The Three Biggest Safety Audit Blunders

There are several potential safety indicators that can be used to help someone assess the effectiveness of a laboratory safety program. The results of a properly performed safety audit can be one of those indicators, and it can provide useful information to a lab safety professional whether he or she is new to the role or has been there for years. You’ll note, however, that the term “properly performed” was inserted, and that was no mistake. Safety audits are performed in laboratories across the world, but in some of these locations the environment remains very unsafe, and performing the audits hasn’t made any difference. Mistakes can be made when performing a laboratory audit, and those errors can lead to dangerous situations. While all audit errors need attention, there are three that can cause the most damage to your lab.

Probably the most common safety audit gaffe is a practice known as “pencil whipping.” This happens when someone quickly marks “yes” on every single item of the safety checklist without really checking for compliance. Pencil whipping occurs for many different reasons. The person performing the audit may be in a hurry, they may feel like they have performed the audit often and just know the answers, or they may just not care about the audit results. Perhaps there is no lab leadership oversight as to how the audit is performed, or maybe the person performing the audit doesn’t understand what the checklist items mean. No matter the reason, this pencil whipping of answers is dangerous. It provides false results, and it masks real safety issues in the department that will likely not have resolution. In an environment where this occurs, a preventable lab injury or exposure is likely to occur, and it could have lasting or even career-altering repercussions for the victims.

Another safety inspection misstep occurs when the person performing the audit begins going down the checklist with pre-conceived assumptions or a specific focus in mind. Some auditors have their minds made up about a lab safety culture before they start, and their version of what they see while inspecting may be skewed. That may cause them to cite a lab falsely and without enough investigation into a particular issue. Some inspectors might be so focused on one thing- chemical labeling, for example – that they miss other obvious safety issues such as trip hazards on the floor. This narrow focus or mindset can limit the effectiveness of a safety audit as it can prevent the auditor from noticing other real hazards in the laboratory.

The third safety audit blunder (and probably the one with the worst consequences) is a failure to follow up on the audit results. In a larger laboratory, a complete lab safety audit can take several hours. It may involve a procedure review, an employee file review, and a look through lab drawers and cabinets as well as a walk-through. However, even if all of the findings from that work is well-documented, it won’t mean anything if there is no follow-up. A failure to review and act upon audit results negates the entire process, no matter how well it was performed. Make sure your lab inspection method includes that final step – someone should review all results and ensure that any safety issues are addressed or resolved as soon as possible. A healthy lab safety cycle will include that review as well as repeat audits to make sure safety compliance is maintained on an on-going basis.

A properly performed audit can speak volumes about the overall lab safety program. If your audit form remains constant, it can be a good idea to train multiple people to perform the audit so the lab can be viewed with fresh eyes each time. Regardless of who performs the safety audit, make sure they refrain from pencil whipping, that their focus is not narrow, and that the person responsible handles the follow up of any safety issues discovered. By avoiding common audit blunders, a positive improvement of the lab safety culture can be assured.

Dan Scungio, MT(ASCP), SLS, CQA (ASQ) has over 25 years experience as a certified medical technologist. Today he is the Laboratory Safety Officer for Sentara Healthcare, a system of seven hospitals and over 20 laboratories and draw sites in the Tidewater area of Virginia. He is also known as Dan the Lab Safety Man, a lab safety consultant, educator, and trainer.

Over the River and Through the Woods…

Specimen handling and transport is a vital training topic in the realm of Laboratory Safety. There is much to consider here that affects specimen quality and integrity, and ultimately affects patient results. There are also considerations involving employee safety at every step of these processes. One group of employees that can easily be overlooked when it comes to proper safety training is lab couriers. They perform the important role of properly and safely transporting specimens for testing, but without the proper education and tools, these team members can quickly fall into situations of harm.

