or resources to conduct or provide clinical trial information.

The reliance on manufacturer representatives aligns with CBIC’s emphasis on evidence-based decision-making in product selection, ensuring that the product evaluation committee bases its choices on robust, manufacturer-supplied clinical data (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain II: Surveillance and Epidemiologic Investigation, Competency 2.5 - Use data to guide infection prevention and control strategies). This approach supports the safe and effective implementation of environmental cleaning products in healthcare settings.

The correct answer is A, "One dose of Tdap vaccine," as this is the recommended immunization for a 55-year-old nurse who received all childhood vaccinations. 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), adults who have completed a primary series of childhood vaccinations (typically 5 doses of DTaP or DTP) should receive a single booster dose of Tdap if they have not previously received it. This is especially critical for healthcare personnel, such as a 55-year-old nurse, due to their increased risk of exposure to pertussis and the need to protect vulnerable patients (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.2 - Implement measures to prevent transmission of infectious agents). The Tdap vaccine, which protects against tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis, is recommended once between ages 11-64, with a preference for administration in early adulthood (e.g., 19-26 years) or as soon as feasible for older adults, including this 55-year-old nurse, to ensure immunity against pertussis, which wanes over time. For individuals aged 65 and older, Tdap is still recommended if not previously received, though Tdap is preferred over Td (tetanus and diphtheria only) for healthcare workers to address pertussis risk.

Option B (two doses of Tdap vaccine at least 14 days apart) and Option C (two doses of Tdap vaccine at least 28 days apart) are not standard recommendations for adults with a complete childhood vaccination history. Multiple doses are typically reserved for individuals with incomplete primary series or specific high-risk conditions, not for this scenario. Option D (no additional vaccination is recommended) is incorrect because, even with a complete childhood series, a Tdap booster is advised for healthcare workers to maintain protection, especially given the nurse’s occupational exposure risks (CDC Immunization Schedules, 2024). After receiving the Tdap booster, a Td booster every 10 years is recommended to maintain tetanus and diphtheria immunity, but the initial Tdap dose is the priority for this nurse.

The recommendation for one Tdap dose aligns with CBIC’s emphasis on evidence-based immunization policies to prevent transmission of vaccine-preventable diseases in healthcare settings (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.1 - Collaborate with organizational leaders). This ensures the nurse is protected and contributes to herd immunity, reducing the risk of pertussis outbreaks in the healthcare environment.

The CBIC Certified Infection Control Exam Study Guide (6th edition) emphasizes the importance of applying Spaulding’s classification to determine appropriate cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization levels for medical devices based on their intended use. According to this framework, rectal probes are classified as semi-critical devices because they come into contact with mucous membranes. Semi-critical devices require at least high-level disinfection after thorough cleaning.

An enzymatic solution, as listed in option C, is not a disinfectant. Enzymatic detergents are designed solely for cleaning, meaning they help remove organic material such as blood, mucus, and feces, but they do not kill microorganisms. Using an enzymatic solution alone for rectal probes is therefore inadequate and represents an improper disinfection practice, making this the scenario that clearly requires a protocol change.

Option A is acceptable because diaphragm fitting rings are noncritical devices that contact intact skin and may be safely processed using high-level disinfection. Option B is appropriate because blood pressure cuffs are noncritical items and can be disinfected using low- to intermediate-level disinfectants such as sodium hypochlorite. Option D is also appropriate, as cryosurgical probes are semi-critical devices and 2% glutaraldehyde is an accepted high-level disinfectant.

Recognizing the distinction between cleaning versus disinfection and applying the correct level of processing is a core competency for infection preventionists and a frequently tested concept on the CIC® exam.

==========

The scenario involves the introduction of a new hospital disinfectant with a 3-minute contact time, intended for use across patient care areas, but with concerns raised by Environmental Services about its high cost. The infection preventionist’s advice must balance infection control efficacy with cost management, adhering to principles outlined by the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) and evidence-based practices. The goal is to optimize the disinfectant’s use while ensuring a safe environment. Let’s evaluate each option:

A. Use the new disinfectant for patient washrooms only: Limiting the disinfectant to patient washrooms focuses its use on high-touch, high-risk areas where pathogens (e.g., Clostridioides difficile, norovirus) may be prevalent. However, this approach restricts the disinfectant’s application to a specific area, potentially leaving other patient care surfaces (e.g., bed rails, tables) vulnerable to contamination. While cost-saving, it does not address the broad infection control needs across all patient care areas, making it an incomplete strategy.

B. Use detergents on the floors in patient rooms: Detergents are cleaning agents that remove dirt and organic material but lack the antimicrobial properties of disinfectants. Floors in patient rooms can harbor pathogens, but they are generally considered lower-risk surfaces compared to high-touch areas (e.g., bed rails, doorknobs). Using detergents instead of the new disinfectant on floors could reduce costs but compromises infection control, as floors may still contribute to environmental transmission (e.g., via shoes or equipment). This option is not optimal given the availability of an effective disinfectant.

C. Use detergents on smooth horizontal surfaces: Smooth horizontal surfaces (e.g., tables, counters, overbed tables) are common sites for pathogen accumulation and transmission in patient rooms. Using detergents to clean these surfaces removes organic material, which is a critical first step before disinfection. If the 3-minute contact time disinfectant is reserved for high-touch or high-risk surfaces (e.g., bed rails, call buttons) where disinfection is most critical, this approach maximizes the disinfectant’s efficacy while reducing its overall use and cost. This strategy aligns with CBIC guidelines, which emphasize a two-step process (cleaning followed by disinfection) and targeted use of resources, making it a practical and cost-effective recommendation.

D. Use new disinfectant for all surfaces in the patient room: Using the disinfectant on all surfaces ensures comprehensive pathogen reduction but increases consumption and cost, which is a concern for Environmental Services. While the 3-minute contact time suggests efficiency, overusing the disinfectant on low-risk surfaces (e.g., floors, walls) may not provide proportional infection control benefits and could strain the budget. This approach does not address the cost concern and is less strategic than targeting high-risk areas.

The best advice is C, using detergents on smooth horizontal surfaces to handle routine cleaning, while reserving the new disinfectant for high-touch or high-risk areas where its antimicrobial action is most needed. This optimizes infection prevention, aligns with CBIC’s emphasis on evidence-based environmental cleaning, and addresses the cost concern by reducing unnecessary disinfectant use. The infection preventionist should also recommend a risk assessment to identify priority surfaces for disinfectant application.

CBIC Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Core Competency Model (updated 2023), Domain IV: Environment of Care, which advocates for targeted cleaning and disinfection based on risk.

CBIC Examination Content Outline, Domain III: Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases, which includes cost-effective use of disinfectants.

CDC Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Healthcare Facilities (2022), which recommend cleaning with detergents followed by targeted disinfection.