Carlos Carvalhais1,2,3, Micaela Querido2,3,4,5, Cristiana C Pereira2,3,4, Joana Santos1,6,7. 1. Environmental Health Scientific Area, Health and Environment Research Center (CISA), School of Health of Polytechnic Institute of Porto (ESS|P.Porto), Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, Porto, Portugal. 2. Epidemiology Research Unit (EPIUnit), Institute of Public Health, University of Porto, Rua das Taipas, Porto, Portugal. 3. Laboratory for Integrative and Translational Research in Population Health (ITR), Rua das Taipas, Porto, Portugal. 4. Environmental Health Department, National Institute of Health Dr Ricardo Jorge (INSA), Rua Alexandre Herculano, Porto, Portugal. 5. Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar (ICBAS), Universidade do Porto, Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira Porto, Portugal. 6. Center for Reahbilitation Research (CIR), School of Health of Polytechnic Institute of Porto (ESS|P.Porto), Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, Porto, Portugal. 7. LAETA/INEGI, Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias Porto, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 global pandemic brought several challenges to occupational safety and health practice. One of these is the need to (re)assess the occupational risks, particularly, biological risks. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work is to promote guidance to occupational safety and health practitioners when conducting a biological risk assessment in this context. METHODS: The main steps of the biological risk assessment are explained with some inputs regarding the novelty posed by SARS-CoV-2 and an example of a qualitative risk assessment method is presented. Also, its application to two different activities was exemplified. RESULTS: In both cases, the assessment considered that vulnerable workers were working from home or in medical leave. The results showed low or medium risk level for the assessed tasks. For medium risk level, additional controls are advised, such maintain social distancing, sanitize instruments/equipment before use, use proper and well-maintained PPE (when applicable), and promote awareness sessions to spread good practices at work. Employers must be aware of their obligations regarding biological risk assessment and OSH practitioners must be prepared to screen and link the abundance of scientific evidence generated following the outbreak, with the technical practice. CONCLUSIONS: This paper could be an important contribution to OSH practice since it highlights the need to (re)assess occupational risks, especially biological risk, to ensure a safe return to work, providing technical guidance.
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 global pandemic brought several challenges to occupational safety and health practice. One of these is the need to (re)assess the occupational risks, particularly, biological risks. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work is to promote guidance to occupational safety and health practitioners when conducting a biological risk assessment in this context. METHODS: The main steps of the biological risk assessment are explained with some inputs regarding the novelty posed by SARS-CoV-2 and an example of a qualitative risk assessment method is presented. Also, its application to two different activities was exemplified. RESULTS: In both cases, the assessment considered that vulnerable workers were working from home or in medical leave. The results showed low or medium risk level for the assessed tasks. For medium risk level, additional controls are advised, such maintain social distancing, sanitize instruments/equipment before use, use proper and well-maintained PPE (when applicable), and promote awareness sessions to spread good practices at work. Employers must be aware of their obligations regarding biological risk assessment and OSH practitioners must be prepared to screen and link the abundance of scientific evidence generated following the outbreak, with the technical practice. CONCLUSIONS: This paper could be an important contribution to OSH practice since it highlights the need to (re)assess occupational risks, especially biological risk, to ensure a safe return to work, providing technical guidance.
Authors: Elpidio Maria Garzillo; Arcangelo Cioffi; Angela Carta; Maria Grazia Lourdes Monaco Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-09 Impact factor: 4.614