PROJECT DEFENCE

TITLE

Determinants of Work-related complains and Injuries among Medical

Laboratory scientists:
A cross-sectional study among Medical Laboratory Scientist in the Cape
Coast Metropolis .
 PROBLEM STATEMENT
• Most laboratory scientist usually have a false sense of security over
their safety in the laboratory that is to say they sometimes
compromise on their safety in the laboratory
• No adequate data on reported cases of injuries among medical
laboratory scientist in the Cape Coast Metropolis
• In view of this, there is the need for a research to investigate the
determinant of work related injuries among medical scientist in the
Cape Coast Metropolis, from which recommendations can be made to
create practical environments that will promote the health and well-
being of the current and future Medical Laboratory Scientist.
AIM
To determine work related complains and injuries among Medical
Laboratory Scientist in the Cape Coast Metropolis.

OBJECTIVES
• To determine factors that can cause work related complains and
injuries among medical laboratory scientists in the Cape Coast
Metropolis
 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• What are the incidences of work-related complains and injuries in the
medical laboratory setting?
• Do medical laboratory scientist comply with universal safety
precautions and procedures in the laboratory?
• Does stress have an influence on the safety of the laboratory scientist?
• Does ergonomics and quality assurance contribute to work related
complains and injuries in the laboratory
• What type of professional knowledge and skills do laboratory scientist
exhibit concerning their safety?
 METHODS
SETTING
Research will be conducted in the Cape Coast
Metropolis

TARGET POPULATION (SCOPE)

METHODS
The research will target Medical
Laboratory Scientists in Cape Coast SURVEY
Metropolis Questionnaires will be given out to medical
laboratory scientists at the various hospitals.

PERSONAL OBSERVATION
RESEARCH DESIGN This involves a brief introduction to each
unit of the laboratory, and then identifies the
The research design is a cross- presence or absence of a list of common
sectional study workstation hazards.
 DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS
RESPONDENT ( N = 59 )
VARIBLES FREQ VALID % p VALUE
MALE 37 62.7  
FEMALE 22 37.3 0.051
TOTAL 59 100.0  
 
AGE GROUP/YEARS
20 - 25 24 40.7  
26 - 35 29 49.2  
36 - 45 2 3.4 0.001
46 - 55 3 5.1  
ABOVE 55 1 1.7  
TOTAL 59 100.0  

MARITAL STATUS
SINGLE 46 78  
MARRIED 13 22 0.001
TOTAL 59 100  

LEVEL OF EDUCATION
B.SC 35 85.4  
HND 4 9.8 0.001
WASSCE 2 4.9  
TOTAL 41 100  
 
JOB DESCRIPTION

PERMANENT EMPLOYEE 31 52.5  

TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE 5 8.5  
PART-TIME EMPLOYEE 8 13.6  
CASUAL 4 6.8 0.001
OTHER(S) 11 18.6  
TOTAL 58 100.0  
 
WORKING EXPERIENCE

LESS THAN 2 YEARS 30 50.8  

2 – 5 YEARS 19 32.2 0.006
ABOVE 5 YEARS 10 16.9  
TOTAL 59 100.0  
B.SC – Bachelor of Science, HND – Higher National Diploma, WASSCE – West African Senior Secondary Certificate, p
Value is the level of significance at (<0.05)
 OCULAR COMPLAINS AMONG MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENTIST

OCULAR COMPLAINS RESPONDENT( N = 59

)
YES (%) NO
(%)
Ever experience any of the following ocular complains as a result of microscope    
usage    
Eye fatigue 40(71.4) 16(28.6)
Eye strain 33(58.9) 23(41.1)
Irritation 11(19.6) 45(80.4)
Dryness 9(16.1) 47(83.9)
Redness 12(21.4) 44(78.6)
Burning sensation 7(12.5) 49(87.5)
Blurred vision 14(25.0) 42(75.0)
Double vision 7(12.5) 49(87.5)
Aching 18 37
Watery eyes 22(39.3) 34(60.7)
 
Aware of CDC guideline towards the use of microscope 18(32.7) 37(67.3)
Does the lab have access to a copy of the CDC’s most current edition of biosafety 20(35.7) 36(64.3)
in medical laboratories?
Suffers from any known vision defect 8(14.5) 47(85.5)
Use to have regular ophthalmic checkup 12(21.8) 43(78.2)
 MUSCULOSKELETAL COMPLAINS AMONG MEDICAL
LABORATORY SCIENTIST
MUSCULOSKELETAL COMPLAINS RESPONDENT N=59
YES(%) NO(%)

