Infection of personnel working in clinical and diagnostic laboratories: qualitative analysis and risk assessment

View or download the full article: 
PDF icon health-risk-analysis-2022-2-12.pdf
UDC: 
005.52: 005.334: 616.9: 616-051
DOI: 
10.21668/health.risk/2022.2.12.eng
Authors: 

T.I. Burtseva, V.A. Solopova, A.I. Baitelova, N.N. Rakhimova

Organization: 

Orenburg State University, 13 Pobedy Ave., Orenburg, 460018, Russian Federation

Abstract: 

Personnel who work in laboratories and directly deal with detecting and examining pathogenic biological agents (PBA) in human biomaterials have to face high risks of becoming infected. At present, working conditions at workplaces of personnel in such laboratories are to be analyzed and checked thoroughly with subsequent implementation of relevant correction measures.

We performed qualitative analysis of infection risks in clinical and diagnostic laboratories using a reason tree and event tree analysis and determined a risk probability range for an ending event considering combined effects produced by preconditions.

We revealed basic reasons why personnel in medical laboratories became infected when working with PBA. The events were considered at three levels and four directions in their development. We performed mathematical calculation of possible event combinations and determined the whole probability range for occurrence of the events. Quantitative risk analysis showed that a probability of a person becoming infected remained within 0.9∙10–4–0.9∙10–3 range even in case of the most unfavorable outcome. The study provides a well-substantiated conclusion about peculiarities of work tasks accomplished in laboratories; we established that laboratory personnel who were involved in determining drug resistance of microbacteria had the highest risks of infection. The most hazardous scenarios of emergencies were identified; they made the highest contribution to the analyzed risk. We established that a probability of personnel becoming infected that starts with the value being 1.3∙10–6 occurs when immune prevention is neglected and a disease is revealed too late.

It is advisable to analyze ways how emergencies develop in medical laboratories since this helps to make necessary amendments in the system and influence factors of its functioning. This analysis procedure gives an opportunity to select the most relevant measures for protection and prevention of emergencies involving PBA leakage out of all the available ones. These measures can reduce risks of infection for personnel down to their acceptable levels.

