Deborah Ellis, PhD, MS, MPH, MT(ASCP), CIC, LTC-CIP, CPHQ, FACHE, is the system director of infection prevention and control at Alameda Health System in California. A Fellow of the American College of Healthcare Executives, she is a nationally recognized leader in infection prevention and a champion for elevating IPs into healthcare’s executive ranks.

Deborah Ellis, PhD, MS, MPH, MT(ASCP), CIC, LTC-CIP, CPHQ, FACHE

The authors discuss CBIC’s new education rules.

(Top left: Brenna Doran, PhD, MA, ACC, CIC, AL-CIP

Top right: Carole W. Kamangu, MPH, RN, CIC

Bottom: Deborah Ellis, PhD, MPH, AL-CIP, CPHQ, FACHE.)

In June, presenters at the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) 2026 Annual Conference and Exposition in Nashville noticed something in their session listings: no infection prevention units (IPUs). This matters because IPs certified through the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC) recertify by collecting IPUs. One of them, Rebecca Battjes, MPH, CIC, FAPIC, assumed it was a typo. She asked and was told it was an oversight that would not happen again. However, the credit was never restored.

Speaking on this site’s Contagious Conversations podcast, she said she still does not fully understand why it happened, beyond the fact that she works for industry, as an APIC strategic partner, a role she has held for more than 10 years. Her APIC 2025 session on the same topic and similar content was offered for IPUs.

Figure 1. Protecting Your Own IPU Portfolio

(Figure created by Brenna Doran, PhD, MA, ACC, CIC, AL-CIP)

The timing made the decision even harder to understand. Battjes presented on June 15, 2026. CBIC states that its updated Industry Partner requirements apply to activities held on or after June 29.

 An archived version of CBIC’s provider approval page captured on June 11 contained no Industry Partner definition or accreditation requirement.

That sequence does not prove motive, and we should not assign one. It does, however, show why the field has struggled to understand what changed, when it changed, and how the rule was being applied. The change was announced in a blog post, and earlier reporting in this publication noted that no accompanying social media announcement could be found.

 The IPs documented here learned of it after the fact, one from a session listing and one not at all.

 A rule may make sense in principle, but fair implementation requires clear communication. That falls apart when the underlying documents do not match, and the notice never reaches the audience it governs.

The Objective Deserves to Be Taken Seriously

CBIC and APIC have now explained the concern that prompted the change. In a joint commentary, the 2 organizations' chief executives wrote that some sessions presented as education had functioned as sales pitches. Their position is straightforward: Industry support is welcome, but commercial control of credentialed education is not.⁶

We agree with the objective. CBIC has a legitimate responsibility to protect the integrity of IPU-eligible education, and infection prevention should not accept product promotion disguised as science. The updated standard places certain Industry Partner activities into an independent-accreditation pathway already familiar in medicine and nursing. That is a reasonable policy goal.

The commentary also corrects some early assumptions. Independent consulting, coaching, research, and education businesses are not Industry Partners simply because they charge for their services. Industry-employed IPs may still teach independently developed content unrelated to their employer’s products. APIC chapter-controlled education remains eligible, and full provider accreditation is not required for every activity; CBIC and APIC point instead to activity-level approval, which may cost a few hundred dollars.

Those clarifications matter. The financial mechanics and the distinction between full provider accreditation and activity-level approval have already been examined in this publication.

 Our concern here is different: The clarification arrived after the field had already begun trying to interpret multiple documents that did not say the same thing.

The written record is harder to follow than the policy itself. CBIC announced its IPU Provider Approval Request Process in an October 30, 2025, blog post that described a peer-review process and a content standard, but not an Industry Partner accreditation pathway.⁷ Neither did the provider page archived on June 11, 2026. The current page adds one: An Industry Partner activity qualifies only if the partner or an independent provider of record holds authorization to award a continuing education unit (CEU), continuing nursing education (CNE), continuing medical education (CME), or a CBIC-recognized equivalent, and without it, no IPUs are awarded, regardless of scientific content.

