Free Practice Questions for CBIC CIC Exam

Meningococcal infections, such asNeisseria meningitidis, are transmitted viarespiratory droplets. According toAPIC and CDC guidelines, patients withmeningococcal diseaseshould be placed onDroplet Precautions upon admission. These precautions can bediscontinued after 24 hours of effective antibiotic therapy.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect?

B. Droplet precautions must continue–Droplet Precautions are not needed beyond 24 hours of appropriate therapybecause treatment rapidly reduces infectiousness.

C. Airborne precautions may be discontinued after 24 hours of therapy–Meningococcal infection is not airborne, soAirborne Precautions are never required.

D. Airborne precautions must continue–Incorrectbecausemeningococci do not transmit via airborne particles.

CBIC Infection Control Reference

According toAPIC guidelines,Droplet Precautions should be maintained for at least 24 hours after effective antibiotic therapy initiation​.

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.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a type of healthcare-associated pneumonia that occurs in patients receiving mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours. The Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) emphasizes identifying risk factors for VAP in the "Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases" domain, aligning with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for preventing ventilator-associated events. The question requires identifying which factor among the options increases a patient’s risk of developing VAP, based on evidence from clinical and epidemiological data.

Option B, "Nasogastric tube," is the correct answer. The presence of a nasogastric tube is a well-documented risk factor for VAP. This tube can facilitate the aspiration of oropharyngeal secretions or gastric contents into the lower respiratory tract, bypassing natural defense mechanisms like the epiglottis. The CDC’s "Guidelines for Preventing Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia" (2004) and studies in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (e.g., Kollef et al., 2005) highlight that nasogastric tubes increase VAP risk by promoting microaspiration, especially if improperly managed or if the patient has impaired gag reflexes. This mechanical disruption of the airway’s protective barriers is a direct contributor to infection.

Option A, "Hypoxia," refers to low oxygen levels in the blood, which can be a consequence of lung conditions or VAP but is not a primary risk factor for developing it. Hypoxia may indicate underlying respiratory compromise, but it does not directly increase the likelihood of VAP unless associated with other factors (e.g., prolonged ventilation). Option C, "Acute lung disease," is a broad term that could include conditions like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which may predispose patients to VAP due to prolonged ventilation needs. However, acute lung disease itself is not a specific risk factor; rather, it is the need for mechanical ventilation that elevates risk, making this less direct than the nasogastric tube effect. Option D, "In-line suction," involves a closed-system method for clearing respiratory secretions, which is designed to reduce VAP risk by minimizing contamination during suctioning. The CDC and evidence-based guidelines (e.g., American Thoracic Society, 2016) recommend in-line suction to prevent infection, suggesting it decreases rather than increases VAP risk.

The CBIC Practice Analysis (2022) and CDC guidelines prioritize identifying modifiable risk factors like nasogastric tubes for targeted prevention strategies (e.g., elevating the head of the bed to reduce aspiration). Option B stands out as the factor most consistently linked to increased VAP risk based on clinical evidence.

Surgical wounds are classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) into four classes based on the degree of contamination and the likelihood of postoperative infection. This classification system, detailed in the CDC’s Guidelines for Prevention of Surgical Site Infections (1999), is a cornerstone of infection prevention and control, aligning with the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) standards in the "Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases" domain. The classes are as follows:

Class I (Clean):Uninfected operative wounds with no inflammation, typically closed primarily, and not involving the respiratory, alimentary, genital, or urinary tracts.

Class II (Clean-Contaminated):Operative wounds with controlled entry into a sterile or minimally contaminated tract (e.g., biliary or gastrointestinal), with no significant spillage or infection present.

Class III (Contaminated):Open, fresh wounds with significant spillage (e.g., from a perforated viscus) or major breaks in sterile technique.

Class IV (Dirty-Infected):Old traumatic wounds with retained devitalized tissue or existing clinical infection.

Option A, "Incisions in which acute, nonpurulent inflammation are seen," aligns with a Class II surgical wound. The presence of acute, nonpurulent inflammation suggests a controlled inflammatory response without overt infection, which can occur in clean-contaminated cases where a sterile tract (e.g., during elective gastrointestinal surgery) is entered under controlled conditions. The CDC defines Class II wounds as those involving minor contamination without significant spillage or infection, and nonpurulent inflammation fits this category, often seen in early postoperative monitoring.

Option B, "Incisional wounds following nonpenetrating (blunt) trauma," does not fit the Class II definition. These wounds are typically classified based on the trauma context and are more likely to be considered contaminated (Class III) or dirty (Class IV) if there is tissue damage or delayed treatment, rather than clean-contaminated. Option C, "Incisions involving the biliary tract, appendix, vagina, and oropharynx," describes anatomical sites that, when surgically accessed, often fall into Class II if the procedure is elective and controlled (e.g., cholecystectomy), but the phrasing suggests a general category rather than a specific wound state with inflammation, making it less precise for Class II. Option D, "Old traumatic wounds with retained devitalized tissue," clearly corresponds to Class IV (dirty-infected) due to the presence of necrotic tissue and potential existing infection, which is inconsistent with Class II.

The CBIC Practice Analysis (2022) emphasizes the importance of accurate wound classification for implementing appropriate infection prevention measures, such as antibiotic prophylaxis or sterile technique adjustments. The CDC guidelines further specify that Class II wounds may require tailored interventions based on the observed inflammatory response, supporting Option A as the correct answer. Note that the phrasing in Option A contains a minor grammatical error ("inflammation are seen" should be "inflammation is seen"), but this does not alter the clinical intent or classification.

