Layout 1


ISDS Annual Conference Proceedings 2012. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ISDS 2012 Conference Abstracts

New Strategy to Monitor and Assess Laboratory
Biosafety Programs
Heather N. Meeks1, Betiel H. Haile2, Ngozi A. Erondu2, Lisa Ferland2, Meeyoung Park2 and
Scott J. McNabb*2, 3

1Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Basic & Applied Sciences, Fort Belvoir, VA, USA; 2Public Health Practice, LLC, Atlanta, GA, USA;
3Hubert Department of Global Health, Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA

Objective
To develop a toolset to monitor and assess laboratory biosafety

program performance and cost

Introduction
Laboratory biosafety – a component of biosecurity – has specific

elements that together, comprise a facility’s capability to both pro-
tect employees and the surrounding public and environment. Meas-
uring these elements permits assessment and the costing of
program-specific safety interventions. In the absence of a strategy
and toolset, we developed a conceptual framework and toolset that
monitors and assesses laboratory biosafety programs (LBPs) and pro-
vides useful information (e.g., return on investment [ROI]) for deci-
sion makers.

Methods
We conducted academic and open source literature reviews of

LBPs and affiliated organizations laboratory manuals to identify ob-
jectives, goals, and indicators. These findings were aligned to labo-
ratory biosafety-specific inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes to
create a strategic, conceptual framework (logic models) used to assess
performance and measure the cost and ROI. Indicators were identi-
fied in existing literature or developed and mapped to the logic model
elements.

Results
Six logic models were created: laboratory biosafety, biosurety, pro-

cedural, biocontainment, information security, and training. The lab-
oratory biosafety logic model served as the overall framework for the
remaining five sub-logic models. We also established a database con-
taining 161 indicators mapped to each of the logic model elements.

Conclusions
We developed a strategic framework that monitors and evaluates

LBPs. While evaluation of cost-impacts in LBPs provides business
intelligence for resource planning, this integrated approach also pro-
vides information about gaps. We plan to pilot this toolset and refine
indicators using principal component analysis.

Keywords
Laboratory biosafety; Evaluate Laboratory; program performance

Acknowledgments

Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Basic & Applied Sciences

References

1. Bakanidze L, Imnadze P, Perkins D. Biosafety and biosecurity as es-
sential pillars of international health security and cross-cutting ele-
ments of biological nonproliferation. BMC Public Health. 2010;10
Suppl 1:S12.

2. Organization WH. International Health Regulations (2005) IHR Mon-
itoring Framework: Checklist and Indicators for Monitoring Progress
in the Development of IHR Core Capacities in States Parties. Geneva;
2010.

3. Carr K, Henchal EA, Wilhelmsen C, Carr B. Implementation of bio-
surety systems in a Department of Defense medical research labora-
tory. Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and
science. 2004;2(1):7-16. Epub 2004/04/08.

4. Garaigordobil M. Evaluation of a program to prevent political violence
in the Basque conflict: effects on the capacity of empathy, anger man-
agement and the definition of peace. Gac Sanit. 2012. Epub
2012/01/31.

5. Jahrling P, Rodak C, Bray M, Davey RT. Triage and management of ac-
cidental laboratory exposures to biosafety level-3 and -4 agents.
Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and sci-
ence. 2009;7(2):135-43. Epub 2009/07/29.

6. Le Duc JW, Anderson K, Bloom ME, Estep JE, Feldmann H, Geisbert
JB, et al. Framework for leadership and training of Biosafety Level 4
laboratory workers. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2008;14(11):1685.

7. Lewis M, Development CfG. Governance and corruption in public
health care systems: Center for Global Development; 2006.

8. Losinger WC, Bush EJ, Hill GW, Smith MA, Garber LP, Rodriguez
JM, et al. Design and implementation of the United States National
Animal Health Monitoring System 1995 National Swine Study. Pre-
ventive veterinary medicine. 1998;34(2-3):147-59.

9. Miller SR, Bergmann D. Biocontainment design considerations for bio-
pharmaceutical facilities. Journal of Industrial Microbiology &
Biotechnology. 1993;11(4):223-34.

10. Murray CJL, Evans DB. Health systems performance assessment:
World Health Organization; 2003.

*Scott J. McNabb
E-mail: scottjnmcnabb@emory.edu

Online Journal of Public Health Informatics * ISSN 1947-2579 * http://ojphi.org * 5(1):e165, 2013