Weekly Rounds With Infection Control Today

What helps infection prevention teams turn information into action? This week’s 

 coverage explores that question through national recognition for UPMC’s genomic surveillance program, electronic tools that give small-hospital IPs more time for prevention, and the partnerships needed to keep reprocessing practices aligned with validated requirements. We also examine how purposeful rounding and listening to environmental services staff can help teams recognize risks that might otherwise be missed.

A family’s loss of 5 children to measles in 8 days brings the stakes of prevention into deeply personal focus. Alongside that account, practical lessons in dental safety and a creative approach to teaching children handwashing remind us that prevention depends on both understanding the evidence and helping people put it into practice. 

When Reprocessing Processes Drift: Why IPC and Sterile Processing Must Act Together

 Annetta L. McKnight examines how medical device reprocessing can slowly depart from validated requirements. Her warning is that "a followed procedure can still leave patients at risk if it no longer matches validated requirements." She argues that utility failures and equipment malfunctions call for multidisciplinary risk assessment involving sterile processing, IPC, engineering, and leadership, with IPC involved early in policy governance. Read more: 

https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/when-reprocessing-processes-drift-why-ipc-sterile-processing-must-act-together

More Time for Prevention: What Small-Hospital IPs Reported After Electronic Surveillance

 Research, presented by Karen Jones at the APIC Annual Conference, surveyed small-hospital IPs before and after adopting electronic surveillance. More than 80% reported having more time for deep dives into their HAIs, and two-thirds gained time for unit rounds and direct communication with clinical staff. The findings suggest automation can shift IP work from data collection toward prevention. Read more: 

https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/more-time-prevention-what-small-hospital-ips-reported-after-electronic-surveillance

How Purposeful Infection Prevention Rounding Supports Patient Safety and EVS Collaboration: Tommy Davis argues that IPs often overfocus on environmental deficiencies during rounds while overlooking

 higher-risk clinical practices such as central line care, hand hygiene, and waste disposal. He advocates structured rounding across all infection prevention domains. He also notes that EVS staff hold valuable frontline insight but may be discouraged from speaking up by professional hierarchies. Read more: 

https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/how-purposeful-infection-prevention-rounding-supports-patient-safety-evs-collaboration

Measles Took 5 Children in 8 Days. A Century Later, Their Story Still Matters

 Karen M. Jones, MPH, RN, CIC, FAPIC, recounts how her grandmother lost five children to measles within eight days in 1926. She connects that history to today's outbreaks, with the CDC reporting the highest case counts since 1991. Kindergarten vaccination coverage has slipped from 95.2% to 92.4%, and roughly 95% of current cases are in unvaccinated people. Jones emphasizes trust-building and clear communication about the 97% effectiveness of two MMR doses. Read more: 

https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/measles-took-5-children-8-days-century-later-their-story-still-matters

The Clean Bite: Making Dental Infection Control Part of Every Day.

 Sherrie Busby says protocols stick when teams understand the reasoning, concerns are addressed, and workflows are clear. She cites research that 44% to 47.1% of dental sharps incidents occur during post-treatment instrument processing. 

https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/clean-bite-making-dental-infection-control-part-every-day

Making Handwashing Memorable: What Cartoon Faucets Can Teach Children.

 Artist Matthew Caliman's "Cleanup Crew" uses cartoon faucet characters, songs, and games to build children's hand hygiene habits, though the program lacks evaluation data so far. 

https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/making-handwashing-memorable-what-cartoon-faucets-can-teach-children

UPMC's Genomic Surveillance Award Opens the Door to Funding Conversations

 UPMC received the John M. Eisenberg Patient Safety and Quality Award for its Enhanced Detection System for Healthcare-Associated Transmission (EDS-HAT), which uses whole-genome sequencing to find outbreaks. Over two years, the system detected 172 outbreaks involving 476 patients that might otherwise have gone unnoticed, preventing an estimated 62 infections and 5 deaths with nearly $700,000 in net savings. Alexander Sundermann noted that the recognition could help IPs make the case to leadership for sustainable funding, which he called "the hardest thing we've faced to date." Read more: 

https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/upmc-s-genomic-surveillance-award-opens-door-funding-conversations

Videos

This week's coverage in Infection Control Today centered on a common thread: the systems, partnerships, and data that let infection prevention teams catch problems before patients are harmed.