Among the following musculoskeletal areas, which area do you experience  

complains as a result of microscope usage  
Neck 5
11
Head 1
Hand and fingers 7
Back 9
Shoulders 19
Lower back 1
Lower arm 2
Leg or feet  
 
 
Always have repetitive attack of the above listed problems 25(46.3) 29(53.7)
Ever opted for any medical treatment to the above problems 8(14.8) 46(85.2)
 NEEDLE PRICK INJURY
From the research findings, all of the participant have in a way administered an injection or taken
blood sample before. This means they are all exposed to needle prick but just a few of them has had
cases of needle prick. 29 out of the participant has had needle prick injury. This makes a valid
percent of 49.2% whiles 50.8% of the participant has not had case of needle prick injury.
The diagram below shows how needle prick injuries occurs among Medical Laboratory Scientist
14 DURING
DURRING NEEDLE
OPENING RECAPPING
12
NEEDLE CAP
10

4 SUDDEN DRAWING
MOVEMENT IMPROPERL BLOOD FROM
2
OF PATIENT Y DISPOSED PATIENT
NEEDLE
0
Sudden movement of patient During opening needle cap Improperly disposed needle During needle re-capping Drawing blood from patient
PHYSICAL INDICATORS OF STRESS
Physical index of stress constitute how stress shows it ill effect on individuals when they stressed up.
These includes feeling tensed, having chronic headache and also showing signs of muscles spasm
due to prolonged awkward posture. Majority of the participants showed a low 34.5% whiles a
29.3% also showed a high physical index of stress. 8.6% showed a very low degree of physical index
of stress. 13.8% also showed an extremely high degree of physical index of stress

25

LOW
20

HIGH

15

10 EXTREMELY
MODERATE HIGH

VERY LOW
5

0
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH EXTREMELY HIGH
 EFFECT OF STRESS ON JOB PERFORMANCES

STRESS EFFECT RESPONDENT ( N = 59 )

YES (%) NO (%) p VALUES

Increased absenteeism 6(10.3) 52(89.7) 0.001

poor scientist-patient relationship 20(35.1) 37(64.9) 0.362

Poor health care delivery 21(36.8) 36(63.2) 0.024

Reduced work effectiveness 33(55.9) 26(44.1) 0.047

Reduce job satisfaction 32(56.1) 25(43.9) 0.354

 ERGONOMICS
SATISFACTORY LEVEL OF PRIMARY WORK COUNTER
LEG SPACE UNDER
25
PRIMARY WORK MATERIAL SPACE FOR STORING
REAGENT
HEIGHT OF PRIMARY COUNTER PRIMARY
WOK COUNTER
WORK
20
COUNTER IS
MADE FROM
15

10

0
Height of the primary work counter Leg space under primary work counter Material primary work counter is made of Space for storing reagent.

very unsatisfied quite unsatisfied neutral quite satisfied very satisfied

AMBIENT WORK STATION OF THE LABORATROY

35

TASK LIGHTING
30 OVERALL
EFFECTIVE
25 NESS OF
AUDITORY PRIVACY
UNIT IN OVERALL
20
LAB COMFORT
OF UNIT IN
15 THE LA B
10

0
Task lighting Auditory privacy Overall effectiveness of unit in lab Overall comfort of unit in lab assigned
assigned

very unsatisfied quite unsatisfied neutral quite satisfied very satisfied

 A CHI-SQUARE CROSSTABULATION
  Have you ever had any case of needle  
Triggering factors of stress prick before?  
  YES (%) NO (%) Chi square p VALUE

Workover load 29(50) 29(50) 1.136 0.889

Time pressures 28(48.3) 30(51.7) 5.63 0.228
Repetitive and boring work 28(48.3) 30(51.7) 15.623 0.004
Poor and unplanned work 0 32(100) 11.209 0.002
Poor salary 29(49.2) 30(50.8) 9.065 0.006
         