The courier was running late, and she had one last stop on her route at a medical office building with multiple physician offices and drop boxes. It was cold, and she decided to leave the vehicle running while she went inside to pick up more specimens and deliver lab reports. The car was also left unlocked. When she came back outside, the car was gone. It was found hours later in am empty field, but it had been set on fire. There were lab specimens and reports strewn all over the field and into the nearby woods.

Couriers need to be trained about the importance of their role, and that training should include information about security and protected health information (PHI). Be sure to include HIPAA training for all courier staff. When discussing security, enforce specific processes such as always turning off vehicles before exiting and properly securing all patient specimens and any paperwork being transported. Whether couriers use company vehicles or their own personal transportation for the job, making sure harm does not come to the vehicle nor any contents being transported is key.

The courier knew he had a long drive ahead of him because of the toll bridge, and he had several specimens that needed to be delivered as frozen. He went to the lab’s cooler and scooped a large pile of the dry ice into a big box using his hands. It was cold, but it helped to wake him up a bit. He placed the specimens in the box and placed it in the back seta of his vehicle. It wasn’t very warm out, so as he began his drive, the courier made sure the heat was on high and that all windows were closed. After a few miles, the courier began to fell very tired. He struggled to stay awake, and he couldn’t figure out why. After sitting in traffic on the bridge for a time, he pulled off the road and called the dispatcher to let them know he could not continue. When he got out of his vehicle, he began to feel better.

CAP regulations require that laboratory staff have dry ice safety training, but that requirement extends to anyone who may acquire the dangerous substance in the lab. Make sure staff are aware of the need for proper PPE use when handling dry ice. Insulated gloves, the use of a scoop or tongs, and face protection are necessary when scooping ice into a container. Couriers should carry no more than three pounds of dry ice in a vehicle, and there should always be adequate ventilation, including open windows in the vehicle when transporting dry ice. Dry ice converts rapidly from a solid state to a gas, and that gas rapidly displaces oxygen in the air making it difficult to breathe or stay conscious. High volumes of dry ice in a car can create a very deadly road situation in a short amount of time.

The courier was transporting pathology specimens in a cooler, but was unaware that the lid had popped off of one of the specimens and formaldehyde was splashing all over the inside of the cooler. As time went by, the courier began to feel queasy. After realizing that something did not smell right in the vehicle, she eventually stopped the van and pulled to the side of the road to investigate. She opened the cooler and quickly pulled out dripping specimens and set them on the carpet before feeling too sick to continue cleaning up the mess. She had to be taken to the Emergency Room for formaldehyde exposure symptoms while the Lab safety Officer had to bring spill clean-up supplies to the van to neutralize the formaldehyde. The carpet had to be removed and disposed of properly.

Courier vehicles need to be equipped with spill clean up supplies that can handle whatever types of spills could occur during transport. If formaldehyde is transported, couriers need training in the proper transport and clean up of that chemical. Biological spill kits should be available as well, and spill training should be a regular part of overall courier safety training.

I wish I could say that these were imaginary stories, but sadly, that is not the case. The stories, though, illustrate clearly what can happen when proper safety management and training are lacking. Every part of the laboratory pre-analytical process is important, and every lab team member involved in the process needs to be considered. Employ complete safety training, and assess safety competency on a regular basis. By providing the proper tools and safety training to couriers, you can ensure the quality of lab results, and you can prevent incidents like these with your employees.

Dan Scungio, MT(ASCP), SLS, CQA (ASQ) has over 25 years experience as a certified medical technologist. Today he is the Laboratory Safety Officer for Sentara Healthcare, a system of seven hospitals and over 20 laboratories and draw sites in the Tidewater area of Virginia. He is also known as Dan the Lab Safety Man, a lab safety consultant, educator, and trainer.

Safety for the New Year

While it doesn’t seem possible, another year is drawing to a close. At this time of year, I often ask my clients what they have worked on or what they have accomplished with regard to laboratory safety in the past twelve months. Sometimes they can readily answer, especially if there was a major project that took a big chunk of their time. Other people, though, struggle with an answer wondering if they did indeed accomplish any of their safety goals. I contend that we all have had successes and achievements, though, but we might need to dig a little deeper to find them.

