Analysis of Bio-Risk Management System Implementation in Indonesian Higher Education Laboratory

Abstract

Developing countries face various challenges in implementing bio-risk management systems in the laboratory. In addition, educational settings are considered as workplaces with biohazard risks. Every activity in a laboratory facility carries many potential hazards that can impact human health and the environment and may cause laboratory incidents, including Laboratory Acquired Infections (LAIs). In an effort to minimize the impact and occurrence of these incidents, it is necessary to evaluate the implementation of a bio-risk management system in every activity that involves handling biological agents. This study was conducted in an Indonesian higher-education institution, herein coded as University Y. This is a descriptive, semi-quantitative study aimed at analysing and evaluating the implementation of the bio-risk management systems used in laboratories by analysing the achievements obtained by each laboratory. The study used primary data that were collected using a checklist which referred to ISO 35001: 2019 on Laboratory Bio-risk Management. The checklist consisted of 202 items forming seven main elements. In addition, secondary data obtained from literature and document review were also used. The results show that out of 11 laboratories examined, only 2 laboratories met 50% of the requirements, which were Laboratory A and B, achieving good performance. Regarding the clauses of standards, a gap analysis identified leadership, performance evaluation, and support as elements with the lowest achievement. Therefore, corrective action should be developed by enhancing the commitment from management as well as improving documentation, policy, education and training.

Strengthening Biorisk Management Capacities in Burkina Faso: Contribution of the Global Health Security Agenda

“…Similar approaches using a scoring tool or checklist to assess laboratory systems or reference laboratories have been successfully used in sub-Saharan African countries, 23 including Ghana, 24 as well as Indonesia, 25 Malaysia, 26 and Thailand. 27 In Burkina Faso, strengthening human resource capacity at the Directorate of Laboratory—focusing on use of the biosafety and biosecurity assessment tool—enabled the country to accurately monitor the implementation of recommendations and the roadmap, which were developed at the end of the training.…”

Risk management in higher education research: a systematic literature review

“…Talbot et al (2014) stressed the importance of external Quality Assurance Agency, which conducts full institutional evaluations every five years in all UK universities to adopt a risk-based strategy to regulate the universities. Besides, many researchers found that ISO 31000 is the standard commonly used to implement RM (Hassen and Zakaria, 2013; Priyarsono et al , 2019; Bowolaksono et al , 2021). The internal audit department then serves a critical governance and RM role in overseeing and monitoring the RM processes (Soobaroyen et al , 2019).…”

“…IS RM identifies and reduces IS threats, include aspects of confidentiality, reliability and accessibility, through the identification of assets, weaknesses and risks, followed by the identification of the impact, possibility and risk value (Johan et al , 2019). bio-RM incorporates a risk assessment of all risks, including laboratory operations, duties and obligations of staff in laboratories and roles held by the top levels of management (Bowolaksono et al , 2021). Participatory RM highlights safety of individuals in outdoor activities (Beery, 2020).…”

“…The operational and strategic levels of RM is influenced considerably by the values of stakeholders (Christopher and Sarens, 2015). Bowolaksono et al (2021). Network relationships with stakeholders and external units of institutions (Moertini, 2012) ensure good relationship with people are significant impediment to the successful RM adoption (Clyde-Smith, 2014).…”

Effectiveness of international virtual training on biorisk management in the context of COVID-19

“…However, despite advances in technology, the availability of more sophisticated instruments for laboratory use, and the availability of personal protective equipment, human error remains one of the most inherent factors at the origin of accidents ( 7 ). Inadvertent exposures to infectious agents in the laboratory, and associated laboratory-acquired infections, are more common in low and middle-income countries ( 8 , 9 ). According to the WHO, dual-use research of concern (DURC) constitutes research that may be legitimately conducted for biomedical or other benefits, but which might also be misapplied to do harm.…”