Biosafety risks for patients with SARS-CoV-2 may be overlooked, and some control measures may bring about cross-contamination of the tests being done and cause biosafety accidents.
Biosafety Risk Assessment (Adobe Stock)
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the biosafety risk assessments for nucleic acid testing were called for by health officials. However, other biosafety reviews and control reports were less often conducted for other laboratory tests. These biosafety risk assessments should be re-enforced before testing COVID-19 patients’ specimens.
A study recently posted in the American Journal of Infection Control, “Biosafety risk assessment and risk control of clinical laboratory in designated hospitals for treating COVID-19 in Chongquing, China,” discussed this topic and the conclusions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese health authorities have adopted a series of effective measures, including nucleic acid testing of SARS-CoV-2 among large-scale populations along with the timely and effective diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19, which has played a key role in the control of the epidemic in China.
The investigators found that “[t]he most important aspect of biosafety risk assessment is to take appropriate but not excessive control measures for biosafety risk against the risks of different hazard degrees, which can not only reduce the risk to an acceptable range but also save resources and improve the work efficiency,” the investigators wrote in the study. “For the same pathogenic microorganism tested in different test activities, the hazard degrees of biosafety risk existing in those test activities are different, and they should be operated in laboratories with different biosafety levels. Therefore, it is inappropriate to unilaterally emphasize that the biosafety level of the laboratory should be consistent with the hazard level of pathogenic microorganisms tested in the laboratory.”
At present, despite many laboratory leadership members emphasizing biosafety assessment, the leadership has ignored biosafety risk management after the assessment. “Even if the subsequent test activities or the pathogenic microorganisms exposed to the laboratory personnel had changed, the biosafety risk assessment was not restarted, and the biosafety risk control did not change accordingly. Biosafety risk management is based on self-inspection and dynamic monitoring.” the investigators said.
The investigators determined that the residual risk after the implementation of the control measures was acceptable.
If clinical laboratory workers testing SARS-CoV-2 used a nucleic acid preservation solution containing viral inactivators, the biosafety risk in the process of detecting the nucleic acid of SARS-CoV-2 will be low. Since patients in China infected with SARS-CoV-2 are sent to designated hospitals for treatment, except for detecting nucleic acid of SARS-CoV-2, other laboratory tests such as bacterial culture may also be carried out while the patients are being treated. However, the investigators said, in addition to nucleic acid testing, biosafety risks in the testing of these items for patients with COVID-19 might be ignored. “Therefore, we identified and evaluated risks in these detection processes and formulated appropriate, but not excessive control measures for biosafety risk, to improve the work efficiency and prevent biosafety accidents.”
The investigators identified 32 risks in total in the following categories:
Key risks included the following:
Biosafety risk monitoring includes monitoring changes in test activity, pathogenic microorganisms involved, monitoring changes in the dose of pathogenic microorganisms used, specimen types, and monitoring for unidentified risks.
Finally, the investigators recommend that the laboratory leadership should annually review the suitability of laboratory biosafety risk assessment and biosafety risk control, and start risk assessment promptly, which is also a part of risk management.
APIC Salutes 2025 Trailblazers in Infection Prevention and Control
June 18th 2025From a lifelong mentor to a rising star, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) honored leaders across the career spectrum at its 2025 Annual Conference in Phoenix, recognizing individuals who enhance patient safety through research, leadership, and daily practice.
Building Infection Prevention Capacity in the Middle East: A 7-Year Certification Success Story
June 17th 2025Despite rapid development, the Middle East faces a critical shortage of certified infection preventionists. A 7-year regional initiative has significantly boosted infection control capacity, increasing the number of certified professionals and elevating patient safety standards across health care settings.
Streamlined IFU Access Boosts Infection Control and Staff Efficiency
June 17th 2025A hospital-wide quality improvement project has transformed how staff access critical manufacturer instructions for use (IFUs), improving infection prevention compliance and saving time through a standardized, user-friendly digital system supported by unit-based training and interdepartmental collaboration.
Swift Isolation Protocol Shields Chicago Children’s Hospital During 2024 Measles Surge
June 17th 2025When Chicago logged its first measles cases linked to crowded migrant shelters last spring, one pediatric hospital moved in hours—not days—to prevent the virus from crossing its threshold. Their playbook offers a ready template for the next communicable-disease crisis.
Back to Basics: Hospital Restores Catheter-Associated UTI Rates to Prepandemic Baseline
June 16th 2025A 758-bed quaternary medical center slashed catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) by 45% over 2 years, proving that disciplined adherence to fundamental prevention steps, not expensive add-ons, can reverse the pandemic-era spike in device-related harm.