Tracing its beginnings to the 1930s, Clinical Laboratory Science (CLS) has emerged over the years as a core element of modern medicine, integral to everything from diagnostic procedures to advanced molecular testing. It is not merely its historical roots that make CLS noteworthy. Rather, its path, marked by consistent professional standardization and organizational development, presents an invaluable blueprint for how other essential fields, such as infection prevention and control (IPC), can establish robust professional avenues for future experts. By understanding and adopting strategies from CLS’s evolution, professionals in IPC can effectively shape the future landscape of their field.
Since the launch of the American Society of Clinical Laboratory Technicians, now known as the American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science (ASCLS), mere chapters were turned into a fold-out map leading to the growth of CLS as a formal discipline in healthcare. Noteworthy milestones, such as the publication of Quantitative Clinical Chemistry in 1932, boosted the reputation of CLS, cementing its role in diagnosing diseases and integrating laboratory data into standard medical procedures.
Throughout the mid-20th century, professionalization and growth were evident within the field, with requirements for a baccalaureate degree in clinical laboratory science implemented in 1962 due to the increased complexity of diagnostic testing. This phase also witnessed international expansion of organizations like ASCLS and the establishment of pivotal continuing education programs. The field’s consistency was also safeguarded by forming the National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences (NAACLS) to uphold uniform training standards.
Today, CLS professionals stand at the frontline of health care, contributing to diagnostic processes, disease treatments, and monitoring across a plethora of specialties, including microbiology, hematology, immunology, and molecular diagnostics. They significantly influence the trajectory of patient outcomes and public health.
However, for IPC, the journey towards a formalised, uniform professional pathway is far from complete. The absence of well-structured educational and certification standards creates an opaque roadmap, laden with fragmented prerequisites, undefined competencies, and unspecified coursework requirements for those aspiring to enter and grow in the field.
Professional IPC associations, such as the APIC, collaborating with bodies like the CBIC, could work proactively in the planning and implementation of a nationally accepted IPC framework. This structure would elucidate educational prerequisites, practical skills, and essential coursework. Simultaneously, it would help in making the pathway to becoming an Infection Preventionist (IP) more intentional and less incidental, thus encouraging potential IPs to actively enter the field.
In light of the urgent need for IPC professionals underscored by the COVID-19 pandemic and the current blockades in formalizing and standardizing the profession, it’s clear action must be taken. A lack of a clear roadmap poses considerable hurdles for IPC professionals and hampers effective infection prevention strategies. It results in diverse levels of competency, frequent misunderstanding about the role of IPC, and fuels workforce shortages, varying job descriptions and preconceptions about job prerequisites.
Several key strategies are proposed to address these issues, including: creating a national framework outlining standardized educational degrees and licensure requirements for IPC; promoting appreciation and understanding of IPC’s diverse yet valuable roles among health care leaders; increasing partnerships with universities to accredit IPC certificate programs; and basing the IPC curriculum structure on the US Department of Education’s framework for accrediting academic institutions. These measures will streamline the IPC profession, attract new talents and create a resilient future workforce prepared for tackling coming public health threats.