ICT Weekly Rounds: Genomic Surveillance Wins, Reprocessing Drift, and a Century-Old Measles Warning

Tori Whitacre Martonicz, MA, is the lead editor of 

.  She has been a writer and editor for over 30 years and has an MA and BA in English Composition/Literature from the University of Akron in Akron, OH. She lives in Ohio with her husband, Eric; son, Drake; 2 tiny dogs, Selena Brigid Sophia and Doctor Danger Dog; and a big black cat, Freya. She loves reading, writing, gardening, and spending time with her loved ones. 

Contact her through her email: tmartonicz@mjhlifesciences.com.

For infection prevention professionals, the value of identifying an outbreak before more patients become infected can be clear. Securing sustainable funding for the technology that makes earlier detection possible is often more difficult. A national patient safety award recognizing UPMC’s (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) genomic surveillance initiative could help move those conversations forward, according to Alexander Sundermann, DrPH, CIC, FAPIC, AL-CIP, assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh, Division of Infectious Diseases, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who leads the team and serves on 

UPMC received the John M. Eisenberg Patient Safety and Quality Award for Local Level Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality from The Joint Commission and National Quality Forum

, the award recognizes an initiative developed in collaboration with researchers at the 

University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

The Enhanced Detection System for Healthcare-Associated Transmission (EDS-HAT

) connects whole-genome sequencing with infection-prevention investigation and intervention. For Sundermann, the recognition offers an opportunity to make the case for broader access.

“But the hardest thing we've faced to date is obviously finding sustainable funding mechanisms to pay for genomics in infection control,” Sundermann said. “In doing that, you have to talk to health care executives about what it is and the value.”

Finding Transmission That Might Otherwise Be Missed

UPMC introduced EDS-HAT at UPMC Presbyterian in November 2021. The real-time surveillance system analyzes samples from patient infections to identify genetically related pathogens that may indicate transmission. Infection prevention teams investigate those connections, identify transmission routes, and implement interventions to prevent additional spread.

The approach makes infection prevention expertise central to the response. Sequencing identifies potential connections, while investigation helps determine what happened and what needs to change.

According to UPMC, during a 2-year period, 

EDS-HAT identified 172 outbreaks involving 476 patients

 that might have gone undetected through traditional outbreak detection methods. Following real-time investigation and intervention, no further transmission occurred in 96% of identified outbreaks.

UPMC reported that the initiative prevented 62 infections and 5 deaths, with net savings of nearly $700,000 in treatment costs and a 3.2-fold return on investment. Those reported outcomes provide infection prevention teams with specific patient safety and financial results to bring to discussions with leadership.

Helping Infection Preventionists Make Their Case

Sundermann explained that presenting genomic surveillance to executives can require considerable background before reaching the discussion of institutional value. Explaining the technology, its applications, and its role in infection prevention takes time. He sees the award to help close that education gap.

“And what I'm really excited about with this award is that The Joint Commission is recognizing genomics for infection control as an innovative tool,” Sundermann said.

He hopes that recognition will help infection preventionists gain leadership attention and better access to genomic surveillance. As he put it: “I'm most excited to now be able to say it's a Joint Commission recognized tool.”

Lee Harrison, MD, professor of infectious diseases and epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, an infectious diseases physician at UPMC, and inventor of EDS-HAT, also emphasized the opportunity to advance adoption.

“I hope that this recognition from [The] Joint Commission and National Quality Forum contributes to ongoing conversations among US health care leadership, payors, and policymakers about the benefits of genomic surveillance as standard practice in health care,” Harrison said.

