Rate of Errors During Routine Biological Manipulations.

IF 0.5 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Applied Biosafety Pub Date : 2025-03-07 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1089/apb.2024.0009
Kelly N Kim, Henry L Wyneken, Joan M Ryan, Sylvia Costa, Jessie Harrell, Lily Yandow, Adam E J Fleming, Erin Lauer, Karl Nubbe, Noah Gunther, Navin De Silva, Nicholas G Evans, Aline Gehlen Dall Bello, Anissa Chouikha, Sherry Supernavage Bohn, Ryan Ritterson, Nisreen Al-Hmoud, Sana Masmoudi, Ana Beatriz Gorini da Veiga, Rebecca Moritz, Rocco Casagrande
{"title":"Rate of Errors During Routine Biological Manipulations.","authors":"Kelly N Kim, Henry L Wyneken, Joan M Ryan, Sylvia Costa, Jessie Harrell, Lily Yandow, Adam E J Fleming, Erin Lauer, Karl Nubbe, Noah Gunther, Navin De Silva, Nicholas G Evans, Aline Gehlen Dall Bello, Anissa Chouikha, Sherry Supernavage Bohn, Ryan Ritterson, Nisreen Al-Hmoud, Sana Masmoudi, Ana Beatriz Gorini da Veiga, Rebecca Moritz, Rocco Casagrande","doi":"10.1089/apb.2024.0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Quantitative data informing biosafety practices have long been lacking. In this study, we describe the conduct of the first large-scale investigation into human reliability in the life sciences laboratory to estimate an error rate during routine biological experiments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To generate these critical data, we conducted two sets of experiments: blinded experiments in clinical laboratories in Brazil, Jordan, and Tunisia, and volunteer experiments in training laboratories in two U.S. universities. In these experiments, GloGerm was used to indicate where spills occurred during laboratory manipulations. In the blinded clinical experiments, dummy samples were introduced into the normal workflow and workers processed them as they would a normal clinical sample. Surfaces were examined at the end of the shift for contamination. In the experiments in the United States, volunteers would repetitively pipette a solution of GloGerm into a 96-well plate and the work area was inspected after each plate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The median volunteer is estimated to have an error rate of about 4 or 8 errors per 1,000 manipulations (for volunteers with significant laboratory experience vs. those with little laboratory experience, respectively). Estimated error rates from both experiments are comparable, suggesting that studies using volunteers who know they are working with nonhazardous materials can be used to replicate real laboratory conditions to provide critical data in biosafety. The volunteers were also asked to declare when they thought they made an error. By comparing true errors to those declared, we found that volunteers identified a maximum of 52% of their total mistakes, indicating that many mistakes go unnoticed.</p>","PeriodicalId":7962,"journal":{"name":"Applied Biosafety","volume":"30 1","pages":"4-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11937805/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Biosafety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/apb.2024.0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Quantitative data informing biosafety practices have long been lacking. In this study, we describe the conduct of the first large-scale investigation into human reliability in the life sciences laboratory to estimate an error rate during routine biological experiments.

Methods: To generate these critical data, we conducted two sets of experiments: blinded experiments in clinical laboratories in Brazil, Jordan, and Tunisia, and volunteer experiments in training laboratories in two U.S. universities. In these experiments, GloGerm was used to indicate where spills occurred during laboratory manipulations. In the blinded clinical experiments, dummy samples were introduced into the normal workflow and workers processed them as they would a normal clinical sample. Surfaces were examined at the end of the shift for contamination. In the experiments in the United States, volunteers would repetitively pipette a solution of GloGerm into a 96-well plate and the work area was inspected after each plate.

Conclusion: The median volunteer is estimated to have an error rate of about 4 or 8 errors per 1,000 manipulations (for volunteers with significant laboratory experience vs. those with little laboratory experience, respectively). Estimated error rates from both experiments are comparable, suggesting that studies using volunteers who know they are working with nonhazardous materials can be used to replicate real laboratory conditions to provide critical data in biosafety. The volunteers were also asked to declare when they thought they made an error. By comparing true errors to those declared, we found that volunteers identified a maximum of 52% of their total mistakes, indicating that many mistakes go unnoticed.

常规生物操作中的错误率。
长期以来,生物安全实践缺乏定量数据。在这项研究中,我们描述了在生命科学实验室中对人类可靠性进行的第一次大规模调查,以估计常规生物实验中的错误率。方法:为了获得这些关键数据,我们进行了两组实验:在巴西、约旦和突尼斯的临床实验室进行的盲法实验,以及在两所美国大学的培训实验室进行的志愿者实验。在这些实验中,使用GloGerm来指示实验室操作过程中发生泄漏的位置。在盲法临床实验中,将虚拟样本引入到正常的工作流程中,工作人员将其作为正常的临床样本进行处理。在轮班结束时检查表面是否有污染。在美国的实验中,志愿者将GloGerm溶液反复移到96孔板中,每个孔板后检查工作区域。结论:志愿者的平均错误率估计在每1000次操作中有4次或8次错误(分别针对具有丰富实验室经验的志愿者和缺乏实验室经验的志愿者)。两项实验的估计错误率是相当的,这表明使用知道自己正在使用无害材料的志愿者进行的研究可以用来复制真实的实验室条件,以提供生物安全方面的关键数据。志愿者还被要求在他们认为自己犯了错误的时候声明。通过比较真实的错误和声明的错误,我们发现志愿者最多能识别出52%的错误,这表明许多错误都没有被注意到。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Biosafety
Applied Biosafety Environmental Science-Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
13.30%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Applied Biosafety (APB), sponsored by ABSA International, is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal committed to promoting global biosafety awareness and best practices to prevent occupational exposures and adverse environmental impacts related to biohazardous releases. APB provides a forum for exchanging sound biosafety and biosecurity initiatives by publishing original articles, review articles, letters to the editors, commentaries, and brief reviews. APB informs scientists, safety professionals, policymakers, engineers, architects, and governmental organizations. The journal is committed to publishing on topics significant in well-resourced countries as well as information relevant to underserved regions, engaging and cultivating the development of biosafety professionals globally.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信