Legal Requirements for Infection Prevention and Control Training Among Healthcare Personnel

Background: When healthcare providers lack infection prevention and control (IPC) knowledge and skills, patient safety and quality of care can suffer. For this reason, state laws sometimes dictate IPC training; these requirements can be expressed as applying to various categories of healthcare personnel (HCP). We performed a preliminary assessment of the laws requiring IPC training across the United States. Methods: During February–July 2018, we searched WestlawNext, a legal database, for IPC training laws in 51 jurisdictions (50 states and Washington, DC). We used standard legal epidemiology methods, including an iterative search strategy to minimize results that were outside the scope of the coding criteria by reviewing results and refining search terms. A law was defined as a regulation or statute. Laws that include IPC training for healthcare personnel were collected for coding. Laws were coded to reflect applicable HCP categories and specific IPC training content areas. Results: A total of 278 laws requiring IPC training for HCP were identified (range, 1–19 per jurisdiction); 157 (56%) did not specify IPC training content areas. Among the 121 (44%) laws that did specify IPC content, 39 (32%) included training requirements that focused solely on worker protections (eg, sharps injury prevention and bloodborne pathogen protections for the healthcare provider). Among the 51 jurisdictions, dental professionals were the predominant targets: dental hygienists (n = 22; 43%), dentists (n = 20; 39%), and dental assistants (n = 18; 35%). The number of jurisdictions with laws requiring training for other HCP categories included the following: nursing assistants (n = 25; 49%), massage therapists (n = 11; 22%), registered nurses (n = 10; 20%), licensed practical nurses (n = 10; 20%), emergency medical technicians and paramedics (n = 9; 18%), dialysis technicians (n = 8; 18%), home health aides (n = 8;16%), nurse midwives (n = 7; 14%), pharmacy technicians (n = 7; 14%), pharmacists (n = 6; 12%), physician assistants (n = 4; 8%), podiatrists (n = 3; 6%), and physicians (n = 2; 4%). Conclusions: Although all jurisdictions had at least 1 healthcare personnel IPC training requirement, many of the laws lack specificity and some focus only on worker protections, rather than patient safety or quality of care. In addition, the categories of healthcare personnel regulated among jurisdictions varied widely, with dental professionals having the most training requirements. Additional IPC training requirements exist at the facility level, but this information was not analyzed as a part of this project. Further analysis is needed to inform our assessment and identify opportunities for improving IPC training requirements, such as requiring IPC training that more fully addresses patient protections. Funding: None Disclosures: None