Regulations in the realm of laboratory safety did not stay the same in 2018, and if you kept up with any of them, you made some progress. For many U.S. states, the beginning of the year brought about the Environmental Protection Agency’s Generator Improvement Rule (GIR). Among other things, this new set of regulations changed how labs (and other departments) label their waste containers. All hazardous (chemical) waste containers must now be labeled with the exact words “Hazardous Waste,” and there must be a description of the waste as well as some form of a hazard warning. That warning can be in the form of a pictogram or even a NFPA/HMIS warning legend. The GIR also now allows Small Quantity Generator sites to dispose of larger amounts of waste twice per year without needing to upgrade their EPA status to a Large Quantity Generator.

The College of American Pathologists (CAP) added some standards that affect lab safety practices as well. One new requirement includes the need for a laboratory security policy. Labs need to state how they restrict access of personnel into the area, and they need to spell out how to handle visitors to the department. Other new regulatory standards include the need for the safe handling of liquid nitrogen and dry ice. Labs must provide proper training and PPE for the handling of these dangerous materials, and there is even a new requirement for the placement of oxygen sensors where liquid nitrogen is used. If your CAP inspection window opens soon, you have probably already made these changes.

While keeping up with regulations might be your goal, sometimes lab inspection results can spur you on to making accomplishments for the advancement of safety. In one lab, an inspector found a freezer full of patient samples that were mixed with methanol. The freezer was not designated as explosion-proof as required by NFPA-45, the Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals. Upon further investigation, the lab safety officer found a few other freezers and refrigerators which were storing flammable materials inappropriately. This led to re-arranging some materials, and it also led to the purchase of more explosion proof units where needed.

Another lab received an OSHA inspection and received a fine for not following the training requirements of the Bloodborne Pathogens standard. The regulations state that during staff training, there must be an “opportunity for interactive questions and answers with the person conducting the training session.” Most labs offer an annual computer-based training for Bloodborne Pathogens, and that does not satisfy OSHA inspectors. The lab that was cited made a change to how the mandatory training program was offered, and they created a method for which staff could ask questions of the trainer. This was another example of an inspection which helped the lab make safety improvements.

In the world of lab safety, it sometimes feels like simply surviving day-to-day is the accomplishment. We’ve put out fires, we’ve responded to questions, and we’ve submitted our required monthly injury and exposure reports. It may feel like performing the job is simply a reaction to what is going on each day, and that is difficult for the lab safety professional. We realize that being proactive is better, we know that is how we decrease employee harm and improve the safety culture. However, I invite you to take a second look at your past twelve months. Yes, it may be that changes were made because regulatory agencies altered the standards- but there is no way to predict that unless you sit on the decision-making board of those organizations. Yes, you might have had to respond to inspection citations, but isn’t it good to have another set of eyes helping you to make safety improvements? Try not to always think about why safety improvements were made. Instead, remember to view them as positives- they are another step to improving safety the way you do it every year. They are truly accomplishments, and as you approach the new year, you can use them as stepping stones toward your next safety goals.

Dan Scungio, MT(ASCP), SLS, CQA (ASQ) has over 25 years experience as a certified medical technologist. Today he is the Laboratory Safety Officer for Sentara Healthcare, a system of seven hospitals and over 20 laboratories and draw sites in the Tidewater area of Virginia. He is also known as Dan the Lab Safety Man, a lab safety consultant, educator, and trainer.

The Transparent Injury

While Maria was working in Microbiology, she cut her finger while pulling reports off of the printer. It was a minor paper cut, so she ignored it, put her gloves on and continued her work back on the bench. A week later, the tiny cut was swollen and red. She decided to report the incident to her manager since it wasn’t healing. The manager asked Maria to report to the Occupational Health department, but was unsure if any treatment would be covered since the incident was not reported while she was at work.