 The IPU Criteria Chart still carries a September 1, 2024, date and no Industry Partner pathway,⁸ and the Candidate Handbook and recertification FAQ diverge on how accredited sponsorship is counted.

Two documents added since the commentary sharpen the problem rather than settle it: a chapter education FAQ and a 1-page flyer last updated August 31, 2026.

 The Industry Partner definition treats an entity that sponsors or funds a specific activity as an Industry Partner for that activity, evaluated under the accreditation pathway.¹³ The general FAQ lists accreditation among 3 conditions an industry-funded activity must meet.² The chapter FAQ permits sponsorship as long as the accreditation requirement is met.¹¹ The flyer says funding or sponsorship alone does not trigger that requirement.¹² Four current documents, 2 different answers. The IP who attends that session has no way to know whether the certificate she files will hold up at recertification.

There may be administratively reasonable explanations, but that is why revision dates, change histories, and cross-references matter. No IP should need an Internet Archive search to learn which rules applied on the day of an activity.

 Protecting IPU-eligible education from commercial control is a legitimate responsibility, and independent consultants are not automatically classified as Industry Partners simply because they charge for their work.

The written guidance remains difficult to reconcile.

 The article identifies current CBIC documents that appear to give different answers about when sponsorship or funding triggers the Industry Partner accreditation pathway.

 International IPs interviewed for the article described paying for continuing education themselves and relying on accredited webinars for IPUs, raising questions about how changes in free or sponsored education could affect accessibility.

What the joint APIC and CBIC commentary does not yet provide is a single operational road map showing how funding, speaker employment, content control, product references, venue, and accreditation interact in common situations.

CBIC and APIC say chapter-controlled education remains unaffected when the chapter selects the speaker and controls the content,

 and the August 31 flyer now supplies guidance with specific examples showing how this applies to both full conferences and single presentations.

 Chapter leaders still need examples that distinguish unrestricted support from sponsorship that triggers the Industry Partner pathway, which is the very point at which the flyer and the other 3 documents disagree.

The same problem appears for smaller education providers and independent consultants who are not Industry Partners on their own but may accept support for a specific activity. The policy is activity-based.

 That means classification may turn on the details of each arrangement. A large organization can send those details to legal, compliance, or an established accredited provider of record. A small practice, startup, or volunteer education chair may have no comparable infrastructure. The direct approval fee may be modest; the cost of uncertainty is not.

That cost is not limited to money. It includes delayed programs, abandoned ideas, fewer speakers, and the safest response to an unclear rule: doing nothing. Those are potential consequences rather than outcomes we claim have occurred, and they are foreseeable enough to deserve attention now.

CBIC and APIC state that free education will remain free and that no one will pay more for the education needed to recertify.

 We hope that proves correct. But whether sponsors will continue to offer the same volume and variety of free education is not something a credentialing body can guarantee. Sponsors and educators will make their own decisions based on administrative burden, risk, timing, and perceived value.

Other IPU pathways do exist. CBIC identifies association webinars, conferences, committee leadership, mentorship, infection control risk-assessment training, and several international options.

 The question is whether they replace accessible, domain-specific education. A certification in infection prevention and control (CIC) portfolio must span at least 6 of 8 knowledge domains.

 Service and leadership activities may contribute units, but IPs still need substantive education in surveillance, transmission prevention, occupational health, environment of care, and cleaning and sterilization.

The international implications also deserve careful reporting rather than assumption. Access, employer support, professional-association infrastructure, and accepted accreditation pathways vary considerably across countries.

To better understand the impact on international IPs, Carole invited perspectives from IPs in her network. Three volunteer respondents, who practice in the Middle East and parts of Africa, shared their perspectives this month through interviews and a survey. Responses are quoted anonymously with permission. These responses are illustrative and are not intended to represent the views of international IPs broadly.

The responses were not uniform. One said simply, “I don’t really think about the new rule.” Another said she would attend independent consultants’ sessions, whether or not they carried units.