Launched in 2002, the Eisenberg Awards recognize innovative, measurable achievements in patient safety and health care quality. They honor the late John M. Eisenberg, MD, MBA, a former administrator of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

For Sundermann, the significance extends from recognition of the team’s work to the conversations that come next. Sustainable funding remains a challenge, but the award gives infection preventionists another way to explain why genomic surveillance deserves leadership’s attention.

Articles

UPMC’s genomic surveillance initiative earned national recognition for patient safety. Alexander Sundermann, DrPH, CIC, FAPIC, AL-CIP, explains how the award could help infection preventionists secure leadership support and sustainable funding for earlier outbreak detection.

UPMC’s Genomic Surveillance Award Opens the Door to Funding Conversations


Sherrie Busby's 30 years of extensive experience and education in the field make her a valuable resource for dental assistants seeking to enhance their skills and advance their careers. She works closely with dental assistants to provide them with comprehensive training on a wide range of topics, including clinical techniques and comprehensive infection control, dental software with AI, and documentation guidelines.

. September is National Dental Infection Control Month, and I’d like to bring your attention to a few things as this annual deep dive into infection control comes to a close. 

 (the leading authority in the dental world) helps raise awareness and provide training to dental professionals year-round, but every September, we shine a light on this vital aspect of professional patient care. The theme for 2026 is 

In September, we focus more on the day-to-day workflow of providing the 

 possible for those in our care. Even though we think we know the proper procedures and office protocols, throughout the year, we tend to forget annual training and slide back into our comfortable old habits.

If you are following along with social media, you will find dozens of leading dental professionals sharing:

The importance of following a consistent workflow

Understanding the difference between cleaning and disinfecting

Really understanding how your automated cleaning and sterilization equipment works

How to provide safe, clean water during dental procedures.

If you’ve not been watching, Google or type 

into YouTube to find those infection control leaders and learn more.

Today I’d like to focus on the workflow.

This is where the best laid systems fall apart because we either don’t remember our training or don’t really understand the why behind the guidelines. As human beings, our habits are our own, and if you are like my husband, “his way” is the only right way to do something and do it right.

These beliefs are a tough nut to crack, and just telling someone “This is how we do it here” most often won’t cut it.

So, to make needed and often necessary changes, we need to focus on 3 things:

How do I fit this into my existing workflow

If you ask a group of dental assistants and hygienists which way the pouches go into the autoclave, paper up or paper down, you will get all different answers depending on their personal beliefs. The real answer? It depends on what type of autoclave you are using. Example in one style, it’s paper up, but another style recommends paper down or pouches standing on their sides, paper to plastic.

How do I know these differences? Because I Googled the user guides for each! When do you think an office team member last looked up or read the user guide for their equipment? I venture to say NEVER!

This is where our own habits come back into play. As leaders, we need to find out for ourselves and then share with the team why which way the pouches go into the autoclave matters. 

Manufacturers spend a lot of money and resources making sure that their machines function in a way that produces the expected outcome (eg, ensuring complete sterilization of dental instruments) before they even put the first one on the market. They communicate these directions in their instructions for use (IFUs). That expected outcome of completely sterilized instruments is why they go to the trouble and recommend that we follow their instructions.If you read either of the documents I linked to, you will see what happens if the directions are not followed correctly, along with several cautionary notes.

So, if you don’t know the full why of something, I suggest a little homework to prepare you to talk to your team member or the full team.

Going back to our personal habits, we really need to focus on how the person, or the entire team, will benefit. As a professional infection control leader, I can tell you from personal experience that unless something benefits me, I most likely either will not pay attention or, worse yet, come to the meeting without an open mind. When our minds are closed to other ways or possibilities, we tend not to implement anything new.

So, focusing on “what’s in it for me” is vital to the implementation process.

One of the hardest “habits” to break is not using utility gloves when breaking down the operatory and when handling reusable sharps during reprocessing in the sterilization lab. Most often, the utility gloves available are for a quarterback that no “normal-sized hand” person can ever think to fit. When the glove doesn’t fit, it is almost impossible to grasp the instruments to inspect, dry, and package, not to mention have you ever tried to peel the tape off a peel-view pouch? Take it from me, it ain’t gonna happen!

