The back story is this: Over the weekend, Mike posted an item that was critical not of APIC members, but of APIC’s leadership. He was critical of the APIC CEO in particular, and the close relationship she fostered between APIC and Becton Dickinson (a company she is now joining as a Vice President). I can’t speak for Mike, but I assume he did this because he recognizes, as do I, that APIC is an essential and influential voice in infection prevention—it simply cannot allow its agenda and vision to be co-opted by an industry partner.
Occasionally I check up on visits to our blog, just to see what the general trends are, where our visitors are from, and what posts interest them most. When I last checked, I was surprised to see that one blog post in particular was getting a fair bit of attention from two unusual visitors: a law firm, and a firm that specializes in shaping public opinion and handling crisis management. Both have visited this particular blog post multiple times over several hours. The law firm happens to be the contact for the APIC research foundation, so I assume they do APIC’s legal work.
APIC members have been toiling for years to prevent infections and improve patient safety. Most are literally on the front lines of infection prevention—overworked, underpaid, and underappreciated. So I sincerely hope that APIC leadership isn’t squandering its members’ hard-earned dues on lawyer and consultant fees in response to a blog post.
That’s such a ridiculous thought, in fact, that I’m sure it isn’t true. There must be people in these firms who are just interested in infection prevention—if so, I’d encourage them to look at all of our posts, not just that one. There’s a lot of other great stuff on this blog!