Steve and Josh were bored during the night shift and they created a ball made from rubber bands to toss around. When Josh didn’t catch the ball, it hit the open tray of formaldehyde on the gross bench, and it splashed into Josh’s eye. He rinsed his eyes in the eyewash station for a couple of minutes, but both men were afraid to report the incident for fear of getting in trouble. Josh’s eye irritation continued to worsen, and he had to go to the eye doctor for treatment.

There are obvious consequences for injuries that occur in the laboratory, and reporting them is important for many reasons. Staff may be motivated in some instances to not report, but that creates problems for the individual, the department, for the facility, and even for other labs across the country! That may seem like a stretch, but it will become clearer with exploration.

The value in injury and accident reporting starts with medical follow-up. Those incidents which require treatment or abatement of infection can and should be dealt with quickly, and appropriate monitoring can be done if necessary. Some injuries may require immediate first aid, and a trip to the emergency department may even be necessary. Not reporting those types of injuries can be very dangerous for staff. Other incidents may require physician office visits or other monitoring, and employees who need it should be encouraged to comply.

In many work places the injury follow-up visits and treatment are covered financially by the institution, either via a structured occupational health program or through reimbursement. Some organizations may not offer financial coverage, however, if the incident that occurred at work is not reported as soon as possible. That reporting delay can raise suspicion as to whether or not the injury actually did occur while on the job, and since the written reporting protocol was not followed, there may also be no obligation for employer medical coverage.

Departmental issues will arise when incident reporting in not part of the overall lab safety culture. Sometimes there can be reprisals for unsafe behaviors which lead to accidents, but if the safety culture is good and if managers and employees coach against such practices, then there should be fewer overall incidents to report. That said, a culture of secrecy regarding injuries or exposures can also be dangerous. There is value in talking to all staff about an incident that occurred within the department. Staff can learn from the event and have a healthy discussion about how to keep it from reoccurring. A discussion of events can bring important safety issues to light, particularly if similar incidents happen with multiple people. This sharing of information can also promote awareness of good safety practices that can aid in the prevention of further incidents for all who work in the department.

OSHA requires the reporting of certain work place injuries, those that may have led to time away from work or that need medical follow up, for example. This injury data is compiled and reported nation-wide. It becomes a good source for benchmark data, a way to be able to compare your lab injury rates with others across the country. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics provides this data as information labs can use. One way to utilize the information is to see if the number of reportable injuries you are seeing in your lab is comparable to a national average. That assessment can give you a starting point in determining whether or not your lab’s safety incidents are at typical levels. Of course, lab safety professionals want to see zero injuries, but if you see your lab injury numbers are very high compared to benchmark data, you can begin to see where to focus in on fixes for the lab physical environment or on creating specific safety training.

There is great value in talking about safety incidents that may result in injury or exposure in the lab setting. These “safety stories” raise awareness of safety issues, and they can act as a deterrent for repeat incidents. Create a culture where staff feel free and comfortable to report incidents, and be sure to discuss them with all staff, and record reportable injuries as well. Having reliable national data also provides helpful information to other labs, and better information can help to improve safety in laboratories everywhere!

 

Scungio 1

Dan Scungio, MT(ASCP), SLS, CQA (ASQ) has over 25 years experience as a certified medical technologist. Today he is the Laboratory Safety Officer for Sentara Healthcare, a system of seven hospitals and over 20 laboratories and draw sites in the Tidewater area of Virginia. He is also known as Dan the Lab Safety Man, a lab safety consultant, educator, and trainer.

Vending Laboratory Safety

When you put your money into a vending machine, there is always a gamble. There is a risk of the machine not working- it will take your money but not dispense any products, or the item might just get stuck inside the machine and no amount of banging or tipping will help. As humans, though, we take that risk, and the “danger” is only the loss of some money.

