Definition, problems, and key recording points for emergency exercise tasks in college and university laboratories

Laboratory Safety Regulations for Colleges and Universities require laboratories to conduct emergency drills tailored to the specific characteristics of their disciplines and majors and to effectively record them. However, emergency drills in college and university laboratories are characterized by unclear activity tasks and incomplete records. This article examines the implementation of emergency drills in 100 laboratories, analyzes common problems in these drills, outlines the business processes and key points of laboratory emergency drills, and proposes specific measures to improve the drills in four key areas: design, evaluation, feedback, and application. A task list and its recording points are designed to address common problems in emergency drills, and references are provided for colleges and universities to improve the effective documentation of laboratory emergency drill activities.

In this study, research papers and news reports on emergency drills in 100 college and university laboratories are collected through CNKI and online search engines. To facilitate the processing of information on laboratory emergency drill activities from these sources, the data are inputted into Excel for formatting and processing, using fields such as “serial number, school name, time, organizational structure, design process, implementation introduction, and effectiveness.” The selection criteria for the data on these laboratory exercises include having complete key information, with the exercise period ranging from January 2020 to December 2023. The exclusion criteria are that laboratory emergency drill records organized by entities such as secondary vocational colleges and chemical enterprises are not included in this analysis.

The data show that out of 100 exercises, there are 1 desktop exercise and 99 practical exercises, indicating an imbalance in the formats of the exercises. From a temporal perspective, 24 exercises are conducted in the first half of the year, mainly concentrated in June, which accounts for 14 exercises (14%). In the second half of the year, 76 exercises are conducted, mainly concentrated in October to December, which accounts for 65 exercises (65%). Regarding task description, only 11 colleges and universities mention inspecting contingency plans. The above represents partial data. The research identifies four common problems in emergency drill implementation: inadequate planning of emergency plans, lack of standardized guidance on emergency procedures, insufficient interactive drills among emergency teams, and a focus on performance over practical science education. Implementing drill activities according to five processes could effectively address the challenges of recording laboratory drill activities across different scenarios and disciplines.

The article categorizes emergency drills into five processes: planning, preparation, implementation, evaluation, and improvement, each related to specific tasks, and the task list framework is formed. During the planning phase, emphasis is placed on clarifying laboratory emergency plan procedures. In the preparation stage, the focus shifts to enhancing emergency readiness. During implementation, the primary goal is to enhance the comprehensive emergency response capabilities of response teams. The aim of the evaluation phase is to verify the effectiveness of emergency mechanism adjustments. Finally, in the improvement stage, the focus is on developing an “emergency+science education” platform for public outreach and education. The five major tasks are broken down into 47 key points across 15 task units, culminating in the task list. This list precisely delineates drill tasks from planning through implementation, evaluation, and improvement. The list addresses the challenge of effectively executing and documenting laboratory drill activities across various disciplines and scenarios.