Take the time to sit down with the “offender” and have an open and nonjudgmental conversation. The goal is to uncover the real reason they are not wearing utility gloves. Make sure you show genuine concern for your team members’ health and welfare during the conversation. Let them know you are bringing this up to keep them safe during the crazy busy day.

More often than not, the offender doesn’t know why not wearing FDA-approved utility gloves is an OSHA violation. I would advise reviewing your office’s sharps injury logs to see how often and where such injuries occurred over the past couple of years. Do a little research and ask fellow offices if they would share where theirs occur. But keep in mind that most sharps injuries are not reported.If your team member is like me, then they washed the wound, slapped a band-aid on, and went back to work.

If you or your team members feel uncomfortable with this type of conversation, bring it up at your next team meeting and ask for an open, honest discussion about the challenges. These types of discussions will help to identify the problem, and together you will come up with a viable solution that everyone can follow.

Need more information to get the conversation started? Do a Google search as I did here.

“While there is no single metric for the absolute volume of physical sharp objects allocated to a sterile processing lab, standard industry tracking focuses on 

where sharps injuries and handling risks occur

Epidemiological data from dental specialty environments show that approximately 

44% to 47.1%of all dental sharps incidents happen during post-treatment instrument processing

Because nearly all multi-use instruments in dentistry (such as dental burs, scalers, and explorers) must be scrubbed, sorted, and sterilized, the processing area represents a significant hub for sharps exposure (

Studies typically segment dental sharps handling and injury risks into the following environments:

Dental Environment/Phase; Estimated Share of Risk/Incidents; and Common Sharp Items Involved

Purchase an assortment of utility glove sizes to take that part of the resistance away. Our friends at 

have a great long-armed glove that I adore. When you remove part of the challenge your team is facing, it makes implementation easier.

Working into the daily workflow is easy after that.

I may get pushback on this one, but order each team member their own pair of utility gloves to keep in the operatory and the lab.I did this for my team, and then there was no “yucky” multiperson hands going into those hot gloves. OR keep a personal set in the op and then use exam gloves underneath the utility gloves. This makes it way easier to get them on anyway.

Another option is to have 2 individual sets and install a curtain rod above the sink in the lab or inside a lower cabinet, and use a named or color-coded clamp hook to hold them together.

Then, the next thing about working it into the daily workflow is that it covers every important follow-up!

Start an individual conversation, or reopen the topic in a team meeting, and ask the team how working with utility gloves (or other objectives) in the workflow is going. When we have an open and honest discussion about any workflow, it helps to have everyone on the same page, and we tend to help hold one another accountable and, when needed, offer assistance or advice.

rocedure (SOP) for whatever it is you are trying to implement is vital to your success.SOPs not only spell it out for the team but also serve as your office bible for additional training or holding someone accountable.

Not sure how to create an effective SOP?Do a Google search “how to create an SOP,” or reach out to me, and I’ll be glad to help. Sherrie.busby@yahoo.com

I want to leave you with these thoughts…

Make sure your team understands the “why” behind a task or workflow. Don’t just assume everyone truly understands the need and the repercussions of not following the SOP.

Remove as many barriers as possible and provide the needed supplies or equipment

Make infection control and safety a topic at

 team meeting, discuss challenges, and come up with solutions together.

Practice “accountability” with the entire team. Implement an SOP and then ensure it’s being followed. If not, then have an open and honest discussion about why and put new practices in place.

Let’s make a plan to include an infection control conversation at every team meeting, follow up in a timely manner, and create the safest visit possible for the patients under our care.

Knowing the protocol is only the beginning. In The Clean Bite, Sherrie Busby explores how explaining the why, addressing staff concerns, and creating clear procedures can help dental teams make infection control part of everyday practice.