The potential danger for a patient in the hospital can be higher. For years, healthcare organizations have been working with other agencies to improve patient safety. Two professions that often serve as the gold standards of safety culture are the airline and nuclear industries. I have seen many speakers over the years from those agencies give amazing speeches on attaining such high safety ratings. On my more cynical days, I often think that hospital caregivers will probably never reach the same level of safety that is seen in the nuclear and airline industries, and I feel there is a “logical” reason for that. If a pilot or an employee at a nuclear plant makes an error, it potentially places his or her own life at risk, so more attention is paid and fewer errors are made. If an employee makes a mistake when treating patients, the error affects the patient and not the employee, so paying constant attention may not seem as urgent to the worker (I told you these were cynical thoughts).

Now let’s go back to the vending machine. There is some risk to take when putting money into the machine, but once the money is accepted, we feel free to make our selection. Now, if you’ve ever watched someone make such a selection, you may notice that they will not risk making a mistake- they will check, double-check, and even triple-check to make sure they press the right button combination so they get the correct item. The outcome of any mistake made here directly affects the person craving that specific soda or candy bar, so the caution taken to ensure a proper selection is greater. Is that just human behavior? Do we make safer choices if the risk directly affects us?

If that theory is true, then laboratory employees should always work safely. They should always wear proper PPE, they should never eat or drink in the labs, and they would never use their cell phones in the department. Yet many lab safety professionals know that these unsafe behaviors still exist, even in today’s world where we handle highly infectious organisms and deal with bloodborne pathogens daily. If unsafe behaviors lead to exposure- to harm that directly affects the employee- why do these behaviors remain? What’s missing from the picture? I believe the answer lies somewhere between complacency and education, but I also believe both can be handled with increased safety awareness.

Staff who have been in the lab for many years can lose their respect for the chemicals and samples they handle every day. They know that they have worked with them for many years with no negative outcomes, and older lab employees remember the days when all of those unsafe behaviors ran rampantly. Ask a mature lab tech about smoking in the lab, placing party casseroles in the microbiology incubator to keep it warm for the party, and even mouth pipetting. Many laboratory employees worked in environments like that and came out unscathed. But not everyone did.

The reason OSHA and other lab accrediting agencies put forth more stringent safety regulations over the years is because so many lab employees were infected, injured, or killed as a direct result of those unsafe actions. Even in the span of my ten years in lab safety, I can tell a different horror story to each person who says they are fine not paying attention to safety rules. It’s important to do that. Injuries and exposures occur every day in labs, and if they happen in your lab, it is vital the story is told to other staff. Transparency and discussing methods of prevention with staff makes an impact because it makes the danger real and more personal. If you’re in a lab where accidents are rare, that’s great- but make sure you continually raise awareness of the inherent dangers in the lab work place by finding stories of events in other labs and talking about them. Tell stories of near miss events as well. It is good to discuss events that were averted through solid safety practices as well.

Lab safety education, both initial and on-going, are key to helping staff understand the environments in which they work. Safety competencies, drills, and tests are good tools to keep awareness of the lab’s safety issues on the minds of employees every day. Telling safety stories and sharing incidents are other actions that can also reduce safety complacency. Every day our employees come to work, and the potential dangerous possibilities are always there in the lab “vending machine.” Help them to be careful to make the correct selection so they can remain healthy and happy with the career choice they have made.

 

Scungio 1

Dan Scungio, MT(ASCP), SLS, CQA (ASQ) has over 25 years experience as a certified medical technologist. Today he is the Laboratory Safety Officer for Sentara Healthcare, a system of seven hospitals and over 20 laboratories and draw sites in the Tidewater area of Virginia. He is also known as Dan the Lab Safety Man, a lab safety consultant, educator, and trainer.

