The scenario involves a conflict between an infection preventionist (IP) and a surgeon regarding surgical site infection (SSI) findings, occurring in a public setting (the nurse’s station). The IP’s response must align with professional communication standards, infection control priorities, and the principles of collaboration and conflict resolution as emphasized by the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology (CBIC). The “best” response should de-escalate the situation, maintain professionalism, and facilitate a constructive dialogue. Let’s evaluate each option:
A. Report the surgeon to the chief of staff: Reporting the surgeon to the chief of staff might be considered if the behavior escalates or violates policy (e.g., harassment or disruption), but it is an escalation that should be a last resort. This action does not address the immediate disagreement about the SSI findings or attempt to resolve the issue collaboratively. It could also strain professional relationships and is not the best initial response, as it bypasses direct communication.
B. Calmly explain that the findings are credible: Explaining the credibility of the findings is important and demonstrates the IP’s confidence in their work, which is based on evidence-based infection control practices. However, doing so in a public setting like the nurse’s station, especially with a loud disagreement, may not be effective. The surgeon may feel challenged or defensive, potentially worsening the situation. While this response has merit, it lacks consideration of the setting and the need for privacy to discuss sensitive data.
C. Ask the surgeon to speak in a more private setting to review their concerns: This response is the most appropriate as it addresses the immediate need to de-escalate the public confrontation and move the discussion to a private setting. It shows respect for the surgeon’s concerns, maintains professionalism, and allows the IP to review the SSI findings (e.g., data collection methods, definitions, or surveillance techniques) in a controlled environment. This aligns with CBIC’s emphasis on effective communication and collaboration with healthcare teams, as well as the need to protect patient confidentiality and maintain a professional atmosphere. It also provides an opportunity to educate the surgeon on the evidence behind the findings, which is a key IP role.
D. Ask the surgeon to change their tone and leave the nurses’ station if they refuse: Requesting a change in tone is reasonable given the loud disagreement, but demanding the surgeon leave if they refuse is confrontational and risks escalating the conflict. This approach could damage the working relationship and does not address the underlying disagreement about the SSI findings. While maintaining a respectful environment is important, this response prioritizes control over collaboration and is less constructive than seeking a private discussion.
The best response is C, as it promotes a professional, collaborative approach by moving the conversation to a private setting. This allows the IP to address the surgeon’s concerns, explain the SSI surveillance methodology (e.g., NHSN definitions or CBIC guidelines), and maintain a positive working relationship, which is critical for effective infection prevention programs. This strategy reflects CBIC’s focus on leadership, communication, and teamwork in healthcare settings.
CBIC Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Core Competency Model (updated 2023), Domain V: Management and Communication, which stresses effective interpersonal communication and conflict resolution.
CBIC Examination Content Outline, Domain V: Leadership and Program Management, which includes collaborating with healthcare personnel and addressing disagreements professionally.
CDC Guidelines for SSI Surveillance (2023), which emphasize the importance of clear communication of findings to healthcare teams.
