What 40+ Years in Infection Prevention Has Taught Me

Modern, well-lit hospital corridor with patient room doors and reflective wood flooring.

By Phenelle Segal, RN, CIC, FAPIC, Founder, Infection Control Consulting Services

After more than 40 years in infection prevention and control, I can still point to the moment I knew this would be my life's work.

I had been working as a nurse in the ICU when I transferred into the infection control department, and the shift in perspective was immediate. Rounding through the facility, I began to see the needs of patients, staff, and visitors in a way I never had before. I was talking with people across nearly every discipline — nursing, environmental services, sterile processing, administration — learning what worked, what didn't, and sharing what I was learning as I went. Those conversations were the most exhilarating part of my day, and something about them resonated deep within me. I knew I had found my calling.

That feeling has stayed with me through more than four decades, even as the field itself has changed almost beyond recognition.

“Policies and procedures matter enormously, but they only work when the people carrying them out believe in them.”

The lesson that surprised me most

For most of my career, I operated under the assumption that policy, regulations, guidelines, standards, and the law were the foundation of infection prevention — that if those pieces were in place, the program would hold.

What I've come to understand is that the success of a program depends just as much on human behavior, culture, communication, and consistency. The most effective programs are the ones where people understand the why behind the practices and are committed to doing the right thing every day. Policies and procedures matter enormously, but they only work when the people carrying them out believe in them.

A defining moment: Act 52

There are many moments from my career I've never forgotten, but one stands above the rest.

Within two years of founding Infection Control Consulting Services, I was offered a newly created position with the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority as its lead infection prevention analyst. The assignment was enormous: developing and implementing Act 52 of 2007, legislation signed by the governor that mandated healthcare-associated infection reporting across roughly 1,250 hospitals and nursing homes throughout the Commonwealth.

The program was groundbreaking. None of us had a roadmap to follow, and with that came a great deal of pressure, and, at times, more scrutiny and second-guessing than the work itself required. I came to recognize that the accountability wasn't the problem. The "unnecessary noise" was the constant questioning that surfaces when people are operating under stress, with no precedent to point to. I learned to set that aside, stay focused on the mission, trust my own expertise, and keep the work moving forward.

With long hours, a willingness to keep learning, and the support of my family and colleagues, I got through it. It remains one of the most meaningful experiences of my professional life, and one of the clearest examples I can point to of what it means to build something where nothing existed before.

Quiet doesn't mean it's working

If I had to name the single most common misconception I've encountered walking into facilities over the years, it's this: The assumption that if there have been no reported infections or adverse events, the infection prevention program must be working well.

In reality, gaps in process, documentation, staff training, or equipment reprocessing can exist for years without being recognized. That's not because anyone is negligent, but because no one has gone looking. The organizations that achieve the strongest outcomes are the ones that continually evaluate their own practices, encourage staff to speak up, and treat infection prevention as an ongoing commitment rather than a compliance exercise to revisit once a year.

Leadership sets the tone

In my experience, infection prevention succeeds or fails based on how well it's embedded into the daily operations, priorities, and culture of an organization. Leadership support — staffing, accountability, training, and a genuine culture of safety — produces effective outcomes for patients and staff alike. Facility leaders don't need to be infection prevention experts themselves, but they do need to know when their program needs more support, when policies are due for review, and when an outside perspective can help identify gaps before a surveyor does.

What I'd tell every healthcare leader

If I could leave every healthcare leader with one message, it would be this: Don't wait for a survey, outbreak, complaint, or citation to take a close look at your infection prevention program. Look at it now.

Ask whether your policies reflect current standards. Ask whether staff understand what's expected of them, and whether daily practice actually matches what's written down. Ask whether the person responsible for infection prevention at your facility has the time, training, and support they need.

After more than 40 years in this field, I still believe most facilities want to do the right thing. The work is making sure the right systems, education, and accountability are in place so that good intentions become consistent practice. That's where the real improvement happens, and why this work still matters to me, and will continue to matter to me, every day.

Phenelle Segal, RN, CIC, FAPIC, founder of Infection Control Consulting Services, presenting to the Ohio Association of Ambulatory Surgery Centers in 2018.

About Phenelle Segal

Phenelle Segal, RN, CIC, FAPIC, is the founder of Infection Control Consulting Services, where she has spent more than 40 years helping hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, and long-term care facilities build infection prevention programs that hold up under real-world conditions. She previously served as the lead infection prevention analyst for the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority, where she helped develop and implement Act 52 of 2007.

AAAHC's 2026 Quality Roadmap: Infection Prevention Gaps Persist Across Ambulatory Care

Key Takeaways

  • AAAHC's 2026 Quality Roadmap analyzes accreditation survey results from January 1 through December 31, 2025, across ambulatory surgery centers, office-based surgery centers, primary care organizations, and Medicare Deemed Status facilities.

  • Infection prevention and control (IPC) continues to be one of the most frequently cited deficiency categories in both surgical/procedural and primary care settings.

