Predictors of certification in infection prevention and control among infection preventionists: APIC MegaSurvey findings.

BACKGROUND: The 2015 APIC MegaSurvey was completed by 4,078 members to assess infection prevention practices. This study's purpose was to examine MegaSurvey results to relate infection preventionist (IP) certification status with demographic characteristics, organizational structure, compensation benefits, and practice and competency factors. METHODS: Descriptive statistics were used to examine population characteristics and certification status. Bivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships between independent variables and certification status. Variables demonstrating statistical significance (P <.05) were included in multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of survey respondents had their CIC. IPs were less likely certified if their educational attainment was less than a bachelor's degree, they were aged 18-45 years, they worked in rural facilities, they had <16 years' experience in health care before becoming an IP, and the percentage of job dedicated to infection prevention was <75%. However, certification was associated with CIC benefit paid fully by employer, self-rating as proficient and expert-advanced, and surveillance and epidemiologic investigation competency obtained via professional development and training. CONCLUSIONS: CIC attainment was associated with IP characteristics. Additional research should focus on identifying strategies to increase certification among noncertified IPs because CIC is a measure of proficiency that should be a goal for all IPs.

Understanding the current state of infection preventionists through competency, role, and activity self-assessment.

BACKGROUND: The Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) MegaSurvey, administered in 2015, was completed by approximately 4,079 APIC members. The survey sought to gain a better understanding the current state of 4 components of infection prevention practice: demographic characteristics, compensation, organizational structure, and practice and competency. METHODS: The data for this analysis come from the APIC MegaSurvey Practice and Competency domain. Descriptive statistics and χ2 analyses were conducted to examine differences in infection preventionist (IP) competency, roles, and activity self-assessments. RESULTS: The majority of IPs self-assessed their competency as Proficient compared with Novice or Expert for each of the 8 IP core competency activities. Forty percent of IPs self-rated their competency as Expert in the Preventing/Controlling the Transmission of Infectious Agents/HAIs component. IPs reported Novice competency in Employee/Occupational Health (29%); Cleaning, Sterilization, Disinfection, and Asepsis (23%); and Education and Research categories (22%). Differences in self-rated competency among IPs by discipline type (public health, nurse, and laboratory) were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in self-rated competency were identified for each of the 8 IP core competency activities. IPs report using various resource types to gain competency. Future research is needed to identify opportunities to increase competency levels in the weakest-rated competency activities.

Infection prevention outside of the acute care setting: Results from the MegaSurvey of infection preventionists.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been a significant shift of health care delivery to nonacute care settings. However, research on staffing and resources dedicated to infection prevention and control (IPC) in these settings is lacking. METHODS: The data for this analysis come from the 2015 APIC MegaSurvey. Descriptive statistics were computed to describe infection preventionists (IPs) employed in nonacute care settings. Bivariate analyses were conducted to examine differences in facility and demographic characteristics by type of nonacute care setting. RESULTS: In total, 861 IPs represented ambulatory surgical centers (33%), long-term care facilities (23%), long-term acute care facilities (20%), inpatient behavioral or mental health care (12%), clinic or outpatient services (10%), and home health care (3%). Few (15%) were Certified in Infection Control. Most (58%) reported that less than half of their job was officially dedicated to IPC. On average, respondents reported spending the largest proportion of their time on surveillance and epidemiologic investigation (19%). IPs lacked support for secretarial functions (23%), data management (14%), and electronic medical records (32%). IPC activities, staffing, and resources differed significantly by type of nonacute care facility. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that resources directed to IPC in nonacute care settings may be lacking and identifies important areas for IPC education and program improvement. Research is needed to further examine staffing and IPC resources in these settings, which represent unique challenges to infection prevention and control.