ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2021
Risk Management Assessments and Recommendations Among Students, Staffs, and Health Care Workers in Educational Biomedical Laboratories.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSafety 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsThe 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).
conclusionBoth 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.