The first was the cost falling on individuals. One respondent put it plainly: “Employers are not willing to invest for our continuous education … because it’s our responsibility to renew our certification … We have to pay from our pocket.” Another said, “I don’t get affordable or free IPUs anywhere right now.” A third described how eligibility shapes what she attends: “My main concern is accessibility … I’m always attending the webinars accredited by CBIC because those are the only ones where I can get the IPUs.”

The second was where product-adjacent expertise will come from. Several described vendor sessions as where they encounter new technologies. As one put it: “I think we need vendors’ help also … they will show the products, then we will be touching those new products available in the market.”

CBIC is right that a session existing to sell a product should not carry units. Where these IPs will instead find education in high-level disinfection and sterile processing is an open question.

CBIC does not need to abandon its standard of independence to make the pathway clearer. Several practical steps would strengthen both rigor and confidence (

Figure 2. How CBIC Can Create a Shared Understanding

The last step may be the most important. Individual email exchanges can clarify one activity at a time, but they do not create shared understanding. A public dialogue would allow CBIC to explain the problem it is trying to solve, allow affected groups to describe implementation challenges, and help everyone distinguish genuine educational independence from assumptions about who can be trusted to teach.

The debate should not be reduced to a choice between protecting the credential and preserving access to education. The field needs both. CBIC is right to insist that education carrying IPUs answer to science rather than sales. The people expected to follow that standard are equally right to ask for guidance that is timely, consistent, and usable.

The joint APIC/CBIC commentary is an important clarification, but it should be the beginning of the conversation, not the final word. A policy becomes credible not only because its purpose is sound, but because those governed by it can find it, understand it, and apply it before decisions are made.

Rigor does not require ambiguity. Access does not require lowering standards. What the field needs now is a road map that protects both.

Martonicz TW. Same expert, different employer: should that change what counts as IPC education? 

. August 24, 2026. Accessed September 9, 2026. 

https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/same-expert-different-employer-should-change-what-counts-ipc-education-

Frequently asked questions: continuing education and IPU requirements. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Accessed September 9, 2026. 

https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/PDFs/CBIC-FAQs-Industry-Partner-IPUs.pdf

IPU provider approval requests. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Archived June 11, 2026. Accessed September 9, 2026. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20260611192351/https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/Recertify/Recertification-by-Continuing-Education/IPU-Provider-Approval-Requests.htm

IPU provider approval requests. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Accessed September 9, 2026. 

https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/Recertify/Recertification-by-Continuing-Education/IPU-Provider-Approval-Requests.htm

Doran B. The new rules of recertification: what CBIC's industry IPU policy means for you. Infection Control Today. August 26, 2026. Accessed September 9, 2026. 

https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/new-rules-recertification-what-cbic-s-industry-ipu-policy-means-you

Jopp D, Dangles J. Protecting the integrity of the credential: what the IPU standard does and does not change. APIC and CBIC commentary. August 27, 2026. Accessed September 9, 2026. 

https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/PDFs/IPU-commentary-APIC-CBIC-Final-Version.pdf

Uricochea G. All about the IPU provider approval process. CBIC Blog. October 30, 2025. Accessed September 9, 2026. 

https://blog.cbic.org/all-about-ipu-provider-approval-request-process/

Infection prevention units criteria chart. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Updated September 1, 2024. Accessed September 9, 2026. 

https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/PDFs/2024-IPU-Criteria-Chart_V51.pdf

Candidate handbook: CIC, LTC-CIP, a-IPC. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Revised January 2026. Accessed September 9, 2026. 

https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/Candidate-Handbook.htm

Recertification by IPUs FAQs. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Accessed September 9, 2026. 

https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/Certification-FAQs/Recertification-by-IPUs.htm

Frequently asked questions: APIC chapter education. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Accessed September 9, 2026. 

https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/PDFs/Frequently-Asked-Questions_Chapter-IPUs.pdf

What APIC chapters need to know about IPUs. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Updated August 31, 2026. Accessed September 9, 2026. 

https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/PDFs/IPU_Flyer_APIC_Chapters__August-31-2026.pdf

Industry partner definition. Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Accessed September 9, 2026. 

https://www.cbic.org/CBIC/PDFs/Industry-partner-definition-.pdf

Articles

CBIC and APIC say updated IPU requirements are intended to protect infection prevention education from commercial influence. But differing guidance, questions about industry support, and concerns about educational access leave IPs asking for a clearer, more consistent road map. 