  • The most common IPC findings centered on sterilization and reprocessing practices for instruments and equipment, and on the scope and documentation of written infection prevention programs.

  • Infection control practices were also among the leading causes of Immediate Jeopardy citations over the past year.

  • The findings point to a consistent pattern: written policies exist, but the oversight, surveillance, and follow-through behind them often don't.

The Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care (AAAHC) has released its 2026 Quality Roadmap, an analysis of onsite accreditation survey results from January 1 through December 31, 2025. This year's report is the first to combine data collected under both the v43.1 and v44 Accreditation Handbooks, with all findings mapped to the current v44 framework for consistent comparison.

The report covers ambulatory surgery centers, office-based surgery centers, primary care organizations, and Medicare Deemed Status facilities, and highlights the standards surveyors cite most often across each. Infection prevention and control continues to be one of those categories, in both surgical/procedural and primary care settings.

Where Infection Prevention and Control Fell Short

Surgical and Procedural Organizations

For ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and office-based surgery centers, the IPC findings cited most often involved sterilization and reprocessing — cleaning, decontamination, high-level disinfection, and sterilization of instruments, equipment, supplies, and implants — along with the scope and content of the written infection prevention and control program itself. Surveyors also frequently noted gaps in safeguards meant to prevent cross-infection within the surgical environment.

A common thread ran through these findings: written programs that were incomplete, outdated, or missing defined oversight; surveillance activities that weren't catching environmental or process risks; and sterilization records — logs, biological indicators, equipment parameters — that were inconsistent or absent. In a number of cases, the same deficiencies had been identified in a prior survey and hadn't been resolved.

Primary Care Organizations

In primary care settings, IPC was one of the most frequently cited categories overall. As with surgical/procedural organizations, sterilization and reprocessing practices and sharps injury prevention programs were among the most common findings, alongside gaps in the scope of written infection prevention programs and, in some cases, the absence of a designated, qualified professional to direct the program.

AAAHC notes that primary care settings face their own set of challenges: leaner staffing, less access to infection-prevention-trained personnel, and a tendency to treat infection control as a lower priority than it would be in a surgical setting.

Infection Control and Immediate Jeopardy

The report's Immediate Jeopardy section is where these gaps carry the most weight. Infection control practices were among the leading causes of Immediate Jeopardy citations issued over the past year, behind only crash cart readiness issues.

These findings centered on instruments cleaned, disinfected, or sterilized without following manufacturer instructions; sterilization monitoring programs that weren't catching or acting on failed results; lapses in aseptic technique; and unsafe injection practices, including single-dose vials used across multiple patients.

What The AAAHC Data Shows

Across both settings, the pattern looks similar. Most organizations have some version of an infection prevention policy in place. What's frequently missing is the program behind it — the oversight, training, surveillance, and documented follow-through that turn a policy into a working safeguard.

None of the standards cited most often are unusual or obscure. They're foundational requirements that, followed consistently, prevent the exact kinds of events that show up in the Immediate Jeopardy data. That's part of what makes this year's Roadmap useful: it gives infection prevention and control professionals a current benchmark against which to compare their own survey history and self-assessments, and a starting point for where quality improvement efforts might be best focused.

Where to Go From Here

If your organization's last survey turned up findings in any of the areas covered here — a written IPC program that needs an update, sterilization and reprocessing practices that don't fully line up with manufacturer instructions, or a sharps injury prevention program that hasn't been reviewed in a while — these are the areas ICCS works with ambulatory organizations on every day. Our team can review your current IPC program against the current Standards, identify gaps ahead of your next survey, and help build out the documentation and training to support it.

Contact ICCS to talk through where your program stands.

Note: For the full breakdown — including specific deficiency rates by category and standard, plus findings across Administration, Medication Management, Credentialing & Privileging, Emergency Management, and Facilities and Equipment — the 2026 AAAHC Quality Roadmap is available directly from AAAHC's Quality Institute.

Top Infection Prevention Challenges Healthcare Facilities Faced in 2025

Key Takeaways

  • Emerging pathogens and antimicrobial resistance demanded constant updates to infection prevention protocols and stewardship practices.

  • Staffing, reporting, and budget pressures strained healthcare facilities, creating gaps in compliance, surveillance, and readiness.

  • Practical training and expert guidance can help facilities strengthen accountability, improve daily practices, and sustain a culture of safety.


Infection prevention has remained a critical focus for healthcare facilities, but 2025 highlighted just how difficult it can be to keep pace with emerging threats, regulatory expectations, and resource constraints. As facilities reflect on the past year, several key challenges stand out. Understanding these risks and learning from them will help organizations position themselves for stronger outcomes in the year ahead.

1. Emerging Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance

The challenge: In 2025, healthcare facilities faced an increasingly complex microbial landscape. Beyond familiar multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), high-concern variants of common pathogens demanded rapid adjustments in infection control protocols. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) forced facilities to reassess disinfection strategies, sterilization procedures, and prescribing practices, often in real time as new CDC and WHO recommendations were issued. The pace of change meant that protocols could become outdated quickly if not continuously reviewed.