The Pyramid and the Power

In 1950 the National Safety Council began describing a safety system known as the “hierarchy of controls.”  This new model was created to show that that design, elimination and engineering controls are more effective in reducing risk to workers than ‘lower level controls’ such as warnings, training, procedures and personal protective equipment (PPE). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) began to use the hierarchy of controls, and it has been an effective safety teaching tool for that organization and others over the years. The philosophy of the hierarchy- or the pyramid- is simple: “Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers.” It is simple, and although it may not be rocket science, it’s a powerful idea.

While this hierarchy is represented differently by multiple organizations, the basic protection levels of the pyramid remain the same; Elimination, Substitution, Engineering Controls, Administrative Controls, and PPE. The most effective part of the pyramid (Elimination) is at the sharp end, or the top, and the least effective (PPE) lies at the bottom.

Unfortunately, the top two most-effective layers of the safety pyramid do not work well in the laboratory setting. We can’t eliminate or substitute the biohazards we work with- that would mean not being able to perform our work. Laboratorians handle and analyze patient samples and chemicals, and they are a necessary hazardous part of the job. There is some substitution possible in the lab when considering chemicals (the use of a non-hazardous xylene substitute, for example), but for the most part, this level of the hierarchy of controls is not very helpful to the lab.

Engineering Controls involve the use of engineered machinery or equipment which reduces or eliminates exposure to a chemical or physical hazard. Engineering Controls are definitely favored over other levels on the pyramid for controlling existing worker exposures in the workplace because they are designed to remove the hazard at the source, before it comes in contact with the worker. Well-designed engineering controls can be very effective in protecting lab employees, and they are typically independent of worker interactions so they can provide that high level of protection. Sometimes the initial price of certain engineering controls can be high, but over the longer term, operating costs are frequently lower, and the controls can ultimately provide a cost savings. Good examples of engineering controls include Biological Safety Cabinets, Chemical Fume Hoods, centrifuges, and glove boxes.

The next level of the hierarchy is represented as Administrative Controls.  These controls seek to improve workplace safety by creating safer policies and procedures in the workplace. Administrative Controls can range from the placement of warning signs throughout a lab, the provision of safety training programs, and the implementation of proper ergonomics. The part of the pyramid may be the most difficult to manage. The onus of workplace safety here begins to shift from management over to staff, and sometimes the results can be… unpredictable.

An off-shoot of Administrative Controls that is discussed often in safety models is known as Work Practice Controls. These controls are not truly part of hierarchy, but they can be important safety practices in the lab setting. OSHA describes Work Practice Controls as “procedures for safe and proper work that are used to reduce the duration, frequency or intensity of exposure to a hazard.” These are the not the actual written procedures, but the actions that put those written policies into action. Following proper hand hygiene and preventing eating or drinking in the laboratory are good examples of those actions.

PPE is at the bottom of the hierarchy of controls- by definition that means that it is the least effective method to keep employees from hazard exposure. It is the last resort for safety in the lab. That’s a powerful point, and it should be discussed when providing lab safety training. All too often lab staff carelessly perform tasks without wearing PPE, and the danger is immediate and potentially disastrous. Even though this level of protection is considered the least effective, this last barrier between the employee and the hazardous material is crucial. Lab staff are required to have PPE education, and they should be able to provide a return demonstration for the proper donning and doffing of that PPE.

The Hierarchy of Controls is typically represented as a pyramid. It’s a simple symbol, but it’s really a powerful and complex model for safety. When you look at each separate level, you can see that there is a great deal of information that can provide a lab safety professional with helpful resources. As a lab leader, you can use the model to provide education, train staff, and help to enforce good safety behaviors which will improve the lab safety culture and keep employees from harm.

 

Scungio 1

Dan Scungio, MT(ASCP), SLS, CQA (ASQ) has over 25 years experience as a certified medical technologist. Today he is the Laboratory Safety Officer for Sentara Healthcare, a system of seven hospitals and over 20 laboratories and draw sites in the Tidewater area of Virginia. He is also known as Dan the Lab Safety Man, a lab safety consultant, educator, and trainer.