Lost in Translation: Why CBIC’s New Education Rules Are Raising Questions in the Field 

Infection prevention is my life’s work, but my path into this field didn’t come through a hospital bedside. Like many non-RN infection preventionists (IPs), my journey started in public health and microbiology, grounded in data analysis, population health strategy, and epidemiologic science. I have 5 academic degrees, including an MPH and a PhD in public health, and I hold national triple board certifications in infection prevention (CIC), health care quality (CPHQ), and health care executive leadership (FACHE). If I had to sum up my career in a single line, it’s this: I’ve either been growing the germs or chasing the germs.

Yet, despite these qualifications and decades of experience, I have repeatedly been told that I do not “belong” in infection prevention because I’m not a registered nurse.

It’s a profession that itself has evolved dramatically over the last half-century. Infection prevention formally took root in the 1970s, following the CDC’s groundbreaking Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC Project).

 This landmark research proved that hospitals with structured infection surveillance programs could reduce nosocomial infections by 32%. SENIC ushered in a new era of infection control, transforming it from sporadic, informal efforts, often housed within nursing units, into an organized, epidemiology-based field with a measurable impact on patient safety.

Despite the field’s evolution into a science-driven discipline, many health care organizations have remained stubbornly attached to the idea that infection prevention is fundamentally a nursing territory.

Two moments in my career stand out as particularly eye-opening. Years ago, after building a successful career in a large metropolitan health care system, I took time off to focus on family. When I returned to the workforce in a smaller city, I applied for a hospital IP position and was told, point-blank, that I wasn’t qualified because I wasn’t an RN. I pressed them, asking, “Would you really rather hire an RN with no IP experience over a non-RN with more than 10 years of experience?” The answer was yes. I was stunned. The message was clear: Credentials mattered more than competence.

Years later, with my experience refreshed, CIC certification in hand, and years of recent leadership under my belt, I applied for a role in a larger health care system in the same community. During the interview, the infection prevention director—an RN—asked me if I’d be willing to go back to school to obtain a nursing degree. I was baffled. I asked why, explaining that I already held advanced graduate degrees and national certifications. The answer? She believed non-RNs lacked “critical thinking.” I sat there, astounded, silently wondering, What critical thinking are you applying right now to ask me this question?

These experiences are not isolated. They represent a persistent, damaging bias within the field of infection prevention: The assumption that only RNs are capable of leading this work effectively. And let’s be clear: This isn’t just a philosophical debate about professional backgrounds. For non-RNs working in infection prevention, this debate is deeply personal. It’s received as a message that you are inherently incompetent and incapable of learning. It signals that no matter how much education, certification, or experience you bring, you are always seen as “less than” because your path didn’t run through the bedside.

This article is both a personal reflection and a professional call to action. Infection prevention has fundamentally changed. What began as bedside observation and nursing-led surveillance has evolved into a high-level discipline of epidemiology, performance improvement, and regulatory accountability. Yet our hiring practices, leadership pipelines, and professional cultures have not kept up.

It’s time to change that.

Infection Prevention: A Field Transformed

In the early years of hospital infection control, before the widespread use of standardized surveillance systems, IP work was rooted in bedside observation. The focus was on 'whole house surveillance,' where IPs reviewed every positive culture or fever charted in the hospital. The work was largely qualitative, informal, and case-based.

It made perfect sense that nurses, particularly those trained in acute care, were recruited for these early IP roles. Their proximity to patient care and clinical judgment made them ideal for identifying trends and enforcing hygiene protocols.

