Survey of Suspected Laboratory-Acquired Infections and Biosafety Practices in Research, Clinical, and Veterinary Laboratories in Karachi, Pakistan

Qasmi, Shamsul Arfin; Khan, Bilal Ahmed

doi:10.1089/hs.2019.0057

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 41.4% of LPs indicated that their laboratory began COVID-19 testing without performing a risk assessment. These findings are in agreement with previous studies that reported a trend of conducting diagnostic testing without prior risk assessment in 98% ( Qasmi et al, 2010 ) and 30% ( Qasmi and Khan, 2019 ) of diagnostic laboratories. This finding highlights the need for extensive training to build the capacity of LPs in conducting risk assessment before starting new or changing routines and specific testing procedures.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…In total, 43.1% of LPs conducting COVID-19 testing reported a lack of sufficient PPE in their laboratory. This finding is in agreement with another study ( Qasmi and Khan, 2019 ) reporting that 60% of laboratories did not possess active PPE programs with defined SOPs for routine diagnostic testing.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…This highlights the need for in-house training programs. Where they exist, in-house training programs are generally ineffective ( Qasmi and Khan, 2019 , Qasmi et al, 2010 ) in Pakistani settings and need to be strengthened with an effective training mode and needs-based frequency. One possible approach to filling this essential gap is for each organization to hire/designate and build the capacity of biosafety officers in leading in-house BRM training programs after determining the facility's specific hands-on training needs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies conducted in Karachi (2012) reported an absence of commitment toward BRM by laboratory management in 75% ( Qasmi and Khan, 2019 ) and 43.33% ( xxxx ) of diagnostic laboratories.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Assessment of biosafety implementation in clinical diagnostic laboratories in Pakistan during the COVID-19 pandemic

Sarwar¹,

Shahzad

Vajeeha

et al. 2022

Journal of Biosafety and Biosecurity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laboratory diagnostic capacity is crucial for an optimal national response to a public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Preventing laboratory-acquired infections and the loss of critical human resources, especially during a public health emergency, requires laboratories to have a good biorisk management system in place. In this study, we aimed to evaluate laboratory biosafety and biosecurity in Pakistan during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this cross-sectional study, a self-rated anonymous questionnaire was distributed to laboratory professionals (LPs) working in clinical diagnostic laboratories, including laboratories performing polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based COVID-19 diagnostic testing in Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Gilgit-Baltistan provinces as well as Islamabad during March 2020 to April 2020. The questionnaire assessed knowledge and perceptions of LPs, resource availability, and commitment by top management in these laboratories. In total, 58.6% of LPs performing COVID-19 testing reported that their laboratory did not conduct a biorisk assessment before starting COVID-19 testing in their facility. Only 31% of LPs were aware that COVID-19 testing could be performed at a biosafety level 2 laboratory, as per the World Health Organization interim biosafety guidelines. A sufficiently high percentage of LPs did not feel confident in their ability to handle COVID-19 samples (32.8%), spills (43.1%), or other accidents (32.8%). These findings demonstrate the need for effective biosafety program implementation, proper training, and establishing competency assessment methods. These findings also suggested that identifying and addressing gaps in existing biorisk management systems through sustainable interventions and preparing LPs for surge capacity is crucial to better address public health emergencies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies conducted in Karachi (2012) reported an absence of commitment toward BRM by laboratory management in 75% ( Qasmi and Khan, 2019 ) and 43.33% ( xxxx ) of diagnostic laboratories.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessment of biosafety implementation in clinical diagnostic laboratories in Pakistan during the COVID-19 pandemic

Sarwar¹,

Shahzad

Vajeeha

et al. 2022

Journal of Biosafety and Biosecurity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This absence of documentation does not mean that there is no LAI in the laboratory. In fact, while there were no data in Pakistan on LAI, a survey conducted revealed six cases of individuals with known LIAs [13]. Contrary to the observations made in Pakistan with a lack of recognition for employees' rights and benefits in the workplace for biosafety, the LADISERO managers and workers are aware of the importance of biosafety as their rights [8].…”

Section: Biosafety and Biosecuritymentioning

confidence: 88%

Assessment of the Biosafety and Biosecurity in the Reference Veterinary Laboratory of Parakou in Benin

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Optimal biosafety and biosecurity are major requirements of global health security. This study assessed the biorisk management in the reference veterinary laboratory of Parakou (Benin). The study was cross-sectional, descriptive, and evaluative. The non-probability sampling method with the reasoned choice was used. The Food and Agriculture Organization laboratory mapping tool-safety was used to collect information from the laboratory team. Group discussion, working environment observation, and document exploitation were the data collection techniques. The biorisk management was rated good if the average indicator of the laboratory reached at least 80%. Otherwise, the biorisk management was rated insufficient. The overall laboratory biosafety and biosecurity score was insufficient (42.4%). Per area, the scores were 26.7% for engineering, 33.3% for administration, 53.8% for personal protective equipment, and 62.3% for the operational. There was no area or category score that reached 80%. Containment, waste disposal, and personal protective equipment disposal were the best performing categories with a score above 60%. The laboratory has no biosafety and accident prevention program. Its premises require renovation. The standard operating procedures for biosafety are not yet finalized, and the training mechanism is not optimal. Therefore, strong advocacy and implementation of a biorisk management improvement plan appear as urgent corrective actions which are required to help the reference veterinary laboratory of Parakou in its task to protect the livestock and, ultimately, the people of Benin from dangerous diseases and emerging pathogens.

show abstract

Risk and countermeasure of laboratory-acquired infection based on pathogen transmission routes

Zuo,

Wu,

Zhao

et al. 2023

Biosafety and Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Survey of Suspected Laboratory-Acquired Infections and Biosafety Practices in Research, Clinical, and Veterinary Laboratories in Karachi, Pakistan

Cited by 9 publications

References 15 publications

Assessment of biosafety implementation in clinical diagnostic laboratories in Pakistan during the COVID-19 pandemic

Assessment of biosafety implementation in clinical diagnostic laboratories in Pakistan during the COVID-19 pandemic

Assessment of the Biosafety and Biosecurity in the Reference Veterinary Laboratory of Parakou in Benin

Risk and countermeasure of laboratory-acquired infection based on pathogen transmission routes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About