CBIC Updated CIC Exam Questions and Answers by montague

When reviewing the discussion section of an original article, an infection preventionist must focus on critically evaluating the interpretation of the study findings, their relevance to infection control, and their implications for practice. The discussion section typically addresses the meaning of the results, compares them to existing literature, and considers limitations or alternative interpretations. The appropriate question should align with the purpose of this section and reflect the infection preventionist's need to assess the validity and applicability of the research. Let’s analyze each option:

A. Was the correct sample size and analysis method chosen?: This question pertains to the methodology section of a research article, where the study design, sample size, and statistical methods are detailed. While these elements are critical for assessing the study's rigor, they are not the primary focus of the discussion section, which interprets results rather than re-evaluating the study design. An infection preventionist might ask this during a review of the methods section, but it is less relevant here.

B. Could alternative explanations account for the observed results?: The discussion section often explores whether the findings can be explained by factors other than the hypothesized cause, such as confounding variables, bias, or chance. This question is highly appropriate for an infection preventionist, as it encourages a critical assessment of whether the results truly support infection control interventions or if other factors (e.g., environmental conditions, patient factors) might be responsible. This aligns with CBIC's emphasis on evidence-based practice, where understanding the robustness of conclusions is key to applying research to infection prevention strategies.

C. Is the study question important, appropriate, and stated clearly?: This question relates to the introduction or background section of an article, where the research question and its significance are established. While important for overall study evaluation, it is not specific to the discussion section, which focuses on interpreting results rather than revisiting the initial question. An infection preventionist might consider this earlier in the review process, but it does not fit the context of the discussion section.

D. Are criteria used to measure the exposure and the outcome explicit?: This question is relevant to the methods section, where the definitions and measurement tools for exposures (e.g., a specific intervention) and outcomes (e.g., infection rates) are described. The discussion section may reference these criteria but focuses more on their implications rather than their clarity. This makes it less appropriate for the discussion section specifically.

The discussion section is where authors synthesize their findings, address limitations, and consider alternative explanations, making option B the most fitting. For an infection preventionist, evaluating alternative explanations is crucial to ensure that recommended practices (e.g., hand hygiene protocols or sterilization techniques) are based on solid evidence and not confounded by unaddressed variables. This critical thinking is consistent with CBIC's focus on applying research to improve infection control outcomes.

References:

CBIC Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Core Competency Model (updated 2023), Domain I: Identification of Infectious Disease Processes, which emphasizes critical evaluation of research evidence.

CBIC Examination Content Outline, Domain V: Management and Communication, which includes assessing the validity of research findings for infection control decision-making.

The preferred methodology for pre-work clearance in this scenario is the interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA), making option C the correct choice. This conclusion is supported by the guidelines from the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC), which align with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for tuberculosis (TB) screening in healthcare workers. The employee’s history of receiving the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination, a vaccine commonly used in some countries to prevent severe forms of TB, is significant because it can cause false-positive results in the traditional Tuberculin skin test (TST) due to cross-reactivity with BCG antigens (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain I: Identification of Infectious Disease Processes, Competency 1.3 - Apply principles of epidemiology).

The IGRA, such as the QuantiFERON-TB Gold test, measures the release of interferon-gamma from T-cells in response to specific TB antigens (e.g., ESAT-6 and CFP-10) that are not present in BCG or most non-tuberculous mycobacteria. This makes it a more specific and reliable test for detecting latent TB infection (LTBI) in individuals with a history of BCG vaccination, avoiding the false positives associated with the TST. The CDC recommends IGRA over TST for BCG-vaccinated individuals when screening for TB prior to healthcare employment (CDC Guidelines for Preventing Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, 2005, updated 2019).

Option A (referral to tuberculosis clinic) is a general action but not a specific methodology for clearance; it may follow testing if results indicate further evaluation is needed. Option B (initial chest radiograph) is used to detect active TB disease rather than latent infection and is not a primary screening method for pre-work clearance, though it may be indicated if IGRA results are positive. Option D (two-step purified protein derivative-based Tuberculin skin test) is less preferred because the BCG vaccination can lead to persistent cross-reactivity, reducing its specificity and reliability in this context. The two-step TST is typically used to establish a baseline in unvaccinated individuals with potential prior exposure, but it is not ideal for BCG-vaccinated individuals.

The IP’s role includes ensuring accurate TB screening to protect both the employee and patients, aligning with CBIC’s focus on preventing transmission of infectious diseases in healthcare settings (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.2 - Implement measures to prevent transmission of infectious agents).

References: CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain I: Identification of Infectious Disease Processes, Competency 1.3 - Apply principles of epidemiology; Domain III: Infection Prevention and Control, Competency 3.2 - Implement measures to prevent transmission of infectious agents. CDC Guidelines for Preventing Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, 2005, updated 2019.

The correct answer is A, "Assess the needs of the family members at the facility," as this is the first step the infection preventionist (IP) should take when developing an infection prevention training program for family members. According to the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) guidelines, effective education programs begin with a needs assessment to identify the specific knowledge gaps, cultural factors, and practical challenges of the target audience—in this case, family members. This initial step ensures that the training is tailored to their level of understanding, language preferences, and the infection risks they may encounter (e.g., hand hygiene, isolation protocols), aligning with adult learning principles (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain IV: Education and Research, Competency 4.1 - Develop and implement educational programs). Without this assessment, subsequent steps risk being misaligned with the audience’s needs, reducing the program’s effectiveness.

Option B (create clearly defined goals and objectives for the training) is a critical step but follows the needs assessment, as goals should be based on identified needs to ensure relevance. Option C (ensure that all content in the training is relevant and practical) depends on understanding the audience’s needs first, making it a later step in the development process. Option D (develop a plan to create an appropriate training environment) is important for implementation but requires prior knowledge of the audience and content to design effectively.

The focus on assessing needs aligns with CBIC’s emphasis on evidence-based education design, enabling the IP to address specific infection prevention priorities for family members and improve outcomes in the facility (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain IV: Education and Research, Competency 4.2 - Evaluate the effectiveness of educational programs). This approach is supported by CDC guidelines, which recommend audience assessment as a foundational step in health education programs.

References: CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain IV: Education and Research, Competencies 4.1 - Develop and implement educational programs, 4.2 - Evaluate the effectiveness of educational programs. CDC Health Education Curriculum Analysis Tool, 2019.

Thawing raw meat at room temperature is a major food safety violation because it allows bacteria to multiply rapidly within the temperature danger zone (40–140°F or 4.4–60°C). Meat should always be thawed in the refrigerator, under cold running water, or in a microwave if cooked immediately.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect?

B. Using a cutting board to cut vegetables – This is safe as long as proper cleaning and sanitation procedures are followed.

C. Maintaining hot food at 145°F (62.7°C) during serving – 145°F is an acceptable minimum temperature for certain meats like beef, fish, and pork.

D. Discarding most perishable food within 72 hours – Many perishable foods, especially leftovers, should be discarded within 3 days, making this an appropriate practice.

CBIC Infection Control Reference

The APIC guidelines emphasize that raw meat should never be thawed at room temperature due to the risk of bacterial growth and foodborne illness​.