  Macro ambient features of  
Ocular complains workstation. Chi square p VALUE
  YES (%) NO (%)    
Eye fatigue 40(72.7) 15(27.3) 4.099 0.393
Eye strain 32(58.2) 23(41.8) 13.094 0.011
Irritation 11(20) 44(80) 4.951 0.292
Dryness 9(16.4) 46(83.6) 9.397 0.052
Redness 12(21.8) 43(78.2) 5.572 0.233
Burning sensation 7(12.7) 48(87.3) 12.986 0.011
Blurred vision 14(25.5) 41(74.5) 2.847 5.84
         
CONTI.
  Are you aware of CDC  
Ocular complains guidelines towards the use of  
microscope? Chi square p VALUE
  YES (%) NO (%)    
Dryness 6(18.2) 27(81.8) 9.201 0.027
Aching 12(36.4) 21(63.6) 8.199 0.042
         
  Responds about hours  
Ocular complains participants spends behind  
the microscope a day. Chi square p VALUE
  YES (%) NO (%)    
Eye fatigue 39(72.7) 15(27.8) 5.689 0.127
Eye strain 31(57.4) 23(42.6) 10.511 0.015
Irritation 10(18.5) 44(81.5) 8.242 0.041
Dryness 9(16.7) 45(83.3) 18.422 0.001
P Value significant at ( <0.05 ) (%) = Valid percent
 A CORRELATION BETWEEN ERGONOMICS ‘PRIMARY WORKBENCH’
AND PHYSICAL INDICATOR OF STRESS

  Physical indicators for stress category  

Primary workbench V.L L M H E.H Chi sq. p Val

Height of primary work counter 5(9.1) 19(34.5) 6(10.9) 17(30.9) 8(14.5) 34.07 0.005

Space for storing reagent   16(30.8) 4(7.7) 8(15.4) 24(46.2) 28.931 0.001

Height of chair 10(18.2) 20(36.4) 14(25.5) 7(12.7) 4(7.3) 31.084 0.013

Material primary work counter is made of 2(3.6) 4(7.3) 19(34.5) 22(40 8(14.5) 26.33 0.05

Adjustability 11(20.4) 7(13) 17(31.5) 15(27.8) 4(7.4) 32.619 0.008

               

V.L=Very Low L=LOW M=Moderate H=High E.H=Extremely High Chi sq. = Chi Square p Value
significant at (<0.05 )
 A CHI SQUARE CORRELATION BETWEEN QUALITY ASSURANCES, NEEDLE
PRICK, OCULAR COMPLAINS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL INJURIES
  Are there written quality assurance policies and procedure available  
in the laboratory
     
Yes (%) No (%) Not sure (%) Don’t know (%) Chi sq. p Values
NEEDLE PRICK
Have you had any case of needle 45(77.6) 6(10.3) 4(6.9) 3(5.2) 10.833 0.013
prick before
             
OCULAR COMPLAINS            

Eye fatigue 42(76.4) 6(10.9) 4(7.3) 3(5.5) 6.384 0.094

Eye strain 42(76.4) 6(10.9) 4(7.3) 3(5.5) 9.887 0.020
Dryness 42(76.4) 6(10.9) 4(7.3) 3(5.5) 13.073 0.004
Blurred vision 42(76.4) 6(10.9) 4(7.3) 3(5.5) 13.718 0.003
             
MUSCULOSKELETAL            
Neck 0 4(66.7) 0 1(33.3)    
Head 10(23.8) 0 1(25) 0    
Hands and finger 0 1(16.7) 0 0    
   
Back 6(14.3) 0 1(25) 0
48.176 0.001
Shoulders 7(16.7) 0 2(50) 0
Lower back 16(38.1) 1(16.7) 0 2(66.7)
Lower arm 1(2.4) 0 0 0
Leg or feet 2(4.8) 0 0 0
 REFERENCE

• Gorke, A., Elseviers, M. M., & Arias-guille, M. (2014). REVIEW ARTICLE

SHARPS INJURIES AMONGST HEALTHCARE WORKERS : REVIEW OF
INCIDENCE , TRANSMISSIONS AND COSTS, 150–156.
• Jain, G., & Shetty, P. (2014). OCCUPATIONAL CONCERNS ASSOCIATED,
(July). https://doi.org/10.2478/s13382-014-0288-2
• Kommogldomo, E. D. (2016). University of Ghana
http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh, (July).