Lab Safety for Every Member of the Team

Gretchen had been the lab secretary for six months, and she was getting comfortable in the role. From her office she scheduled meetings for the manager and paid bills, but her job took her into the lab proper at least once every day. She liked that her job allowed her to wear skirts and sandals in the hot summer months-she was glad she didn’t have to follow the dress code that was used in the lab.

Stephan was new to the lab courier team, and his training had to occur quickly since he replaced someone who filled weekend slots often. He was shown the routes to drive, but when trained in the lab area, he was only shown where to pick up and drop off specimens.

Dr. Kane had been the lab medical director for many years. One day she was talking to the histology tech and noticed the use of pictogram labels on secondary chemical containers. She had no idea what they were for, and she asked how long the lab had been using them.

Unfortunately, these scenarios are realistic, and they illustrate a problem that can create deep roots in a laboratory, and those roots can lead to a poor safety culture that will be difficult to manage. If you’re in charge of safety in the lab, it is vital to know who needs safety training, how to give that training, and when to provide it.

The who is important. Does your lab host students for clinical rotations? Do research personnel perform tasks in the department? Administrative personnel and even lab leaders who enter the department should also have safety training on record. Don’t expect pathologists to keep up with the latest safety regulations on their own either, they have many other things on their plates. Even if they are under contract and not truly employees, they should be included with certain safety training offerings. Consider biomedical engineering personnel and maintenance workers- some safety training can prevent accidents and exposures for those important team members as well. Fully train couriers and phlebotomists or anyone else who will process specimens in the lab setting. If you’re just starting to figure out safety training in your lab, make a list of all the different people who may enter the area.

Clearly all of these various people will not need the same level of lab safety training. A courier might need to know about dry ice safety, for example, but that information may mean nothing to the secretary. Be sure to customize the training for the different employees as needed. Nothing will turn people off faster than information they don’t need. If there are changes to safety regulations that require new education, be sure to involve laboratory medical staff. For example, the implementation of the Globally Harmonized System in 2016 or this year’s EPA Generator Improvement Regulations both created major changes with lab safety processes. The lab medical director is responsible for oversight of the lab, and not having knowledge about such major changes can hinder that responsibility and expose the lab to both safety and accreditation issues.

Now that you know who to train and what education is needed for each role, it is time to figure out when and how to provide that lab safety training. Some topics require annual training by OSHA and other agencies, and a computer-based module is usually acceptable. That said, other required training must include live interaction, quizzes, return demonstrations and certificates of completion. It can be a complicated task to figure out which is which, and reviewing the requirements from the source agency (OSHA, DOT, EPA, CAP, etc.) will guide you. Next, it becomes important to know your audience- those who will receive the training. What type of education will work best- a live class, computer modules, webinar, interactive round-table sessions- there may be a need for a combination of these styles.

Once you determine your safety training needs and methods, there will be more to consider in order to maintain a steady culture of safety. Conducting regular drills to ensure staff understanding should be added to your calendar. Fire drills, evacuation drills, disaster drills, and hazardous spill drills are just some that can be conducted throughout the year to ensure staff readiness. Consider giving out information on a specific safety topic each month at staff meetings. This reinforcement of the required training will benefit the entire team and the lab safety program.

It takes time and effort to create a solid laboratory safety training program. If you have to start at the beginning, learn your resources and ask for help. If you are taking over a safety program already in place, make sure the on-going training meets regulations, and create a plan to continually raise safety awareness in the laboratory for all whose job may take them into the department. That will create long-lasting value and safety for every member of the team.

 

Scungio 1

Dan Scungio, MT(ASCP), SLS, CQA (ASQ) has over 25 years experience as a certified medical technologist. Today he is the Laboratory Safety Officer for Sentara Healthcare, a system of seven hospitals and over 20 laboratories and draw sites in the Tidewater area of Virginia. He is also known as Dan the Lab Safety Man, a lab safety consultant, educator, and trainer.