Volume 5, Issue 2 (April 2021)                   AOH 2021, 5(2): 971-979 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Soltanzadeh A, Heidari H, Javadi Hoseini Z S, Sorooshnia M, Rahimifard H. Safety Risk Assessment in Medical and Paramedical Education Laboratories. AOH. 2021; 5 (2) :971-979
URL: http://aoh.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-248-en.html
1- Department of Occupational Safety & Hygiene Engineering, Research Center for Environmental Pollutants, Faculty of Health, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran
2- Department of Occupational Safety & Hygiene Engineering, Research Center for Environmental Pollutants, Faculty of Health, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran , hr.heidari.tums@gmail.com
3- Student Research Committee, Faculty of Health, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran
4- Department of Occupational Health, Health Deputy, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran
Abstract:   (89 Views)
Background: Considering the reported positive effects of risk management practices and monitoring them by conducting risk assessments and achieving safety improvements, this study was conducted to assess the risks in the educational laboratories of Qom University of Medical Sciences. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 13 medical and paramedical educational laboratories. To assess safety conditions in the laboratories, a comprehensive safety checklist was developed, and in order to assess the risks of laboratories, a method called FMEA was used. Two trained occupational health and safety experts evaluated the laboratories understudy, identified the hazards, completed the relevant checklists, and subsequently ranked them based on severity, occurrence, and detection. Finally, a comparison was made based on the calculated Risk Priority Number (RPN) for each hazard. Results: In general, the fire hazards and electrical hazards of 54% of the laboratories have been accompanied by normal risk (RPN< 70), and nearly 8% of the laboratories had critical fire and electrical risks, including chemistry and immunology laboratories. In the case of equipment hazards, nearly 60% of the laboratories had critical or semi-critical risk levels. It is indicated that health exposure hazards were the most important hazards compared to the other ones. So that 61.5% of the laboratories had critical risk, and 15.3 % of them categorized as semi-critical risk. The highest RPN allocated to the biochemistry and chemistry laboratories (RPN>250). Conclusion: The results of this study showed that in general, three types of hazards, including health hazards, equipment, and material storage, should be given priority.
Full-Text [PDF 3026 kb]   (49 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: General
Received: 2020/12/15 | Accepted: 2021/04/9 | Published: 2021/04/9

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


© 2021 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Archives of Occupational Health

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb