Authentic CBIC Certification Exam CIC Questions Answers

The correct answer is B, "The rate may be higher if the denominator is very small," as this providesthe most plausible explanation for the observed data in the annual report. According to the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) guidelines, the CAUTI rate is calculated as the number of CAUTIs per 1,000 catheter days, where catheter days serve as the denominator. The report indicates a dramatic decrease in urinary catheter days and a slight decrease in the number of CAUTIs, yet the overall CAUTI rate has not increased. This discrepancy can occur if the denominator (catheter days) becomes very small, which can inflate or destabilize the rate, potentially masking an actual increase in the infection risk per catheter day (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain II: Surveillance and Epidemiologic Investigation, Competency 2.2 - Analyze surveillance data). A smaller denominator amplifies the impact of even a slight change in the number of infections, suggesting that the rate may be higher than expected or less reliable, necessitating further investigation.

Option A (the rate is incorrect and needs to be recalculated) assumes an error in the calculation without evidence, which is less specific than the denominator effect explanation. Option C (the rate is not affected by the number of catheter days) is incorrect because the CAUTI rate is directly influenced by the number of catheter days as the denominator; a decrease in catheter days should typically lower the rate if infections decrease proportionally, but the lack of an increase here suggests a calculation or interpretation issue. Option D (decreasing catheter days will not have an effect on decreasing CAUTI) contradicts evidence-based practice, as reducing catheter days is a proven strategy to lower CAUTI incidence, though the rate’s stability here indicates a potential statistical artifact.

The explanation focusing on the denominator aligns with CBIC’s emphasis on accurate surveillance and data analysis to guide infection prevention strategies, allowing the infection preventionist to advise administration on the need to review data trends or adjust monitoring methods (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain II: Surveillance and Epidemiologic Investigation, Competency 2.5 - Use data to guide infection prevention and control strategies). This insight can prompt a deeper analysis to ensure the CAUTI rate reflects true infection risk.

Qualitative studiesfocus on collectingsubjective data, including personal narratives, observations, and experiences. These data arenot numeric, and instead aim to explore themes and meaning from contextual, non-quantifiable information.

From theAPIC Text:

“Qualitative methods... Measures or data: Subjective, Unique, Differs over time, sample, and context.”

The correct answer is B, "Review microbiology laboratory reports for enteric organisms in the past week," as this is the first action the infection preventionist (IP) should perform following the alert of a sewer main break and potential contamination of the city water supply. According to the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) guidelines, a rapid assessment of existing data is a critical initial step in investigating a potential waterborne outbreak. Reviewing microbiology laboratory reports for enteric organisms (e.g., Escherichia coli, Salmonella, or Shigella) helps the IP identify any recent spikes in infections that could indicate water supply contamination, providing an evidence-based starting point for the investigation (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain II: Surveillance and Epidemiologic Investigation, Competency 2.2 - Analyze surveillance data). This step leverages available hospital data to assess the scope andurgency of the situation before initiating broader actions.

Option A (notify the Emergency and Admissions departments to report diarrhea cases to infection control) is an important subsequent step to enhance surveillance, but it relies on proactive reporting and does not provide immediate evidence of an ongoing issue. Option C (contact the Employee Health department and ask for collaboration in case-finding) is valuable for involving additional resources, but it should follow the initial data review to prioritize case-finding efforts based on identified trends. Option D (review the emergency preparedness plan with engineering for sources of potable water) is a critical preparedness action, but it is more relevant once contamination is confirmed or as a preventive measure, not as the first step in assessing the current situation.

The focus on reviewing laboratory reports aligns with CBIC’s emphasis on using surveillance data to guide infection prevention responses, enabling the IP to quickly determine if the sewer main break has already impacted patient health and to escalate actions accordingly (CBIC Practice Analysis, 2022, Domain II: Surveillance and Epidemiologic Investigation, Competency 2.1 - Conduct surveillance for healthcare-associated infections and epidemiologically significant organisms). This approach is consistent with CDC guidelines for responding to waterborne outbreak alerts (CDC Environmental Public Health Guidelines, 2020).