The Clean Bite: Making Dental Infection Control Part of Every Day

Tommy Davis, By Tommy Davis, PhD, MMin, CMIP, CEPHP, LSSGB, BLS, is CEO, president, and principal officer at High Distinction Consulting, LLC, and is currently engaged in health care management. He is also a member of

Environmental services personnel doing cleaning in the operating room

Infection preventionists (IPs) occupy a critical leadership role in preventing and reducing health care-associated infections (HAIs); however, the breadth of their responsibilities may be unintentionally constrained by institutional practices, professional training, and longstanding organizational norms. Within some health care settings, IP surveillance and rounding may place substantial emphasis on environmental services (EVS)-related observations, including dust accumulation, deficiencies in high-touch surface cleaning, and visible floor debris.

Evaluate practices alongside environmental conditions.

 Purposeful rounding should include waste disposal, device care, hand hygiene, equipment disinfection, and environmental cleanliness.

Include EVS staff in safety conversations.

 Their daily observations can help identify concerns, but professional hierarchies may make speaking up difficult.

 HAI trends, waste audits, sharps injury reports, and unit-specific risks can help teams focus observations and coaching.

Although environmental cleanliness and effective health care environmental hygiene are fundamental components of infection prevention, HAIs result from a complex interplay of clinical, behavioral, procedural, device-associated, and environmental factors that extend well beyond the scope of EVS operations. Consequently, a disproportionate focus on readily visible environmental deficiencies during routine rounding may divert attention from other potentially significant infection prevention risks, including inappropriate medical waste segregation, lapses in central line care, improper disposal of hazardous materials, and deficiencies in the cleaning and disinfection of reusable medical devices.

A comprehensive approach to HAI prevention, therefore, requires IPs to employ structured, purposeful rounding practices that systematically evaluate the full spectrum of infection prevention domains while engaging EVS, nursing, clinical services, and other relevant disciplines in shared accountability for patient safety.

Environmental contamination contributes to pathogen transmission, but it is rarely the primary driver of HAIs. According to the CDC, the most significant contributors to HAIs include central line-associated bloodstream infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, surgical site infections, and ventilator-associated events—all of which stem largely from clinical practices rather than environmental dust or debris.

When IPs place disproportionate emphasis on environmental services (EVS), several concerns may arise. First, clinically significant infection risks may receive insufficient attention. For example, blood-soaked dressings discarded in general waste or improper handling of a contaminated central-line hub may present substantially greater risks for HAI than relatively minor environmental deficiencies, such as dust accumulation on a windowsill. Second, EVS personnel may perceive this emphasis as inequitable, particularly when environmental deficiencies are repeatedly identified while more consequential clinical practices remain insufficiently addressed. Third, an excessive focus on EVS may inadvertently narrow the perceived scope of infection prevention, reinforcing the view that IPs function primarily as environmental inspectors rather than as interdisciplinary clinical safety partners.

This imbalance is further complicated by professional dynamics. Given the historically strong representation of nursing professionals within the infection prevention field, EVS personnel may perceive that nursing-related workflows receive preferential consideration when infection prevention concerns intersect with clinical operations. This dynamic not only undermines EVS morale but also weakens the interdisciplinary collaboration essential for effective infection prevention.

In an interesting study, EVS personnel reported discomfort with directly identifying lapses in physicians’ hand hygiene practices and with requesting additional time to complete environmental cleaning activities.

This finding is significant because it highlights a potential barrier to effective interdisciplinary communication and infection prevention practice. IPs should actively engage EVS personnel as essential members of the health care infection prevention team and systematically solicit their observations, concerns, and recommendations.

Given their continuous presence in patient care environments, EVS personnel may identify environmental and practice-related risks that might otherwise go unrecognized. Establishing a culture in which EVS personnel can communicate concerns without fear of reprisal or professional marginalization may strengthen collaboration, facilitate timely identification of infection prevention lapses, and support a more robust culture of patient safety.

Improper Waste Disposal: A Significant and Underaddressed Risk

Nursing teams generate most of the bedside waste, yet improper disposal practices remain common across many hospitals. These behaviors create exposure risks for EVS staff, nurses, visitors, and patients.

