Preventing and controlling safety risks, as well as strengthening emergency response capabilities, are fundamental to laboratory safety construction in universities. This article analyzes national regulations and accident investigation reports related to emergency management in university laboratories and identifies four key issues in laboratory risk prevention and emergency capacity building. Based on practical experience, this study proposes measures to strengthen safety risk prevention and emergency response capabilities across five dimensions: evaluation, guarantee, capability, contingency planning, and education. This approach provides a reference for other universities seeking to improve laboratory safety construction.

Through literature review, investigation, and research, this study identifies four persistent problems in university laboratory safety: weak risk identification capabilities, a lack of operational standards for risk assessment, insufficient accident risk analysis capabilities, and inadequate implementation of emergency plans. These challenges hinder the ability to meet safety demands amid the rapid development of university laboratories. To further clarify potential solutions, this study employed expert consultation, convening domestic experts in a dedicated meeting to define the research pathway for laboratory risk prevention and emergency capacity building.

Based on relevant regulations and institutional practices, this study identifies three common characteristics of safety risk prevention and emergency capacity building. First, both operate within the lifecycle of laboratory risks and serve as critical measures for effectively preventing and controlling accidents. Second, achieving a “forward shift” in emergency capacity building requires managers to expand their focus from reactive responses to proactive “risk prevention and control.” Third, safety risk prevention and control constitute the primary requirements for ensuring safe laboratory construction, while emergency capacity building serves as a necessary means of reducing accident-related losses. To address the identified issues, this study proposes five measures: (1) establish risk assessment standards and implement risk classification and control measures; (2) develop an accident case database to enhance hazard identification capabilities; (3) introduce a funding guarantee mechanism to improve the level of protective infrastructure; (4) refine emergency response plans and standardize operational procedures for drills; and (5) strengthen emergency science communication and improve related incentive mechanisms.

Driven by policy developments, universities have gradually clarified their responsibilities for laboratory safety management, shifting from accident-driven approaches to prevention-oriented models. Risk analysis and hazard identification have mitigated some hidden dangers, and diversified emergency drills have been implemented. Further strengthening safety construction across the five dimensions of evaluation, guarantee, capability, contingency planning, and education will support the effective implementation of risk classification and control measures. These efforts will enhance hazard identification, improve protective infrastructure, standardize drill procedures, and strengthen incentive mechanisms for emergency science communication, thereby significantly improving the safety of university laboratories. Recent measures related to laboratory safety construction have also attracted increasing attention from educational authorities.

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.