Keywords: 
occupational risk, working conditions, laboratory personnel, infection, pathogenic biological agents, hazard analysis, risk assessment
Burtseva T.I., Solopova V.A., Baitelova A.I., Rakhimova N.N. Infection of personnel working in clinical and diagnostic laboratories: qualitative analysis and risk assessment. Health Risk Analysis, 2022, no. 2, pp. 128–138. DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2022.2.12.eng
References: 
  1. Rakitskii V.N., Tarasova L.S., Artemova O.V., Ilnitskaya A.V., Fedorova S.G. The risk assessment for employees working under different technologies of application of pesticides. Gigiena i sanitariya, 2020, vol. 99, no. 12, рр. 1454–1459. DOI: 10.47470/0016-9900-2020-99-12-1454-1459 (in Russian).
  2. Pega F., Norris S.L., Backes C., Bero L.A., Descatha A., Gagliardi D., Godderis L., Loney T. [et al.]. RoB-SPEO: A tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury. Environ. Int., 2020, vol. 135, pp. 105039. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105039
  3. Burduniuc O.S., Hamza H.A. Biological risks and laboratory-acquired infections. Nauchnye gorizonty, 2020, vol. 38, no. 10, рр. 117–139 (in Russian).
  4. Chernov A.N., Miftakhov N.R. Sovremennye trebovaniya pri rabote s patogennymi biologicheskimi agentami v veterinarnykh laboratoriyakh Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Modern requirements to working with pathogenic biological agents in veterinary laboratories of the Russian Federation]. Aktual'nye voprosy sovershenstvovaniya tekhnologii proizvodstva i pererabotki produktsii sel'skogo khozyaistva, 2019, no. 21, рр. 452–454 (in Russian).
  5. Eremina N.V., Zhanataev A.K., Durnev A.D. Genotoxic biomarkers in employees of pathomorphological laboratories working with formaldehyde (systematic review). Gigiena i sanitariya, 2020, vol. 99, no. 8, рр. 792–802. DOI: 10.47470/0016-9900-2020-99-8-792-802 (in Russian).
  6. Gritsenko M., Dudchik N.V., Gankin A.N., Prosviryakova I.A., Pshegroda A.E. Sovershen-stvovanie metodicheskikh podkhodov k otsenke riska biologicheskikh faktorov vnutrennei sredy pomeshchenii [Improvement of methodological approaches to assessing the risk of biological fac-tors of the internal environment of premises]. Zdorov'e i okruzhayushchaya sreda: sbornik materialov respublikanskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem, posvyashchennoi
    90-letiyu respublikanskogo unitarnogo predpriyatiya “Nauchno-prakticheskii tsentr gigieny”. Minsk, 2017, рр. 14–16 (in Russian).
  7. Malyukova T.A., Boiko A.V., Panin Yu.A., Bezsmertny V.E., Kutyrev V.V. Probability of biorisk occurrence attached to the performance of work with pathogenic biologic agents of the I-II groups of hazard. Epidemiologiya i infektsionnye bolezni, 2016, vol. 21, no. 3, рр. 136–145. DOI: 10.18821/1560-9529-2016-21-3-136-145 (in Russian).
  8. Chen S., Liu J., Xu Y. A logical reasoning based decision making method for handling qualitative knowledge. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2021, vol. 129, pp. 49–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijar.2020.11.003
  9. Zhulanov E.S., Ignatenko D.Yu., Sholokhov A.A. Sravnitel'nyi analiz metodov kachestvennoi i kolichestvennoi otsenki riskov [Comparative analysis of qualitative and quantitative risk assessment methods]. Vestnik sovremennykh issledovanii, 2018, no. 12.17 (27), pp. 139–142 (in Russian).
  10. Sherbakov S.Yu., Fokin A.A., Zaborskikh A.A. Research of industrial environment hazards and injury risk factors. Nauka i obrazovanie, 2020, vol. 3, no. 2, рр. 58 (in Russian).
  11. Balovtsev S.V., Skopintseva O.V., Kolikov K.S. Aerological risk management in designing, operation, closure and temporary shutdown of coal mines. Gornyi informatsionno-analiticheskii byulleten' (nauchno-tekhnicheskii zhurnal), 2020, no. 6, рр. 85–94. DOI: 10.25018/0236-1493-2020-6-0-85-94 (in Russian).
  12. Lyapin M.N. K tekhnologiyam otsenki opasnosti pri rabote s patogennymi biologicheskimi agentami [On hazard assessment technologies when working with pathogenic biological agents]. Infektsiya i immunitet, 2017, no. S, рр. 1059 (in Russian).
  13. Solopova V.A., D'yakova M.M. Analiz dinamiki kolichestva professional'nykh zabolevanii po biologicheskomu faktoru [Analysis of the number of occupational diseases as per the biological factor taken in dynamics]. Actual problems of applied sciences, 2018, no. 4, рр. 5–9 (in Russian).
  14. Medyanik V.A., Salo A.V., Chernykh A.V. Improvement of methods for identification and analysis of hazards and industrial risk. Vestnik Luganskogo natsional'nogo universiteta imeni Vladimira Dalya, 2020, vol. 33, no. 3, рр. 133–137 (in Russian).
  15. Bodienkov S.G., Tsevenova K.E., Timofeev S.S. Comprehensive assessment of professional risks to the health of healthcare workers. XXI vek. Tekhnosfernaya bezopasnost', 2020, vol. 5, no. 3 (19), pp. 284–291. DOI: 10.21285/2500-1582-2020-3-284-291 (in Russian).
  16. Sayfutdinov R.A., Kozlov A.A. Analysis of industrial injuries in the evaluation of professional risk. Vestnik Ul'yanovskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta, 2020, vol. 89, no. 1, рр. 60–69 (in Russian).
  17. Tikhomirov N.P., Tikhomirova T.M. Risk-analiz v ekonomike [Risk analysis in economics]. Moscow, Ekonomika, 2010 (in Russian).
  18. Seredenko N.N. Modelirovanie neopredelennosti v zadachakh prinyatiya reshenii s ispol'zovaniem metoda analiticheskikh setei [Modeling uncertainty in decision-making problems using the method of analytical networks]. Aktual'nye problemy gumanitarnykh i estestvennykh nauk, 2012, no. 3, рр. 88–97 (in Russian).
  19. Babanov S.A., Budash D.S. Occupational lung diseases: statistical indicators, risk assessment and biological markers. Meditsina neotlozhnykh sostoyanii, 2018, vol. 88, no. 1, рр. 142–150. DOI: 10.22141/2224-0586.1.88.2018.124982 (in Russian).
  20. Dubel E.V., Unguryanu T.N. Estimation of health risk factors perception by medical workers. Ekologiya cheloveka, 2015, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 33–41. DOI: 10.33396/1728-0869-2015-2-33-41 (in Russian).
  21. Fernandez R., Mitchell S., Ehrmantraut R., Meschke J.S., Simcox N.J., Wolz S.A., Parker S.H. Proactive Risk Assessment for Ebola-Infected Patients: A Systematic Approach to Identifying and Minimizing Risk to Healthcare Personnel. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol., 2016, vol. 37, no. 7, рр. 867–871. DOI: 10.1017/ice.2016.78
  22. Howard-Anderson J., Adams C., Sherman A.C., Dube W.C., Smith T.C., Edupuganti N., Chea N., Magill S.S. [et al.]. Occupational risk factors for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare personnel: A cross-sectional analysis of subjects enrolled in the COVID-19 Prevention in Emory Healthcare Personnel (COPE) study. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol., 2022, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 381–386. DOI: 10.1017/ice.2021.54
Received: 
07.12.2021
Approved: 
26.05.2022
Accepted for publication: 
21.06.2022

You are here

Home