Free Practice Questions for CBIC CIC Exam

The Certification Study Guide (6th edition) classifies endovaginal ultrasound probes as semi-critical devices because they come into contact with mucous membranes. As such, they require high-level disinfection (HLD) between patients, not sterilization, unless the manufacturer specifically requires it. This immediately eliminates option A, which incorrectly states sterilization is required.

Option B is incorrect because probe covers or sheaths do not eliminate the risk of contamination. Numerous studies referenced in infection prevention literature and reflected in the study guide demonstrate that probe covers can fail, tear, or leak, allowing microorganisms—including viruses—to contaminate the probe surface. Therefore, HLD is required regardless of sheath use.

Option C is incorrect because critical items, by definition, enter sterile tissue or the vascular system. Endovaginal probes contact mucous membranes only and are therefore not critical items under the Spaulding Classification System.

Option D is correct because endovaginal probes may be contaminated with human papillomavirus (HPV) prior to examination, even when probe covers are used. HPV is particularly concerning due to its resistance to some low-level disinfectants and its ability to persist on surfaces. The study guide highlights HPV as a key organism driving strict reprocessing requirements for these probes.

This question reflects a high-yield CIC exam concept: probe covers do not replace high-level disinfection, and viral contamination—including HPV—remains a significant risk.

The CBIC Certified Infection Control Exam Study Guide (6th edition) emphasizes that when an Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Program identifies inadequate resources, the first and most critical step is internal assessment and communication. Scheduling a meeting with the supervisor to discuss current job duties allows the infection preventionist to clearly define workload demands, regulatory requirements, and gaps between assigned responsibilities and available resources.

This initial discussion establishes a shared understanding of scope of practice, priority tasks, and compliance obligations, such as surveillance, reporting, education, emergency preparedness, and performance improvement. The Study Guide highlights that resource justification must begin with a clear inventory of required functions versus available staffing, time, and tools. Without this foundational step, subsequent actions—such as benchmarking, literature review, or plan updates—lack context and organizational alignment.

Option A is an important later step, used to support justification once internal expectations and gaps are defined. Option B may provide benchmarking data but should not precede internal role clarification. Option D is premature, as program plans should be updated only after leadership agreement on scope, priorities, and resources.

For CIC® exam preparation, it is essential to recognize that effective advocacy for IPC resources begins with direct supervisor engagement, role clarification, and documentation of unmet needs. This structured approach aligns with leadership principles and ensures that requests for additional resources are credible, data-driven, and organizationally relevant.

Glove Contamination and SSI Risk:

Failure to change contaminated gloves increases the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs)​.

Double-gloving with an outer glove change reduces contamination.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

B. Alcohol-based hand rubs: Are FDA-approved alternatives to traditional scrubs and effective​.

C. Delayed antibiotics: Increases infection risk, but immediate correction reduces harm.

D. Airflow disruption: Can increase SSI risk, but glove contamination poses a more direct threat.

CBIC Infection Control References:

APIC-JCR Workbook, "Surgical Infection Prevention," Chapter 6​.

The Certification Study Guide (6th edition) defines passive immunity as protection that results from the administration of preformed antibodies, rather than stimulation of the individual’s own immune system. Passive immunity provides immediate but temporary protection, because the recipient does not produce antibodies and therefore does not develop immunologic memory.

Tetanus antitoxin is a classic example of passive immunity. It contains antibodies that neutralize tetanus toxin directly and is used in situations where immediate protection is needed, such as after certain wounds in individuals with unknown or inadequate vaccination history. The study guide emphasizes that passive immunization is particularly important in post-exposure management when waiting for an active immune response would be too slow to prevent disease.

The other options represent active immunization, not passive immunity. Vaccines such as hepatitis B vaccine, influenza vaccine, and human diploid cell rabies vaccine stimulate the recipient’s immune system to produce its own antibodies and immune memory. While rabies immune globulin provides passive immunity, the rabies vaccine itself is an active immunizing agent.

This distinction between active and passive immunity is a frequently tested CIC exam concept, especially in the context of occupational health, post-exposure prophylaxis, and immunization programs. Recognizing that passive immunity involves antibody products (antitoxins or immune globulins) rather than vaccines is essential for accurate infection prevention decision-making.

The Certification Study Guide (6th edition) stresses that infection prevention leaders must understand basic workforce and FTE calculations to ensure appropriate staffing and compliance with approved resource allocations. An FTE is defined as 40 hours worked per week, and part-time hours must be converted proportionally.

First, calculate the FTEs already in use:

Director: 40 hours/week ÷ 40 = 1.0 FTE

Infection preventionist: 32 hours/week ÷ 40 = 0.8 FTE

Infection preventionist: 16 hours/week ÷ 40 = 0.4 FTE

Secretarial support: 40 hours/week ÷ 40 = 1.0 FTE

Total current FTEs:

1.0 + 0.8 + 0.4 + 1.0 = 3.2 FTEs

The approved staffing total is 3.8 FTEs. To determine how many additional FTEs may be hired, subtract current FTE usage from the approved total:

3.8 − 3.2 = 0.6 FTE

Therefore, the director may hire 0.6 additional FTE, which could be fulfilled by a part-time infection preventionist or split among staff roles, depending on organizational needs.

