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

Measuring training effectiveness of laboratory biosafety program offered at African Center for Integrated Laboratory Training in 22 President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief supported countries (2008-2014)

INTRODUCTION

The African Center for Integrated Laboratory Training (ACILT) in Johannesburg, South Africa offered a laboratory biosafety program to improve laboratory biosafety practices in 22 President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) supported countries. This manuscript evaluates the transference of newly gained knowledge and skills to the participants' place of employment for HIV and TB diagnostic laboratory programs. It also serves as a follow-on to a previously published manuscript that measured training effectiveness for all courses offered at ACILT.

METHODS

ACILT offered 20 Laboratory Biosafety and Infrastructure courses (2008-2014), also referred as biosafety course/course comprising of 14 core laboratory safety elements to 402 participants from 22 countries. In 2015, participants received 22 e-questions divided into four categories: (1) Safety Policies, (2) Management's Engagement, (3) Safety Programs and (4) Assessments of Safety Practices to determine retrospectively the training effectiveness of biosafety practices in their place of employment 6 months before and after attending their course. We used Kirkpatrick model to assess the transference of knowledge, skills and obstructive factors.

RESULTS

20% (81/402) of the participants completed the e-questionnaire. The overall percentage of positive responses indicating implementation of new safety practices increased from 50% to 84%. Improvement occurred in all four categories after attending the course, with the greatest increases in Safety Policies (67-94%) and Safety Programs (43-91%). Creating a safety committee, allocating resources, and establishing a facility safety policy were important drivers for implementing and maintaining laboratory safety practices. In addition, accredited laboratories and countries with national safety regulations or policies had a higher percentage of improvements. The most reported challenges were inadequate funding and lack of management enforcement.

CONCLUSIONS

PEPFAR and other partners' investments in training institutions, such as ACILT, were effective in building sustainable country ownership to strengthen biosafety practices and were leveraged to combat zoonotic diseases and COVID-19. Although support continues at the national/regional level, a standardized, coordinated and continent-wide sustainable approach to offer a biosafety program-like ACILT is missing. Continuous offerings of biosafety programs similar to ACILT could contribute to sustainable strengthening of laboratory biosafety, QMS and pandemic preparedness.

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

The Global Health Security Agenda and the International Health Regulations (2005) recommend that countries strengthen the capacity of their national laboratory systems to comply with the International Health Regulations. To efficiently and effectively direct these efforts, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-in collaboration with the Ministry of Health Directorate of Laboratories, the African Society for Laboratory Medicine, and Integrated Quality Laboratory Service-assessed Burkina Faso's national laboratory system using the World Health Organization Laboratory Assessment Tool. Based on gaps observed in biorisk management, the Biosafety and Biosecurity Laboratory Assessment Tool (BSS LAT) was developed to assess 10 public laboratories handling dangerous pathogens. This tool uses a specific scoring matrix with quantitative output. Composite assessment scores for the 9 primary modules (capacity areas) were reported, with the highest scores reported in cleaning, disinfection, sterilization, waste management (42%), and good laboratory practices (40%), and the lowest scores in biosecurity/biosafety (33%), documents/regulations (18%), emergency management (16%), and risk management (5%). To address challenges identified in the assessments, a set of activities was planned with a focus on biorisk management. Results from an evaluation conducted 1 year later, using the BSS LAT, showed an increase in the average score of all indicators from 25% to 45% and an increase in the biorisk management module score from 5% to 35%. This evaluation process was a decisive step toward strengthening the capacity of the laboratory system in Burkina Faso. Global Health Security Agenda investments and activities have made a lasting impact on improving biosafety and biosecurity in public health laboratories. To ensure sustainability, a strong laboratory quality management program based on a mentorship system is greatly needed.

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

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in enormous increases in laboratory activities to keep pace with diagnostic testing and research efforts. However, traditional training, technical assistance, and capacity-building approaches were disrupted by the travel and movement restrictions put in place to control the spread of the disease. To address the needs of laboratorians and managers to conduct laboratory activities safely and securely during the pandemic, a highly interactive virtual training (IVT) workshop on biorisk management during COVID-19 was conducted through active learning strategies that connected speakers with participants. The objective of the training was to increase the basic knowledge and standards of biosafety and biosecurity practices, risk assessment, and control measures with reference specifically to the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and apply a rigorous evaluation methodology to assess the effectiveness of the IVT. The training covered a broad range of topics and encompassed national to international guidelines.

Methods

Participants were selected through official channels at the national level, focusing on institutions within Pakistan. The sessions included lectures from international experts in biorisk management concepts, and incorporated poll questions as well as pre- and post-tests and feedback on the speakers' knowledge and presentation skills, to increase interactivity. The pre- and post-test comprised similar multiple-choice questions and provided to every participant to ascertain the impact of the training on awareness and knowledge of biorisk management topics and concepts, and results were compared using paired t-tests. For feedback on the speakers, participants were asked to submit their ratings measured on a five-point Likert scale. The reliability of the Likert scale was estimated using Cronbach's alpha. Analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS version 23.

Results

In total, 52 individuals from different laboratories across Pakistan and Pakistani students from abroad (China) as well participated in at least one session of the IVT. The participants' pre- and post-test scores showed a significant increase in knowledge and awareness (p < 0.001). The obtained Cronbach's alpha score was >0.8, indicating high reliability of the generated feedback on the IVT approach and speakers.

Conclusion

The IVT on biosafety and biosecurity in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic proved beneficial for laboratory professionals and could be a useful model to continue in the future for raising awareness and knowledge.