American journal of infection control · 2026
How Infection Preventionists Learn the Role: An Evaluation of Infection Prevention Training Methods from the 2025 APIC MegaSurvey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jimenez Adriana, Hall Lisa, Ruch Kayla, Reese Sara M, 2025 MegaSurvey Task Force, Crapanzano-Sigafoos Rebecca, Haas Janet, Knepper Bryan, E Kon Shelley, Merrill Katreena C, Monsees Elizabeth
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The infection prevention and control (IPC) field is evolving, increasing responsibilities and topic scope. Individuals enter IPC from diverse professional backgrounds, creating challenges for efficient and effective training of infection preventionists (IPs). This study aimed to describe training methods used across different IP groups.
METHODS: Data were drawn from the 2025 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) MegaSurvey. Training methods and selected IPC topics were compared by educational degree, primary role, professional background, and team structure. Frequencies and percentages were calculated, and chi-square tests assessed associations.
RESULTS: Mentor/leader training, formal online or in-person courses, and self-taught learning were the most common methods. IPs with advanced degrees more often received academic training across topics compared to those with bachelor's degrees or below. Those with public health backgrounds were more likely to receive academic training in data use and outbreak investigation. Solo-IPs relied more on self-directed learning than those in team-based roles.
CONCLUSIONS: IP training varies by education, role, background, and team structure. These findings highlight the need for targeted, adaptable training approaches to effectively support a diverse IPC workforce.
METHODS: Data were drawn from the 2025 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) MegaSurvey. Training methods and selected IPC topics were compared by educational degree, primary role, professional background, and team structure. Frequencies and percentages were calculated, and chi-square tests assessed associations.
RESULTS: Mentor/leader training, formal online or in-person courses, and self-taught learning were the most common methods. IPs with advanced degrees more often received academic training across topics compared to those with bachelor's degrees or below. Those with public health backgrounds were more likely to receive academic training in data use and outbreak investigation. Solo-IPs relied more on self-directed learning than those in team-based roles.
CONCLUSIONS: IP training varies by education, role, background, and team structure. These findings highlight the need for targeted, adaptable training approaches to effectively support a diverse IPC workforce.