Historically, nursing pioneers such as Florence Nightingale demonstrated that clinical competence extends beyond the direct treatment of disease to include the systematic management of the health care environment. Nightingale’s renowned nightly rounds through medical wards, symbolized by her lamp, reflected a disciplined commitment to sanitation, environmental hygiene, ventilation, and other practices that helped reduce the transmission of disease. Her advocacy for these measures challenged prevailing medical assumptions of the mid-nineteenth century, at a time when environmental and sanitary interventions were not universally accepted within the medical profession and were perceived as a challenge to established professional authority.

Nightingale’s legacy, therefore, underscores an enduring principle: the prevention of disease requires both clinical knowledge and rigorous attention to the entire environment in which care is delivered. That responsibility must continue to guide contemporary health care practice, particularly through purposeful rounding, in protecting patients and health care workers, including environmental services personnel.

Blood-Soaked Waste in Regular Trash and Segregation Failures

Items saturated with blood or bodily fluids must be disposed of in regulated medical waste (RMW) receptacles.

When blood-soaked dressings, gauze, or personal protective equipment (PPE) are thrown into standard trash bins, they create occupational hazards and violate Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Bloodborne Pathogens standards.

 EVS staff frequently discover these items, including containers filled with urine, during routine trash removal, placing them at unnecessary risk.

Improper segregation of health care waste streams can complicate downstream handling and disposal processes and increase occupational exposure risks. EVS personnel are often well-positioned to identify waste-segregation discrepancies because of their direct involvement in environmental cleaning and waste management; however, research suggests that their observations and concerns may be undervalued within the broader health care team.

Linen contaminated with blood should be placed in designated soiled linen bags. Improper disposal, such as placing bloody linen in regular trash, creates cross-contamination risks and exposes staff to preventable bloodborne pathogen hazards.

Sharps containers, RMW bins, and pharmaceutical waste containers are frequently misused or ignored. Common issues include:

PPE stuffed into pharmaceutical waste bins

These problems represent systemic breakdowns in safety culture and cannot be mitigated by EVS alone.

Other High-Risk Areas Requiring IP Attention

Beyond waste disposal, several domains consistently demonstrate higher clinical impact than environmental cleanliness alone:

Central line maintenance and access practices

These areas demand structured, intentional rounding—not reactive attention only when an outbreak occurs. Purposeful rounding is a structured, proactive method that allows IPs to evaluate the full infection prevention ecosystem rather than isolated environmental concerns. Effective purposeful rounding includes:

Direct Observation of Health Care Worker Workflows

Watching how staff dispose of waste, handle linen, access central lines, or disinfect equipment reveals risks that cannot be captured through environmental inspection alone. These observations also validate EVS concerns and reinforce interdisciplinary accountability.

Purposeful rounding positions IPs into partners who support safe practice. Coaching staff on proper waste disposal or central line access is equally impactful as repeatedly identifying environmental deficiencies attributable to EVS.

Building a Culture of Shared Accountability

Infection prevention is a shared responsibility. Nursing, EVS, respiratory therapy, sterile processing, and pharmacy all contribute to infection prevention. Purposeful rounding must reflect this reality.

Rounding should be informed by HAI trends, waste audit findings, sharps injury reports, and unit-specific risks. This ensures that IPs address the most significant threats in their jurisdiction rather than the most visible ones. EVS plays a vital role, but so do nurses, physicians, respiratory therapists, and ancillary staff. A holistic approach:

Strengthens interdisciplinary relationships

Recognizing EVS staff as essential partners and validating their observations helps dismantle hierarchical barriers that impede infection prevention efforts.

Hospital IPs must resist the tendency to overemphasize environmental concerns at the expense of more clinically significant risks. Improper waste disposal, contaminated central lines, and misuse of hazardous waste receptacles represent serious infection prevention failures that require equally focused attention. EVS staff frequently identify these issues, yet their concerns may be overlooked due to professional dynamics within the hospital.

By adopting purposeful, structured rounding that evaluates all infection prevention domains, IPs can more effectively reduce HAIs, strengthen interdisciplinary collaboration, and elevate the hospital's overall safety culture. Comprehensive infection prevention is not only best practice but also essential for protecting patients and ensuring high-quality care.

