Operational considerations and challenges of biochemistry laboratories during the COVID-19 outbreak: an IFCC global survey.

Objectives: The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Task Force on COVID-19 conducted a global survey to understand how biochemistry laboratories manage the operational challenges during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Materials and methods: An electronic survey was distributed globally to record the operational considerations to mitigate biosafety risks in the laboratory. Additionally, the laboratories were asked to indicate the operational challenges they faced. Results: A total of 1210 valid submissions were included in this analysis. Most of the survey participants worked in hospital laboratories. Around 15% of laboratories restricted certain tests on patients with clinically suspected or confirmed COVID-19 over biosafety concerns. Just over 10% of the laboratories had to restrict their test menu or services due to resource constraints. Approximately a third of laboratories performed temperature monitoring, while two thirds of laboratories increased the frequency of disinfection. Just less than 50% of the laboratories split their teams. The greatest reported challenge faced by laboratories during the COVID-19 pandemic is securing sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), analytical equipment, including those used at the point of care, as well as reagents, consumables and other laboratory materials. This was followed by having inadequate staff, managing their morale, anxiety and deployment. Conclusions: The restriction of tests and services may have undesirable clinical consequences as clinicians are deprived of important information to deliver appropriate care to their patients. Staff rostering and biosafety concerns require longer-term solutions as they are crucial for the continued operation of the laboratory during what may well be a prolonged pandemic.

Laboratory practices to mitigate biohazard risks during the COVID-19 outbreak: an IFCC global survey.

Objectives: A global survey was conducted by the IFCC Task Force on COVID-19 to better understand how general biochemistry laboratories manage the pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical processes to mitigate biohazard risks during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: An electronic survey was developed to record the general characteristics of the laboratory, as well as the pre-analytical, analytical, post-analytical and operational practices of biochemistry laboratories that are managing clinical samples of patients with COVID-19. Results: A total of 1210 submissions were included in the analysis. The majority of responses came from hospital central/core laboratories that serve hospital patient groups and handle moderate daily sample volumes. There has been a decrease in the use of pneumatic tube transport, increase in hand delivery and increase in number of layers of plastic bags for samples of patients with clinically suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Surgical face masks and gloves are the most commonly used personal protective equipment (PPE). Just >50% of the laboratories did not perform an additional decontamination step on the instrument after analysis of samples from patients with clinically suspected or confirmed COVID-19. A fifth of laboratories disallowed add-on testing on these samples. Less than a quarter of laboratories autoclaved their samples prior to disposal. Conclusions: The survey responses showed wide variation in pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical practices in terms of PPE adoption and biosafety processes. It is likely that many of the suboptimal biosafety practices are related to practical local factors, such as limited PPE availability and lack of automated instrumentation.

Laboratory Focus on Improving the Culture of Biosafety: Statewide Risk Assessment of Clinical Laboratories That Process Specimens for Microbiologic Analysis.

The Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene challenged Wisconsin laboratories to examine their biosafety practices and improve their culture of biosafety. One hundred three clinical and public health laboratories completed a questionnaire-based, microbiology-focused biosafety risk assessment. Greater than 96% of the respondents performed activities related to specimen processing, direct microscopic examination, and rapid nonmolecular testing, while approximately 60% performed culture interpretation. Although they are important to the assessment of risk, data specific to patient occupation, symptoms, and travel history were often unavailable to the laboratory and, therefore, less contributory to a microbiology-focused biosafety risk assessment than information on the specimen source and test requisition. Over 88% of the respondents complied with more than three-quarters of the mitigation control measures listed in the survey. Facility assessment revealed that subsets of laboratories that claim biosafety level 1, 2, or 3 status did not possess all of the biosafety elements considered minimally standard for their respective classifications. Many laboratories reported being able to quickly correct the minor deficiencies identified. Task assessment identified deficiencies that trended higher within the general (not microbiology-specific) laboratory for core activities, such as packaging and shipping, direct microscopic examination, and culture modalities solely involving screens for organism growth. For traditional microbiology departments, opportunities for improvement in the cultivation and management of highly infectious agents, such as acid-fast bacilli and systemic fungi, were revealed. These results derived from a survey of a large cohort of small- and large-scale laboratories suggest the necessity for continued microbiology-based understanding of biosafety practices, vigilance toward biosafety, and enforcement of biosafety practices throughout the laboratory setting.

Assessment of biosafety precautions in Khartoum state diagnostic laboratories, Sudan.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to evaluate the biosafety precautions that applied by diagnostic laboratories in Khartoum state, 2009. METHODS: A total number of 190 laboratories were surveyed about their compliance with standard biosafety precautions. These laboratories included 51 (27%) laboratories from government, 75 (39%) from private sectors and 64 (34%) laboratories belong to organization providing health care services. RESULTS: The study found that 32 (16.8%) of laboratories appointed biosafety officers. Only, ten (5.2%) participated in training about response to fire emergency, and 28 (14.7%) reported the laboratory accident occurred during work. 45 (23.7%) laboratories had a written standard operation procedures (SOPs), and 35 (18.4%) had written procedures for the lean-up of spills. Moreover, biosafety cabinet was found in 11 (5.8%) laboratories, autoclave in 28 (14.7%) and incinerator in only two (1.1%) laboratories. Sharp disposable containers were found in 84 (44.2%). Fire alarm system was found in 2 (1.1%) laboratories, fire extinguisher in 39 (20.5%) laboratories, and fire emergency exit found in 14 (7.4%) laboratories. Furthermore, 19 (10%) laboratories had a hepatitis B virus vaccination programme, 5 (6.2%) applied BCG vaccine, and 2 (1.1%0) vaccinated the staff against influenza. CONCLUSION: The study concluded that the standards biosafety precautions adopted by the diagnostic laboratories in Khartoum state was very low. Further, the laboratory personnel awareness towards biosafety principles implementation was very low too.