CIC exam questions frequently test practical management skills, including staffing calculations, budgeting awareness, and resource allocation. Accurate FTE calculations ensure compliance with administrative approvals and support safe, effective infection prevention program operations.

The CBIC Certified Infection Control Exam Study Guide (6th edition) identifies silver as an anti-infective material commonly incorporated into medical devices such as endotracheal tubes, urinary catheters, and intravascular catheters. Silver has broad-spectrum antimicrobial properties against bacteria, fungi, and some viruses. When used as a coating or impregnated material, silver ions disrupt microbial cell membranes, interfere with enzyme systems, and inhibit replication—thereby reducing microbial colonization and biofilm formation on device surfaces.

Device-associated infections often originate from colonization of indwelling devices. Silver-coated or silver-impregnated devices are intended to reduce the risk of healthcare-associated infections by limiting early microbial adherence and growth, particularly during the highest-risk period shortly after device insertion. Examples include silver alloy urinary catheters for CAUTI prevention and silver-coated endotracheal tubes designed to reduce ventilator-associated events.

The other options listed are not used in this context. Copper has antimicrobial properties but is not commonly used in indwelling medical devices. Chromium is used for corrosion resistance in alloys, not for infection prevention. Zinc plays roles in wound care and topical formulations but is not standard for catheter or tube coatings.

For CIC® exam preparation, recognizing silver as the anti-infective material used in multiple indwelling devices is important, as it reflects evidence-based strategies aimed at reducing device-associated infection risk.

==========

The CBIC Certified Infection Control Exam Study Guide (6th edition) defines a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) as a retrospective, systematic process used to understand why an adverse event or undesired outcome occurred and what system-level changes are needed to prevent it from happening again. In the context of an increase in Clostridioides difficile infections in an ICU, the primary goal of an RCA is to identify underlying process failures and implement corrective actions to prevent recurrence.

RCA focuses on systems and processes rather than individual performance. Through structured methods such as event mapping, cause-and-effect analysis, and contributing factor review, the team examines elements such as antimicrobial use, environmental cleaning practices, hand hygiene compliance, isolation implementation, diagnostic testing practices, and workflow design. The ultimate outcome of an RCA is a set of actionable, sustainable process improvements that reduce the likelihood of similar events in the future.

Option A describes Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), which is a proactive risk assessment tool. Option C refers to a SWOT analysis, used for strategic planning rather than event investigation. Option D reflects an important principle of RCA culture (non-punitive), but it is not the primary goal.

For the CIC® exam, it is essential to recognize that the core purpose of RCA is preventing recurrence through system improvement, making option B the correct answer.

==========

To determine which surgeon has the highest surgical site infection (SSI) rate, use the following formula:

Since Dr. White has the highest SSI rate at 9.1%, the correct answer is D. White.

CBIC Infection Control Reference

SSI rates are calculated using infection count per total procedures and reported as percentage values​.

Assessing the effectiveness of an infection control action plan is a critical responsibility of an infection preventionist (IP) to ensure that interventions reduce healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and improve patient safety. The Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) highlights this process within the "Surveillance and Epidemiologic Investigation" and "Performance Improvement" domains, emphasizing the need for ongoing evaluation and data-driven decision-making. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other guidelines stress that the ultimate goal of an action plan is to achieve measurable outcomes, such as reduced infection rates, which requires systematic monitoring and validation.

Option D, "Monitor and validate the related outcome and process measures," is the most important consideration. Outcome measures (e.g., infection rates, morbidity, or mortality) indicate whether the action plan has successfully reduced the targeted infection risk, while process measures (e.g., compliance with hand hygiene or proper catheter insertion techniques) assess whether the implemented actions are being performed correctly. Monitoring involves continuous data collection and analysis, while validation ensures the data’s accuracy and relevance to the plan’s objectives. The CBIC Practice Analysis (2022) underscores that effective infection control relies on evaluating both outcomes (e.g., decreased central line-associated bloodstream infections) and processes (e.g., adherence to aseptic protocols), making this a dynamic and essential step. The CDC’s "Compendium of Strategies to Prevent HAIs" (2016) further supports this by recommending regular surveillance and feedback as key to assessing intervention success.

Option A, "Re-evaluate the action plan every three years," suggests a periodic review, which is a good practice for long-term planning but is insufficient as the most important consideration. Infection control requires more frequent assessment (e.g., quarterly or annually) to respond to emerging risks or outbreaks, making this less critical than ongoing monitoring. Option B, "Update the plan before the risk assessment is completed," is illogical and counterproductive. Updating a plan without a completed risk assessment lacks evidence-based grounding, undermining the plan’s effectiveness and contradicting the CBIC’s emphasis on data-driven interventions. Option C, "Develop a timeline and assign responsibilities for the stated action," is an important initial step in implementing an action plan, ensuring structure and accountability. However, it is a preparatory activity rather than the most critical factor in assessing effectiveness, which hinges on post-implementation evaluation.

The CBIC Practice Analysis (2022) and CDC guidelines prioritize outcome and process monitoring as the cornerstone of infection control effectiveness, enabling IPs to adjust strategies based on real-time evidence. Thus, Option D represents the most important consideration for assessing an infection control action plan’s success.