HIV patients require Airborne Precautions if they have tuberculosis (TB).Acavitary lesion in the upper lobeishighly suggestive of active pulmonary TB, which requiresAirborne Precautionsdue toaerosolized transmission.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect?

A. 24-year-old male newly diagnosed with a CD4 count of 70–Low CD4 count alone does not warrant Airborne Precautionsunless there isactive TB or another airborne pathogen.

B. 28-year-old female with Mycobacterium avium in sputum–Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) is not airborne, and standard precautions are sufficient.

C. 36-year-old male with cryptococcal meningitis–Cryptococcus neoformans is not transmitted via the airborne route, so Airborne Precautions are unnecessary.

CBIC Infection Control Reference

Patients withHIV and suspected TB require Airborne Precautionsuntil TB is ruled out​.

HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) should be initiated within 2 hours to be most effective​.

Waiting for results (B) delays critical treatment.

PEP should always be offered after high-risk exposure, not only if symptoms develop (C).

Retesting after 6 months (D) is recommended but should not delay PEP initiation.

CBIC Infection Control References:

APIC Text, "Bloodborne Pathogens and PEP," Chapter 11​.

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.

Aprocess measureassesses how well healthcare personnel follow specific procedures known to prevent infection. In the case of CAUTI (Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection), monitoringstaff compliance with proper insertion techniqueis a direct process measure.

According to theAPIC/JCR Workbook, effective CAUTI prevention involves evaluating compliance with proper catheter insertion and maintenance practices. Monitoring this behavior is a process measure that directly affects outcomes like infection rate reduction.

TheCBIC Study Guidealso emphasizes usingcompliance with evidence-based insertion techniquesas a strategy to measure and improve CAUTI prevention efforts.

APIC Textnotes that “a process measure focuses on a process or the steps in a process that leads to a specific outcome.” This includes monitoring healthcare staff performance related to proper catheter insertion and care.

Incorrect answer rationale:

A. CAUTI rate per 1000 catheter days– This is anoutcome measure, not a process measure.

B. Standardized Infection Ratio per unit– Also anoutcome/benchmarking metric.

C. Rate of bloodstream infections secondary to CAUTI– This is anoutcome, not a process.

The selection of an appropriate antiseptic for the insertion of an intravascular device (e.g., peripheral or central venous catheters) is a critical infection prevention measure to reduce the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs). The Certification Board of Infection Control andEpidemiology (CBIC) emphasizes evidence-based practices in the "Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases" domain, which includes adhering to guidelines for aseptic technique during invasive procedures. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides specific recommendations for skin antisepsis, as outlined in the "Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections" (2017).

Option A, chlorhexidine, is the preferred antiseptic for skin preparation prior to intravascular device insertion in adults with no contraindications. Chlorhexidine, particularly in a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) with 70% isopropyl alcohol solution, is recommended by the CDC due to its broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity, residual effect (which continues to kill bacteria after application), and superior efficacy compared to other agents in reducing CRBSI rates. Studies cited in the CDC guidelines demonstrate that chlorhexidine-based preparations significantly lower infection rates compared to povidone-iodine or alcohol alone, making it the gold standard for this procedure when tolerated by the patient.

Option B, povidone-iodine, is an alternative antiseptic that can be used for skin preparation. It is effective against a wide range of microorganisms and is often used when chlorhexidine is contraindicated (e.g., in patients with chlorhexidine allergy). However, its efficacy is less persistent than chlorhexidine, and it requires longer drying time, which can be a limitation in busy clinical settings. The CDC considers povidone-iodine a second-line option unless chlorhexidine is unavailable or unsuitable. Option C, alcohol (e.g., 70% isopropyl or ethyl alcohol), has rapid bactericidal activity but lacks a residual effect, making it less effective for prolonged protection during catheter dwell time. It is often used as a component of chlorhexidine-alcohol combinations but is not recommended as a standalone antiseptic for intravascular device insertion. Option D, antibiotic ointment, is not appropriate for skin preparation during insertion. Antibiotic ointments (e.g., bacitracin or mupirocin) are sometimes applied to catheter sites post-insertion to prevent infection, but their use is discouraged by the CDC due to the risk of promoting antibiotic resistance and fungal infections, and they are not classified as antiseptics for initial skin antisepsis.

The CBIC Practice Analysis (2022) supports the adoption of CDC-recommended practices, and the 2017 CDC guidelines explicitly state that chlorhexidine-based preparations with alcohol should be used for skin antisepsis unless contraindicated. For a patient with no contraindications, the infection preventionist should suggest chlorhexidine to optimize patient safety and align with best practices.

Therapeutic antimicrobial agentsshould ideally bepathogen-directedto minimizeresistance, side effects, and treatment failure. Once thecausative pathogen and its antimicrobial susceptibilities are known, the mostnarrow-spectrum, effectiveagent should be used.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect?

A. The infecting agent is unknown– Empiric therapy may be necessary initially, but definitive therapy should be based on pathogen identification.

B. The patient's illness warrants treatment prior to culture results– This applies toempiric therapy, but not todefinitive antimicrobial selection.

C. The patient’s symptoms suggest likely pathogens– Clinical presentation guidesempiric treatment, butdefinitive therapy should follow culture and susceptibility testing.

CBIC Infection Control Reference

APIC emphasizes theimportance of selecting antimicrobials based on pathogen identification and susceptibility testingto preventantimicrobial resistance​.