Biosafety Program Analytics Initiative for the Advancement of the Profession

Emery, Robert J.; Rios, Janelle; Patlovich, Scott J.

doi:10.1177/1535676018767906

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…13,14 There is a need for identifying key performance indicators, client satisfaction, and program drivers in biosafety programs. 15 Emery et al highlighted the need to benchmark performance indicators that track biosafety program outcomes to advance the biosafety profession. 15,16 Trevan argued that lessons can be learned from other fields that also focus on prevention and safety culture to improve biosafety.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15 Emery et al highlighted the need to benchmark performance indicators that track biosafety program outcomes to advance the biosafety profession. 15,16 Trevan argued that lessons can be learned from other fields that also focus on prevention and safety culture to improve biosafety. 13 The U.K. nuclear safety panel first defined safety culture as ''the product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies, and patterns of behavior that can determine commitment to, and the style and proficiency of an organization's health and safety management system.''…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development and Validation of Biosafety Climate Scale for Biological and Biomedical Science Laboratories in the United States

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Industry-specific safety climate scales that measure safety status have been published, however, nothing specific to biological laboratories has ever been established.Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate a biosafety climate (BSCL) scale unique for research professionals (RPs) and biosafety professionals (BPs) at teaching and research biological laboratories affiliated to public universities in the United States. Methods: BSCL scale was developed from literature review. In study 1, 15-item biosafety climate (BSCL-15) scale with 15 items and 5 factors was pretested with n = 9 RPs and n = 7 BPs to perform reliability, content, and face validity analyses. In study 2, revised 17-item biosafety climate (BSCL-17) scale with 17 items and 5 factors was pilot tested with n = 91 RPs and n = 88 BPs. Correlation tests, Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin, Bartlett's test of sphericity, Cronbach's alpha, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were conducted to validate the BSCL-17 scale. Results: EFA resulted in a 3-factor 17-item BSCL scale for both RPs and BPs. Internal consistency of the scale was > 0.8 for the BSCL scale and the underlying three factors, indicating high reliability. The factors identified for RPs are 1) management priority, communication and participation, 2) group norms, and 3) supervisor commitment. The factors identified for BPs are 1) management priority and communication, 2) group norms and participation, and 3) supervisor commitment. Discussion: A valid and reliable BSCL scale to measure safety climate and quantify safety culture in biological laboratories has been presented. It can be used as a key performance indicator and aid in targeted interventions as part of process improvement of biological safety programs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Validation of Biosafety Climate Scale for Biological and Biomedical Science Laboratories in the United States

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following the proposed order of the 10 envisioned analytic surveys 4 (Table 1), a brief survey focusing on biosafety work settings was crafted and then pilot tested by a panel of biosafety practitioner volunteers from the Southern Biosafety Association (an ABSA International affiliate). Upon refinement of the survey based on feedback from this test group, the questions were formatted into an online survey instrument using Qualtrics Research Core (Qualtrics, Provo, Utah) and electronically distributed to the ABSA International membership via e-mail directly from the ABSA International administrative office.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of Work Settings in Which Biosafety Professionals Conduct Operations: Results from the First Survey of the Biosafety Analytics Initiative Survey Series

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: With the endorsement and support of the ABSA International Council and the Prevention, Preparedness and Response (P2R) Academy of The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth) School of Public Health, a survey to characterize the work settings in which biosafety professionals operate was conducted. The survey was the first of a planned series of 10 solicitations in support of an overarching “Biosafety Analytics Initiative,” the goal of which is to identify commonalities, trends, possible benchmarking opportunities, and professional training needs. Methods: The survey was developed, tested, and then distributed electronically for a 3-week period between May 29 and June 19, 2019. Results: A total of 228 ABSA International members completed responses (15.6% of total membership). The results of the survey indicate that 59.7% of the total membership respondents conduct operations in the public or private academic setting, but when separated by domestic vs international respondents, 38% of the international respondents operate in government (nonacademic) settings. The bulk of biosafety activities were reported as providing support to BSL-1 and BSL-2 laboratories, with more than 90% of respondents indicating that they support work with risk group 1 and 2 organisms. Approximately 60% of the biosafety programs responding reported being organizationally aligned within institutional Environmental Health & Safety programs. Conclusion: The results of this survey serve as a foundation for current and future ABSA International priorities regarding professional development, recruitment, and training opportunities.

show abstract

“…11,14,16 However, these highly specialized engineering controls are the least understood pieces of laboratory equipment, and most organizations do not have the in-house expertise to manage technical issues related to BSC certification, repairs, and commissioning process. [17][18][19] The first independent standard for design, manufacture, and testing of BSCs (NSF Standard 49 for Class II BSCs) was published in 1976. 16 This standard "replaced" the National Institutes of Health specifications, which were used by other institutions and organizations purchasing BSCs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing an In-House Biological Safety Cabinet Certification Program at the University of North Dakota

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Biological safety cabinets (BSCs) are the primary means of containment used in laboratories worldwide. To ensure the proper functioning of BSCs, they need to be certified annually, at a minimum, per National Sanitation Foundation (NSF)/American National Standards Institute Standard 49. Objectives: A common problem most organizations face is that in many instances, the technicians who certify the cabinets are not accredited by the NSF. Additionally, in states or regions that do not have local NSF accredited field certifiers, it takes weeks to get a service request completed, thereby delaying the research work of the laboratory. Moreover, in such instances, the cost associated with cabinet certification and repair can be very high. Materials and Methods: This led the Office of Safety at the University of North Dakota to do a thorough cost-benefit analysis of developing an in-house BSC certification program. After completing the training and testing requirements for the NSF’s advanced accreditation program, the BSC certification program was initiated on campus. Results: The identified benefits led to the initiation of a program in both local and regional capacity for repair, maintenance, and certification of BSCs, and the university’s experiences were shared with other universities. Conclusions: By developing an in-house BSC certification program, the University of North Dakota was able to reduce wait times associated with service repairs, reduce costs, and generate revenue for the department. Furthermore, this led to improved hands-on training programs related to BSC use in laboratories working with biohazardous agents.

show abstract

Biosafety Program Analytics Initiative for the Advancement of the Profession

Cited by 3 publications

References 2 publications

Development and Validation of Biosafety Climate Scale for Biological and Biomedical Science Laboratories in the United States

Development and Validation of Biosafety Climate Scale for Biological and Biomedical Science Laboratories in the United States

Characterization of Work Settings in Which Biosafety Professionals Conduct Operations: Results from the First Survey of the Biosafety Analytics Initiative Survey Series

Developing an In-House Biological Safety Cabinet Certification Program at the University of North Dakota

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About