But the field didn’t stay there. With the rise of the CDC’s National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system and later the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), infection prevention moved from subjective assessment to statistical surveillance. The work became about baselines, risk-adjusted rates, and standardized infection ratios.

The shift accelerated when the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services(CMS) tied reimbursement to infection rates. Suddenly, infection prevention was not just about care; it was about financial stewardship, regulatory performance, and enterprise-wide risk management. The role demanded a new skill set: data analytics, risk modeling, policy interpretation, and hospital-wide thinking.

In short, infection prevention and control (IPC) stopped being purely clinical. It became epidemiological. 

Non-RN IPs, including public health professionals, clinical microbiologists, and data scientists, bring essential skills that align directly with the modern demands of IPC. Not to say that an RN lacks these skill sets.

 Non-RNs are often formally trained in epidemiology, statistics, and population health. They understand risk adjustment, trend analysis, and 

 surveillance methodology—skills essential in modern infection prevention programs.

 Those from laboratory backgrounds bring deep expertise in pathogen behavior, diagnostics, clinical microbiology operations, and infectious processes. This skillset is crucial for diagnostic stewardship, understanding organism trends, and interpreting surveillance definitions.

 Public health-trained IPs are grounded in root cause analysis, performance improvement, and health systems theory. They look beyond individual behavior to system breakdowns and process failures.

 Many non-RNs are skilled in interpreting CMS regulations, The Joint Commission standards, and public health mandates. Their perspective bridges operational performance with compliance readiness.

The scope of knowledge required today is reflected in the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) Core Competency Model

, which defines the professional development framework for IPs across 8 domains: Leadership and Program Management, Infection Prevention and Control, Performance Improvement and Implementation Science, Technology and Informatics, Education and Training, Research and Evaluation, Professional Stewardship, and Communication and Collaboration.

These domains encompass strategic planning, data interpretation, change management, project implementation, technology utilization, teaching, policy advocacy, interpreting public policy, and interprofessional leadership. None of these competencies are exclusive to nursing practices. In fact, many align more closely with training in public health, microbiology, epidemiology, quality improvement, or health care administration.

The model itself acknowledges that infection prevention is an interdisciplinary specialty that requires diverse perspectives and validates that multiple educational and professional pathways can prepare individuals to excel in the role.

Despite these clear advantages, many health care systems still restrict infection prevention roles to RNs. This often stems from outdated assumptions that IP is an extension of bedside care or from misconceptions that non-RNs lack “clinical relevance” or “critical thinking.”

Ironically, in today’s environment, it is non-RNs who are often better positioned to lead initiatives that involve predictive analytics, health equity strategies, and multisite surveillance programs. Excluding them limits the field’s growth and undermines health care performance.

Before we can successfully call on hiring managers, human resources departments, and executives to rethink the infection prevention pipeline, we must first address our own professional house. As IPs, we must embrace the fact that our colleagues 

 come from diverse academic and professional pathways, including nursing, public health, microbiology, sterile processing, epidemiology, laboratory science, and more.

If we cannot model that inclusivity among ourselves, our advocacy will ring hollow outside the profession. Too often, the debate over RN versus non-RN backgrounds becomes entrenched in a way that alienates capable, qualified professionals. To non-RNs, this debate isn’t academic; it’s personal, and it’s often received as a message that you are inherently less competent or incapable of learning, no matter your education, certifications, or achievements.

Requiring all IPs to be RNs is like requiring all epidemiologists to be surgeons—it conflates two distinct skill sets, assumes that a single pathway produces all necessary competencies, and ignores the value of specialized training. Infection Prevention thrives when it is multidisciplinary, not when it is narrowed to a single lens.

Only when we, as a profession, openly recognize and celebrate the varied expertise that different backgrounds bring can we credibly ask hospital systems and hiring managers to do the same.

