Biosafety risks for patients with SARS-CoV-2 may be overlooked, and some control measures may bring about cross-contamination of the tests being done and cause biosafety accidents.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the biosafety risk assessments for nucleic acid testing were called for by health officials. However, other biosafety reviews and control reports were less often conducted for other laboratory tests. These biosafety risk assessments should be re-enforced before testing COVID-19 patients’ specimens.
A study recently posted in the American Journal of Infection Control, “Biosafety risk assessment and risk control of clinical laboratory in designated hospitals for treating COVID-19 in Chongquing, China,” discussed this topic and the conclusions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese health authorities have adopted a series of effective measures, including nucleic acid testing of SARS-CoV-2 among large-scale populations along with the timely and effective diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19, which has played a key role in the control of the epidemic in China.
The investigators found that “[t]he most important aspect of biosafety risk assessment is to take appropriate but not excessive control measures for biosafety risk against the risks of different hazard degrees, which can not only reduce the risk to an acceptable range but also save resources and improve the work efficiency,” the investigators wrote in the study. “For the same pathogenic microorganism tested in different test activities, the hazard degrees of biosafety risk existing in those test activities are different, and they should be operated in laboratories with different biosafety levels. Therefore, it is inappropriate to unilaterally emphasize that the biosafety level of the laboratory should be consistent with the hazard level of pathogenic microorganisms tested in the laboratory.”
At present, despite many laboratory leadership members emphasizing biosafety assessment, the leadership has ignored biosafety risk management after the assessment. “Even if the subsequent test activities or the pathogenic microorganisms exposed to the laboratory personnel had changed, the biosafety risk assessment was not restarted, and the biosafety risk control did not change accordingly. Biosafety risk management is based on self-inspection and dynamic monitoring.” the investigators said.
The investigators determined that the residual risk after the implementation of the control measures was acceptable.
If clinical laboratory workers testing SARS-CoV-2 used a nucleic acid preservation solution containing viral inactivators, the biosafety risk in the process of detecting the nucleic acid of SARS-CoV-2 will be low. Since patients in China infected with SARS-CoV-2 are sent to designated hospitals for treatment, except for detecting nucleic acid of SARS-CoV-2, other laboratory tests such as bacterial culture may also be carried out while the patients are being treated. However, the investigators said, in addition to nucleic acid testing, biosafety risks in the testing of these items for patients with COVID-19 might be ignored. “Therefore, we identified and evaluated risks in these detection processes and formulated appropriate, but not excessive control measures for biosafety risk, to improve the work efficiency and prevent biosafety accidents.”
The investigators identified 32 risks in total in the following categories:
Key risks included the following:
Biosafety risk monitoring includes monitoring changes in test activity, pathogenic microorganisms involved, monitoring changes in the dose of pathogenic microorganisms used, specimen types, and monitoring for unidentified risks.
Finally, the investigators recommend that the laboratory leadership should annually review the suitability of laboratory biosafety risk assessment and biosafety risk control, and start risk assessment promptly, which is also a part of risk management.
Redefining Competency: A Comprehensive Framework for Infection Preventionists
December 19th 2024Explore APIC’s groundbreaking framework for defining and documenting infection preventionist competency. Christine Zirges, DNP, ACNS-BC, CIC, FAPIC, shares insights on advancing professional growth, improving patient safety, and navigating regulatory challenges.
Addressing Post-COVID Challenges: The Urgent Need for Enhanced Hospital Reporting Metrics
December 18th 2024Explore why CMS must expand COVID-19, influenza, and RSV reporting to include hospital-onset infections, health care worker cases, and ER trends, driving proactive prevention and patient safety.
Announcing the 2024 Infection Control Today Educator of the Year: Shahbaz Salehi, MD, MPH, MSHIA
December 17th 2024Shahbaz Salehi, MD, MPH, MSHIA, is the Infection Control Today 2024 Educator of the Year. He is celebrated for his leadership, mentorship, and transformative contributions to infection prevention education and patient safety.
Pula General Hospital Celebrates Clean Hospitals
December 16th 2024Learn how Pula General Hospital in Croatia championed infection prevention and environmental hygiene and celebrated Clean Hospitals Day to honor cleaning staff and promote advanced practices for exceptional patient care and safety.
Understanding NHSN's 2022 Rebaseline Data: Key Updates and Implications for HAI Reporting
December 13th 2024Discover how the NHSN 2022 Rebaseline initiative updates health care-associated infection metrics to align with modern health care trends, enabling improved infection prevention strategies and patient safety outcomes.