About HAIs. CDC. Updated July 15, 2026. Accessed September 28, 2026. 

https://www.cdc.gov/healthcare-associated-infections/about/index.html

Yanke E, Moriarty H, Carayon P, Safdar N. “The invisible staff”: a qualitative analysis of environmental service workers’ perceptions of the VA 

 prevention bundle using a human factors engineering approach. 

 2021;17(8):e806-e814. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000500

Block’s Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation.

Bloodborne pathogens, 29 CFR §1910.1030. Accessed September 28, 2026. 

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1910/section-1910.1030

Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Disinfection and sterilization in health care facilities: an overview and current issues. 

 2016;30(3):609-637. doi:10.1016/j.idc.2016.04.002

Townsend S, Cermignano T, Karley P, Seon N, Coffin SE. Wiping out confusion: a toolkit to define roles and improve cleanliness in complex patient care spaces. 

 2026;54(7):810-814. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2026.02.002

What might infection prevention rounds miss when visible conditions dominate the conversation? Tommy Davis, PhD, CMIP, a member of ICT's executive advisory board, makes the case for structured observations of clinical workflows, shared accountability, and greater attention to environmental services staff’s insights.

How Purposeful Infection Prevention Rounding Supports Patient Safety and EVS Collaboration

Person holding a mobile phone with the logo of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in front of a web page.

President Donald Trump’s administration has proposed canceling $27.7 million in funding for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), placing an agency with an infection prevention role across health care settings within a federal spending dispute.

The September 25 announcement concerns rescinding appropriated funding, not reversing earlier cuts. Trump’s message to Congress lists 11 proposed rescissions totaling $810 million. Other Health and Human Services (HHS) reductions include $567,401,904 from Refugee and Entrant Assistance and $5,098,000 from the Office of the Secretary account, targeting Office of Minority Health activities.

The AHRQ proposal would remove $27,700,000 from its $345 million fiscal year 2026 appropriation. 

 the action as “a first step to prioritize the statistical functions of AHRQ” and argues that some research duplicates work elsewhere within HHS. 

For infection prevention and control (IPC) professionals, the immediate question is which activities would absorb that reduction. The proposal does not identify specific HAI prevention grants or toolkits for cancellation. It therefore does not establish that a particular hospital’s infection prevention initiative has lost funding.

 is substantial. Its Safety Program for Healthcare-Associated Infection Prevention brings together evidence-based toolkits for intensive care and other hospital units. The program builds on Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program methods, addressing central line-associated bloodstream infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, and ventilator-associated pneumonia and events.

Those resources address an operational challenge familiar to infection preventionists: translating evidence into consistent bedside practice. 

The Toolkit for Preventing CLABSI and CAUTI in ICUs from AHRQ.

 combines clinical interventions with approaches to teamwork and safety culture. Its CAUTI resources also address implementation and sustainability, helping hospitals organize improvement efforts rather than simply distribute recommendations.

That work explains why an agency-level reduction warrants attention even without a confirmed list of affected IPC projects. Potential consequences could include fewer future research awards or reduced implementation support if those activities bear the brunt of the cuts. These are possible effects, not documented outcomes of this announcement.

The larger refugee services reduction raises a separate question

 about access to preventive care. CDC describes domestic refugee screening as an opportunity to identify health concerns and connect patients with ongoing care. Its guidance includes tuberculosis, immunizations, HIV, and viral hepatitis, with screening generally occurring 30 to 90 days after arrival.

However, the rescission document does not specify how much of the refugee-account reduction would affect medical screening or related services. Any connection to delayed diagnosis, vaccination gaps, or increased hospital demand remains conditional on actual service changes. Immigration status alone should not be treated as evidence of infection risk.

 A pocket rescission involves proposing cancellation near the fiscal year’s end, potentially allowing funds to expire before Congress can act. In its explanation of the practice, 

the Government Accountability Office states

, “The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) does not provide that authority.”

 that Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins opposed the administration’s action. That dispute over spending authority is distinct from the question of which individual health programs would undergo operational changes.