Health care leaders must evolve with the profession:

to focus on competencies like CIC certification, data fluency, and regulatory expertise, not just nursing credentials.

 by creating pathways for non-RNs to grow into leadership roles within IPC departments.

 by ensuring microbiologists, sterile processing professionals, MPH holders, and data scientists are eligible for director-level and system-level roles.



Infection prevention is no longer about anecdotal audits or informal observations; it is about leading health care systems to measurable, sustainable improvement. It is about connecting the patient room to the boardroom. It is about preventing harm at scale.

To meet these demands, we need microbiologists, public health strategists, epidemiologists, and clinical nurses working together, not gatekeeping based on outdated assumptions. The future of IPC is broader, deeper, and more interdisciplinary—and non-RN professionals are essential to that future.

Haley RW, Culver DH, White JW, et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. 

 1985;121(2):182-205. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113990

Edwards JR, Peterson KD, Mu Y, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Report, data summary for 2006 through 2008, issued December 2009. 

 2009;37(10):783-805. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2009.10.001

The National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) overview. CDC. Published 2024. Accessed December 2, 2025. 

https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/about-nhsn/index.html

Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC). 

APIC Competency Model for the Infection Preventionist

, 2019 update. Accessed December 2, 2025. 

Infection prevention has outgrown the idea that only bedside nurses belong in the role. Today’s IP work is epidemiology, data science, quality, and systems leadership—yet non-RN experts are still told they “don’t belong.” It is time to broaden the pipeline and value competence over a single professional credential and experience.

More Than One Path: Why Infection Prevention Needs the Voices of Non-RN Professionals

Deborah Ellis, PhD, MS, MPH, MT(ASCP), CIC, LTC-CIP, CPHQ, FACHE, is the system director of infection prevention and control at Alameda Health System in California.

Over the past 25 years, infection preventionists (IPs) have transformed from tactical specialists into strategic leaders. Their scope now encompasses system-wide risk mitigation, public health crisis coordination, regulatory compliance, change management, and enterprise-wide patient safety. Influencing without title or authority. Despite this evolution, IPs remain largely absent from executive leadership roles.

The exclusion of IPs from the C-suite is more than a missed professional opportunity; it is a structural weakness in health care governance.

IPs possess a skill set that mirrors the core competencies of senior healthcare executives. They analyze complex data, operate in multidisciplinary environments, make high-stakes decisions under uncertainty, and lead change across diverse departments.

IPs routinely engage stakeholders across clinical, environmental, engineering, IT, and supply chain divisions. They don’t just respond to infections; they anticipate system failures, identify upstream risks, and implement sustainable, cross-functional solutions. These are not support tasks; they are executive-level responsibilities.

IPs live and breathe metrics. Surveillance data, adherence audits, benchmarking, and reporting systems are part of their daily landscape. They are experts at translating raw data into actionable strategies that drive measurable improvement. In today’s health care landscape, where data storytelling and evidence-based decision-making dominate the boardroom, IPs are natural contributors.

Whether interpreting surveillance trends or developing dashboards for hand hygiene adherence, IPs do more than track outcomes. They identify gaps, advocate for resources, and lead the implementation of corrective action. This fluency in operational metrics positions them well to bridge clinical knowledge and executive insight.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought IPs out of the shadows and into the spotlight. IPs led under pressure, made ethically complex decisions, translated evolving science into policy, and communicated risk clearly to stakeholders at every level.

These experiences are not unique to COVID-19; they reflect a broader truth: IPs are crisis-tested leaders. Their ability to manage ambiguity, integrate new information in real time, and guide multidisciplinary teams during high-stakes situations directly prepares them for executive leadership roles, where composure and adaptability are critical.

One of the most underappreciated skills in infection prevention is the ability to influence change without direct control. IPs are rarely the "boss" of the people they must influence. Yet they drive sustained behavior change across nursing units, physician practices, environmental services, facilities, administration, and leadership.

This ability to lead by influence—not just by title—is a hallmark of exceptional executives, especially at the chief operating officer and chief executive officer levels. IPs routinely build coalitions, navigate organizational dynamics, and inspire action across departments, even when they lack formal authority. These are precisely the relational and political skills required in complex health care systems.

