Risk Management Assessments and Recommendations Among Students, Staffs, and Health Care Workers in Educational Biomedical Laboratories
Received 29 August 2020
Accepted for publication 3 December 2020
Published 15 January 2021 Volume 2021:14 Pages 185—198
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Professor Marco Carotenuto
Wasaif AlShammari,1 Hashim Alhussain,2 Nasser M Rizk1– 3
1Biomedical Sciences Department, College of Health Sciences, QU-Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar; 2Biomedical Research Center (BRC), Qatar University, Doha, Qatar; 3Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Research Unit, QU- Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
Correspondence: Nasser M Rizk
Biomedical Sciences Department, College of Health Sciences- QU Health, Qatar University, Room E120- Building C01, P.O. Box: 2713, Doha, Qatar
Background: Safety in laboratories is one of the most crucial topics for all educational institutes. All-hazards need to be identified, evaluated, and controlled whenever possible, following the risk management (RM) process. This study evaluates two academic laboratories’ risks and safety in the Department of Biomedical Science (BMS) at Qatar University (QU). The goal is to eliminate or reduce any risks to the students, teaching assistants, laboratory technicians, faculties, and other related workers, following an RM process.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed from January to March 2020 in the BMS at QU. The study sample comprised of microbiology and hematology laboratories. Checklists and data collection sheets were used for data collection. Hazard evaluation failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) was used. The risk priority number (RPN) was calculated for all the identified hazards. For hazard control, the hierarchy of controls was followed.
Results: The number of identified hazards was thirteen (n=13) in the hematology laboratory and sixteen (n=16) in the microbiology laboratory. Chemical and ergonomic hazards had the highest percentages in both laboratories, with 25% in the microbiology laboratory and 31% in the hematology laboratory. Both laboratories were free from radiation hazards. There is a significant difference between adopted and recommended control measures in each laboratory in terms of likelihood, severity, and risk priority number (RPN).
Conclusion: Both chemical and ergonomic hazards account for almost a quarter of the hazards in both laboratories. The recommended control measure can decrease the severity and likelihood of identified hazards.
Keywords: risk management, education laboratories, failure modes and effects analysis, risk priority number, risk control
This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]