LAUSR

When I read the title of Horowitz’s commentary,1 I was excited and hopeful he would identify some shortcomings of our profession and offer solutions to these issues. On reading the submission, however, I was disappointed. I agree with Horowitz’s assertion that states should modify their requirements to better align with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s isolation guideline. But, focusing his call to action on a small aspect—the act of placing a patient on transmissionbased precautions—of an infection preventionist’s responsibilities is not the most effective use of his argument and influence. There are many opportunities to advance the infection prevention profession and further the work we do to keep patients safe. In no particular priority order, I would like to offer 4 changes in an infection preventionist’s scope of practice that would allow for more influence and better patient outcomes.