Infection prevention is not about personal recognition; it’s about purpose. IPs work tirelessly to protect others, often behind the scenes and without fanfare. This quiet, service-oriented mindset nurtures the kind of authentic leadership that healthcare desperately needs.

When mission-driven professionals step into executive roles, they bring integrity, humility, and a clear moral compass. These values are increasingly prized in leadership today, especially as patients, staff, and communities look to health systems not only for care, but for trust.

Core Competency: Enterprise Risk Management

Risk management is a central pillar of executive decision-making. IPs specialize in recognizing, quantifying, and mitigating risk in real time. From preventing outbreaks and minimizing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) to ensuring compliance with evolving regulations, IPs lead efforts that directly affect patient outcomes and institutional liability.

They also bring an enterprise mindset, bridging the gap between clinical operations and administrative oversight. This strategic alignment is vital in an era when infection prevention is linked not just to clinical metrics, but to financial stability, accreditation outcomes, and public trust.

Accreditation Bodies Are Signaling the Shift

Major accrediting agencies now codify the changing expectations around infection prevention. The Joint Commission, in its updated Infection Prevention and Control (IC) standards, asserts:

“Adherence to infection prevention and control practices is essential to providing safe and high-quality patient care across all settings where health care is delivered.”¹

Furthermore, IC.05.01.01 holds an organization’s governing body accountable for ensuring that infection prevention programs are properly resourced and empowered to operate across the enterprise.² This reflects a growing consensus: Infection prevention is no longer a siloed clinical function. It is an operational imperative.

Health care systems should respond accordingly by formally integrating IP leadership into their governance models.

Leadership Visibility Drives Cultural Change

When IPs are positioned in the C-suite, their visibility enhances organizational culture. Infection prevention becomes embedded in strategic planning rather than appended to regulatory compliance. Staff across departments are more likely to engage when they see senior leaders modeling infection prevention as a shared responsibility.

It also influences the profession’s future. Early-career IPs, epidemiologists, and public health professionals need to see a pathway into executive roles. Leadership visibility affirms that infection prevention is not only essential but also leadership-worthy.

Health systems must establish infection prevention as a formal leadership track. This includes:

Creating vice president or chief infection prevention officer roles with direct executive reporting

Designing succession planning and mentorship programs for IPs

Recruiting IPs with advanced credentials (AL-CIP, FAPIC, FACHE, etc.) into senior roles

Educating human relations, search firms, and boards about the strategic value of IPs

This is not about representation. It is about realigning leadership architecture to meet the safety, quality, and operational challenges of modern health care.

As organizations confront executive turnover, workforce shortages, and regulatory pressures, they cannot afford to overlook the leadership talent already embedded within infection prevention programs. IPs have demonstrated their capacity to lead under crisis, manage uncertainty, and drive system-wide improvements.

IPs are already performing at the level expected of C-suite leaders. It is time health care organizations give them the authority, title, and platform to lead accordingly.

The Joint Commission. Infection Prevention and Control (IC). The Joint Commission website. 

https://www.jointcommission.org/standards/standard-faqs/hospital-and-hospital-clinics/infection-prevention-and-control-ic/

The Joint Commission. IC.05.01.01: The governing body is accountable for the organization’s IPC efforts. The Joint Commission website. 

https://www.jointcommission.org/standards/standard-faqs/hospital-and-hospital-clinics/infection-prevention-and-control-ic/ic050101/

Elevating IPs into executive leadership isn't symbolic; it's a strategic imperative.

Deborah Ellis, PhD, MS, MPH, MT(ASCP), CIC, LTC-CIP, CPHQ, FACHE

Articles

Lost in Translation: Why CBIC’s New Education Rules Are Raising Questions in the Field

More Than One Path: Why Infection Prevention Needs the Voices of Non-RN Professionals

Why Infection Preventionists Belong in the C-Suite