Dataset Information

A survey of laboratory biosafety and protective measures in blood transfusion departments during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Thousands of healthcare workers (HCWs) have been infected with 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Laboratory personnel in blood transfusion departments may be infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) if laboratory biosafety protection is insufficient. Therefore, we investigated the current situation of laboratory biosafety protection in blood transfusion departments to determine how to improve the safety of laboratory processes.

Materials and methods

An online survey was conducted in blood transfusion departments from 1st to 6th May 2020 in China. A total of 653 individuals completed the questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed with reference to COVID-19 laboratory biosafety summarized in Annex II. All responses were summarized using only descriptive statistics and expressed as frequencies and ratios [n (%)].

Results

Most participants were concerned about COVID-19. Some participants had inadequate knowledge of COVID-19. Two participants stated that there were laboratory personnel infected with SARS-CoV-2 in their departments. A total of 31 (4.7%) participants did not receive any safety and security training. In terms of laboratory biosafety protection practices, the major challenges were suboptimal laboratory safety practices and insufficient laboratory conditions.

Conclusion

The major deficiencies were insufficient security and safety training, and a lack of personal protective equipment, automatic cap removal centrifuges and biosafety cabinets. Consequently, we should enhance the security and safety training of laboratory personnel to improve their laboratory biosafety protection practices and ensure that laboratory conditions are sufficient to improve the safety of laboratory processes.

SUBMITTER: Liu H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8014334 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe extent to which people implement government-issued protective measures is critical in preventing further spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Our study aimed to describe the public belief in the effectiveness of protective measures, the reported implementation of these measures, and to identify communication channels used to acquire information on COVID-19 in European countries during the early stage of the pandemic.Methods and findingsAn online survey available in multiple languages was disseminated starting on March 19th, 2020. After five days, we computed descriptive statistics for countries with more than 500 respondents. Each day, we assessed enacted community containment measures by stage of stringency (I-IV). In total, 9,796 adults responded, of whom 8,611 resided in the Netherlands (stage III), 604 in Germany (stage III), and 581 in Italy (stage IV). To explore possible dynamics as containment strategies intensified, we also included 1,365 responses submitted during the following week. Participants indicated support for governmental measures related to avoiding social gatherings, selective closure of public places, and hand hygiene and respiratory measures (range for all measures: 95.0%-99.7%). Respondents from the Netherlands less frequently considered a complete social lockdown effective (59.2%), compared to respondents in Germany (76.6%) or Italy (87.2%). Italian residents applied enforced social distancing measures more frequently (range: 90.2%-99.3%, German and Dutch residents: 67.5%-97.0%) and self-initiated hygienic and social distancing behaviors (range: 36.3%-96.6%, German and Dutch residents: 28.3%-95.7%). Respondents reported being sufficiently informed about the outbreak and behaviors to avoid infection (range: 90.2%-91.1%). Information channels most commonly reported included television newspapers, official health websites, and social media. One week later, we observed no major differences in submitted responses.ConclusionsDuring the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, belief in the effectiveness of protective measures among survey respondents from three European countries was high and participants reported feeling sufficiently informed. In March 2020, implementation of measures differed between countries and were highest among respondents from Italy, who were subjected to the most stringent lockdown measures and greatest COVID-19 burden in Europe during this period.

Project description:BackgroundTo date, very few nationwide studies addressing the way in which mental health services are addressing the current pandemics have been published. The present paper reports data obtained from a survey relating to the Italian mental health system conducted during the first phase of the Covid-19 epidemic.MethodsTwo online questionnaires regarding Community Mental Health Centres (CMHC) and General Hospital Psychiatric Wards (GHPW), respectively, were sent to the Heads of all Italian Mental Health Departments (MHDs). Statistical analysis was carried out by means of Chi Square test with Yates correction or the Fisher Exact test, as needed.ResultsSeventy-one (52.9%) of the 134 MHDs and 107 (32.6%) of the 318 GHPWs returned completed questionnaires. Less than 20% of CMHCs were closed and approx. 25% had introduced restricted access hours. A substantial change in the standard mode of operation in CMHCs was reported with only urgent psychiatric interventions, compulsory treatments and consultations for imprisoned people continuing unchanged. All other activities had been reduced to some extent. Remote contacts with users had been set up in about 75% of cases. Cases of COVID positivity were reported for both staff members (approx. 50% of CHMCs) and service users (52% of CHMCs). 20% of CMHCs reported cases of increased aggressiveness or violence among community patients, although only 8.6% relating to severe cases. Significant problems emerged with regard to the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) for staff members. A reduced number of GHPWs (- 12%), beds (approx.-30%) and admissions were registered (87% of GHPWs). An increase in compulsory admissions and the rate of violence towards self or others among inpatients was reported by 8% of GHPWs. Patient swabs were carried out in 50% of GHPWs. 60% of GHPWs registered the admission to general COVID-19 Units of symptomatic COVID+ non-severe psychiatric patients whilst COVID+ severe psychiatric patients who were non-collaborative were admitted to specifically set up "COVID-19" GHPWs or to isolated areas of the wards purposely adapted for the scope.ConclusionsThe pandemic has led to a drastic reduction in levels of care, which may produce a severe impact on the mental health of the population in relation to the consequences of the expected economic crisis and of the second ongoing wave of the pandemic.