For IPC leaders, a practical response is to identify dependence on AHRQ-funded projects, ask research and finance teams about award-specific notices, and confirm whether community partners anticipate service interruptions. Existing prevention practices should continue while organizations seek concrete information.

Hospitals can also document what implementation support contributes locally, including staff education, teamwork, and sustained use of prevention protocols. Such information would help distinguish a general budget concern from a measurable operational gap.

The central issue in infection prevention is continuity: whether the research, practical tools, and partnerships that support safer care remain available. Answering that requires program-level decisions and communication with affected organizations, not assumptions based solely on the headline dollar amount.

A proposed $27.7 million reduction in AHRQ funding raises questions about support for infection prevention research and implementation. Here is what the September 25 announcement identifies, as well as what remains unknown about specific IPC programs.

Proposed AHRQ Cut Raises Questions About Infection Prevention Research and Support

Two posters presented by Karen Jones examine surveillance responsibilities and staffing in small hospitals, alongside IPs’ reported experiences after implementing electronic surveillance. Findings highlight opportunities for more investigation, rounding, and communication.

Small hospitals can have complex infection prevention needs, even when their staffing and surveillance resources are limited. Critical care, inpatient dialysis, and oncology services all require attention, while infection preventionists (IPs) may also be responsible for gathering laboratory results, entering data, and completing reports through manual processes.

Association for Professionals in Infection Prevention and Epidemiology Annual Conference and Exposition

 held from June 15 to 17, 2026, in Nashville, Tennessee, Karen Jones, MPH, RN, CIC, FAPIC, clinical program manager– infection prevention in the Clinical Surveillance and Compliance Department for 

) and discussed the 2 posters she presented. The posters examined the workload and the reports from IPs after implementing electronic surveillance. Together, the projects explored the responsibilities of IPs in small and critical access hospitals and whether technology could create more time for investigation, rounding, and communication.

Understanding the Work Before Implementation

Jones’s first poster, “Are We There Yet? Examining surveillance practices and IP responsibilities at small and critical access hospitals,” examined facilities preparing to implement an electronic surveillance system. Jones described a 45-question survey with 43 IP respondents. Half of the hospitals were considered critical access hospitals; among the remaining facilities, the average bed size was about 55 beds. These were hospitals moving from manual surveillance processes to an electronic system, rather than replacing an established electronic surveillance platform. Their services demonstrated why bed count alone could not describe the scope of an IP’s responsibilities.

“Many of them also had specialty units, including things like inpatient dialysis, oncology departments, which really underscores the fact that even though these are small hospitals, they still have a lot of oversight into very unique care settings,” Jones said.

Most hospitals had at least 1 dedicated IP full-time equivalent (FTE), but about a third had less than 1 FTE dedicated to infection prevention. Fewer than a third had administrative support, and fewer than half had support from an infectious disease or epidemiology physician. For an IP working with limited resources, those findings describe more than a staffing number. Administrative work competes with other responsibilities, while access to physician expertise may be limited when a difficult situation requires additional input.

Jones also highlighted work that extended beyond formal reporting obligations. Among surveyed critical access hospitals, two-thirds conducted surveillance for events outside their National Healthcare Safety Network reporting plans, including device-related infections tracked and reported internally. The methods used to obtain microbiology results varied considerably. Some facilities could generate reports through laboratory information systems. Others depended on paper printouts, telephone calls, or interoffice mail. Those processes required staff involvement to move information to the person responsible for reviewing it.

The first poster, therefore, documented both the breadth of surveillance work and the practical obstacles facing IPs before implementation. It also established the context for the second project: what might change when some of that manual work becomes electronic?

Two posters presented by Karen Jones, MPH, RN, CIC, FAPIC, at the APIC Annual Conference and Exposition examine surveillance responsibilities and staffing in small hospitals, as well as IPs’ reported experiences after implementing electronic surveillance. Findings highlight opportunities for more investigation, rounding, and communication.