Measuring Burnout in Infection Preventionists: Insights from a New Pilot Study

Ahead of next week’s journal club (which you can register for here) I have taken a closer look at the paper which Dr Brenna Doran and Dr Sara Reese will run through: A tale of two APIC chapters: A pilot study measuring burnout in infection preventionists using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI).

Burnout among infection preventionists (IPs) has been a growing concern post the COVID pandemic, especially as roles continue to expand without matching resources. The paper details a new pilot study from the US aimed to better understand the pressures facing today’s IP workforce.

Aims and methods

Sixty‑five IPs from 2 Association for Professional in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) chapters, Delaware Valley & Philadelphia (DVP) and San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA) voluntarily completed a pre‑survey, the MBI assessment, and a post‑survey, over a 5-month period. The MBI-HSS (MP) Survey is a validated psychological assessment instrument designed to measure burnout on 3 scales: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and personal accomplishment.

The aim of the study was not only to measure burnout but also to understand whether completing a structured burnout tool could increase awareness and support well‑being.

Key findings

Burnout looks different across chapters

• SFBA IPs reported higher emotional exhaustion and were more likely to fall into “overextended” or “burnout” profiles.
• DVP IPs showed no full burnout cases, but many reported feeling “ineffective” despite remaining engaged.
• No respondents in either chapter met criteria for “disengaged,” showing IPs remain deeply committed to their work.

*Self‑awareness helps *

• After completing the MBI, participants reported improved mental health and better work–life balance.
• Nearly three‑quarters found the tool useful for understanding their burnout risk. However, overall burnout perception didn’t significantly change, highlighting that awareness alone can’t fix systemic issues.

Workload pressures remain a major concern

The study echoes what IPs have reported in different countries and this study identified similar challenges and pressures which drive fatigue, emotional strain, and turnover.

• Long hours
• Persistent understaffing
• Increasingly complex responsibilities

Strengths and limitations

Strengths

• Use of a validated assessment tool (MBI‑HSS MP) provides credible, comparable burnout data.
• Pre‑ and post‑survey design allowed tracking of changes in mental health and work–life balance over time.
• Two distinct chapters enabled comparison of different organisational contexts and workforce profiles.

Limitations

• Small sample size limits the ability to generalise findings.
• Voluntary participation may introduce self‑selection bias those already experiencing burnout may have been more motivated to participate.
• Some MBI items reference direct patient care, which many IPs do not provide; this may influence interpretation of certain questions.

What this means for organisations

This study reinforces that tackling burnout requires more than individual resilience and to support a sustainable IP workforce, organisations should prioritise:

• Adequate staffing and realistic workloads
• Visible, committed leadership support
• Psychological safety and a positive safety climate
• Professional development and fair workload distribution
• Routine use of validated tools (e.g., MBI) as a starting point for meaningful action

Individual well‑being strategies have value — but without systemic change, burnout will continue to threaten retention, morale, and the stability of IPC programmes.

What this means for IPC

This pilot study offers early but important insight. IPs benefit from structured reflection, but true progress requires organisational investment. Burnout is not an individual problem it’s an organisational one. Based on this study enhanced support and resources are fundamentally needed to shift the landscape of IP burnout and addressing it is essential for maintaining a resilient, effective IP workforce. The authors point out that future research should explore the specific organizational and leadership factors that truly foster resilience and mitigate burnout in diverse health care settings that consider both personal resilience and the broader organizational and leadership role.