Assessment of Biosafety and Biorisk Management Practices among Medical Laboratory Students in Two Institutions in Uganda
- Cosmas Andruga, Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Muni University, Arua, Uganda
- Job Tekakwo, Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Muni University, Arua, Uganda
- Jean Brenda Gesa, Department of Medical Pathology, Soroti University, Soroti, Uganda
- Benson Musinguzi, Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Muni University, Arua, Uganda
- Robert Agondua, Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Muni University, Arua, Uganda
- Derick Hope, Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Muni University, Arua, Uganda
- Winnie Akiteng, Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Muni University, Arua, Uganda
- Julius Tibyangye, Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Muni University, Arua, Uganda
- William Edema, Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Muni University, Arua, Uganda
- Saad Mahjub Atiku, Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Muni University, Arua, Uganda
- Lawrence Amadile, Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, Muni University, Arua, Uganda
Presented at 21st Annual HuQAS Scientific Conference
Background:
Medical laboratory workers handle clinical specimens, which are a threat of exposure to infectious agents. Notably, medical laboratory science students report for internships with only theoretical knowledge of biosafety and biorisk management practices, predisposing them to a higher risk of laboratory hazards.
Objective:
In this study, we assessed the influence of entry-level students' adherence to practices and attitudes towards biosafety and biorisk management during the Internship.
Materials and Methods:
An online survey tool was used to explore the practices and attitudes towards laboratory biosafety and risk management.
Results:
Of the 96 students, 60 (62.5%) anonymous responses were received, and of these, 60.3% were direct entrants, and 32.8% were diploma entrants. Most (91.7%) of the students attended hospital internships, with 60.2% in BSL-2 laboratories and 70.2% rotating in all the core areas of laboratory medicine.
The 8.3% who did not attend any internship were under the direct entry category. Exposure to biohazards was not significantly associated with laboratory safety level and student entry category (p>0.05). Recommended laboratory biosafety practices were not significantly associated with the safety level of the laboratory and student entry category (p>0.05). Poor attitudes towards certain laboratory biosafety practices were not significantly associated with the biosafety level of the training laboratory (p>0.05), whereas training and clean-up procedures were associated with laboratory safety levels (p= 0.021 & 0.048), respectively. The direct entrants had no access to BLS-3 laboratories, and this category of students had a negative attitude towards internship attendance.
Conclusion:
There is a need to create a multi-channel full range laboratory biosafety and biorisk management teaching reforms based on practical application, real case studies, and laboratory simulation to be incorporated into the curriculum to benefit the direct entrant.