Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39355057›Full record

ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2024

Biosafety Management Based Upon Risk Assessment and Monitoring: Perspectives from a Clinical Laboratory, China.

Qizhi Diao, Yongpei Long, Fangyu Yang, Cuihui Nong, Huamiao Tang, Xiangmin Zhou, Guoqiang Zhu, Qiang Ding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Qizhi DiaoHainan Branch, Shanghai Children's Medical Center, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Sanya, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0003-1121-4656
Yongpei LongDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, The People's Hospital of Jianyang City, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.
Fangyu YangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, University-Town Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.
Cuihui NongHainan Branch, Shanghai Children's Medical Center, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Sanya, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0009-0003-8845-7952
Huamiao TangHainan Branch, Shanghai Children's Medical Center, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Sanya, People's Republic of China.
Xiangmin ZhouHainan Branch, Shanghai Children's Medical Center, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Sanya, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0009-0008-2557-3522
Guoqiang ZhuChong Qing King Med Center for Clinical Laboratory Co., Ltd, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.
Qiang DingThe Sixth People's Hospital of Chongqing, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Inadequate risk assessment and a lack of risk monitoring are common deficiencies in clinical laboratory, and are also the main causes of biosafety incidents. Therefore, we summarized the experience of implementing adequate risk assessment and maintaining risk monitoring, and established a procedure for continuously improving biosafety management. Methods: Learning from our laboratory's experience in implementing risk assessment, risk response, and risk monitoring before and during the COVID-19 epidemic, we summarized the procedures for fully identifying risks, accurately evaluating risks, maintaining risk monitoring, establishing and regular reviewing safety indicators. On this basis, we established a system for continuously improving biosafety management through risk monitoring and reviewing safety indicator. Results: We identified a total of 30 unacceptable risks prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and developed and implemented appropriate risk control measures. After risk control, residual risks were acceptable, and no biosafety incidents have occurred. During the COVID-19 pandemic, after multiple risk monitoring, we identified ten new risks, three ineffective risk control measures, and multiple control measures for excessive protection. Then, we timely adjusted risk control measures to avoid laboratory personnel infection and excessive protection. Meanwhile, We established eight safety indicators and identified two improvement opportunities through regular reviews. Conclusion: Adequate risk identification and accurate risk assessment are particularly important for effectively controlling biosafety risks. Biosafety management should be continuously improved to deal with ineffective and excessive protection caused by various changes in experimental activities. Continuous improvement of biosafety management can be achieved through risk monitoring, regular review of safety indicators, and management reviews. This study will help laboratory managers to fully and accurately assess risks, as well as update risks and their control measures through risk monitoring, and the continuous improvement procedure established in the study has certain reference value for laboratories to effectively respond to emerging infectious diseases and avoid excessive protection.

Indexed as

biosafety managementcontinuous improvementmanagement reviewrisk assessmentrisk monitoring

Identifiers

PMID39355057
PMCPMC11444055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.