The risks: Failing to respond in a timely and coordinated way heightened the likelihood of outbreaks within hospitals and long-term care facilities. Inadequate or outdated cleaning practices contributed to transmission, while lagging antimicrobial stewardship programs created openings for resistant organisms to spread unchecked. Beyond patient safety, facilities faced regulatory citations, reputational harm, and potential financial penalties tied to preventable infections.

Our perspective: At Infection Control Consulting Services (ICCS), we closely monitor evolving guidance and support facilities in updating infection prevention plans. Our consultants also help organizations test readiness through outbreak drills and targeted risk assessments.

2. Infection Prevention Staffing Shortages

The challenge: Staffing shortages continued to strain infection prevention programs in 2025. Facilities often reassigned infection control responsibilities to nurses, clinicians, or administrators already carrying heavy workloads. The lack of dedicated infection preventionists led to gaps in oversight. Burnout and turnover remained high, making it difficult to build consistency in infection control practices.

The risks: Without adequate staffing, surveillance programs were disrupted, allowing infections to spread undetected. Documentation required for surveys and regulatory compliance was sometimes incomplete or inaccurate, exposing facilities to penalties. Facilities without strong infection prevention leadership risked falling behind on best practices, leaving patients and staff vulnerable during outbreaks.

Our perspective: The ICCS team supports facilities by offering fractional infection prevention expertise and mentoring for new infection preventionists, providing stability without requiring a full-time hire.

3. Surveillance, Reporting, and Data Burden

The challenge: In 2025, reporting requirements to NHSN, CMS, and accrediting organizations became more demanding. Facilities struggled to balance manual processes, siloed data systems, and rising expectations for real-time reporting. Staff often juggled multiple dashboards and reporting platforms, increasing workload and the chance for human error.

The risks: Missed or incorrect submissions jeopardized compliance and survey readiness. Inaccurate or delayed data limited leadership’s ability to identify infection trends early, measure the impact of interventions, and demonstrate compliance to regulators. The result: higher operational risk, lost credibility, and potentially preventable infections.

Our perspective: ICCS helps facilities streamline reporting by reviewing current surveillance processes, validating data accuracy, and building systems that meet compliance requirements while providing leadership with actionable insights.

4. Budget Pressures and Financial Expectations

The challenge: Despite evidence that infection prevention programs reduce costs, many healthcare organizations deferred investments in 2025 due to budget constraints. Requests for staffing, new disinfection technology, or training often stalled unless leaders could clearly demonstrate return on investment. Infection prevention was sometimes viewed as a cost center rather than a strategic driver of safety and efficiency.

The risks: Delaying investments created vulnerabilities. Facilities risked increased healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), regulatory fines, and reputational harm that far outweighed the cost of proactive measures. Some organizations also saw operational disruptions from preventable outbreaks, resulting in longer patient stays and decreased trust among patients and families.

Our perspective: We help facilities demonstrate the financial value of infection prevention through cost avoidance analysis and phased implementation strategies. This allows organizations to strengthen safety without overspending.

5. Compliance, Culture, and Human Factors

The challenge: Even when policies were well written, execution remained uneven. In 2025, lapses in hand hygiene, environmental cleaning, and sterile processing often stemmed from human factors such as fatigue, unclear accountability, or lack of consistent reinforcement. Building and maintaining a strong culture of infection prevention proved as difficult as designing the policies themselves.

The risks: Organizations that struggled to establish a culture of accountability faced recurring deficiencies during surveys and audits. Small, daily lapses in adherence added up to major risks, including preventable infections and reputational damage. Without a culture of safety, infection prevention efforts often failed to sustain momentum over time.

Our perspective: ICCS consultants provide staff training and culture assessments to build accountability and buy-in. We emphasize practical steps that embed infection prevention into daily operations.

Building Stronger Infection Prevention Programs Beyond 2025

The challenges faced in 2025 underscored how vital infection prevention remains to the resilience of healthcare organizations. As facilities look ahead, learning from the past year will help build stronger programs, better compliance, and safer environments. Partnering with an experienced consulting team ensures that infection prevention remains a top priority rather than an afterthought.


FAQs on Top 2025 Infection Control Challenges

Q: What were the top infection control challenges in 2025?

The most significant challenges included emerging pathogens and antimicrobial resistance, staffing shortages, data and reporting burdens, budget pressures, and compliance issues tied to human behavior.

Q: Why is antimicrobial resistance such a concern?

Antimicrobial resistance makes infections harder to treat and increases the risk of outbreaks. Facilities need to adapt cleaning and prescribing practices quickly to stay ahead.

Q: How can healthcare facilities improve reporting and data accuracy?

By validating processes, using technology integrations where possible, and ensuring data is reconciled before submission to regulatory bodies.

Q: How can ICCS help healthcare facilities address these challenges?

ICCS provides tailored infection control and prevention consulting services, including plan development, staff mentoring, survey preparation, and outbreak support to help facilities stay compliant and safe.