Mindful Medlab

In healthcare, the phrase “do no harm” is often associated with frontline patient care. But for biomedical scientists working behind the scenes in medical laboratories, the principle is no less important. Every blood sample analysed, every diagnostic result issued, and every piece of laboratory data shared has the potential to profoundly affect patient care. Ensuring that our actions as biomedical scientists minimise harm is both a professional and ethical duty.

Do No Harm in the Laboratory Context

While we may not insert the cannula or prescribe the treatment, our work underpins nearly every clinical decision. A mislabelled sample, a delayed result, or a technical error can lead to misdiagnosis, inappropriate treatment, or avoidable patient harm. The concept of “do no harm” in the laboratory means:

• Accuracy: Applying rigorous scientific methods and quality assurance to produce reliable results and maintain accurate data.
• Safety: Following health and safety protocols to protect patients, colleagues, and ourselves.
• Respect for the sample: Recognising that each tube, slide, or vial represents a real person and can impact their treatment and health.
• Responsibility for communication: Ensuring results are reported clearly, promptly, and confidentially.

The latest SHOT Annual Report 2024 (https://www.shotuk.org/shot-reports/annual-shot-report-2024/ provides important insights into transfusion safety, highlighting both the prevalence and consequences of errors in blood handling. Among the incidents reported are wrong blood in tube (WBIT) events and cases of incorrect blood component transfusions (IBCT), which can have serious or even life-threatening consequences for patients. For biomedical scientists, these findings serve as a stark reminder of the critical importance of meticulous sample identification, careful verification and adherence to established protocols. They also underscore how even small lapses in the laboratory can impact patient safety, reinforcing the principle of ‘do no harm’ in every aspect of practice- from technical procedures to communication and reporting

HCPC Standards of Proficiency and Ethics

The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) provides biomedical scientists with professional and ethical frameworks that align closely with the principle of doing no harm.

• Standards of Proficiency require biomedical scientists to “practise safely and effectively within their scope of practice” and to “exercise professional judgement” (HCPC, 2018). This safeguards patients by ensuring competence and accountability.
• Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics emphasise working in partnership with service users, maintaining confidentiality, and speaking up when something might put safety at risk. For example, the duty of candour (being open and honest about errors) directly addresses harm prevention by ensuring transparency and trust.
• Continued professional development (CPD) is mandated so that biomedical scientists maintain and advance their knowledge, reducing the risk of errors that could compromise patient care.

In essence, HCPC standards translate “do no harm” into our daily practice by embedding safety, integrity, and responsibility into the very definition of professional conduct. It is important to integrate these personal values with those of the wider organisation and other staff who may be registered with other councils or not at all. If values appear in conflict or are not followed- it is important that people raise this in the spirit of improvement.

Do No Harm in a Wider Context

The idea of “do no harm” is not unique to biomedical science—it is a principle that appears across professions, industries, and cultures. In medicine, it is captured in the Hippocratic Oath; in nursing, in the duty to protect patients from avoidable harm; and in pharmacy, through the safe management of medicines.

Beyond healthcare, the aviation industry has long embraced a “safety culture,” where redundancies, checklists, and open reporting of errors are designed to minimise harm. Engineering fields operate under the maxim “safety first,” ensuring that structures, systems, and technologies do not endanger users. Even in the food industry, regulators apply the precautionary principle, ensuring products are safe before reaching consumers.

Across cultures and religions, too, non-harming is a shared ethic. In Buddhism, the first precept calls for refraining from harming living beings and is a guideline for ethical living. In Christianity, the command to “love thy neighbour” implies avoiding actions that cause harm and a calling to treat people with compassion and that all people possess inherent value. In Islam, the Hadith lā ḍarar wa lā ḍirār (“Do not harm yourself or others”) provides a direct parallel to modern ethical codes.

The Human Factors Dimension

What unites these diverse contexts is an awareness of human factors—the ways in which people’s behaviour, limitations, and environments influence safety. In aviation, pilots use structured communication and checklists to minimise cognitive overload. In healthcare, understanding human factors means recognising that errors are rarely due to negligence alone, but often emerge from workload pressures, unclear communication, fatigue, or poorly designed systems.

For biomedical scientists, this is crucial. A mislabelled sample, an interrupted workflow, or a moment of inattention can lead to harm—but human factors analysis reminds us that these risks can be mitigated through better design of processes, supportive teamwork, and a culture where raising concerns is encouraged. By paying attention to human factors, biomedical scientists align with both HCPC standards of proficiency and broader ethical traditions of non-harming.

Ahimsa: The Yogic Philosophy of Non-Harm

The concept of ahimsa, drawn from yogic philosophy, resonates deeply with biomedical science. Ahimsa means non-violence or non-harming, not only in action but also in thought and intention. It is an ethical stance that encourages compassion, awareness, and responsibility.

In the laboratory, ahimsa might manifest as:

• Mindful practice: Approaching each task with care and precision, respecting the patient’s dignity even when they are not physically present.
• Compassion for colleagues: Creating a supportive work environment that recognises the pressures of laboratory work and seeks to prevent harm through stress or burnout.
• Environmental responsibility: Minimising waste, using resources sustainably, and considering the ecological footprint of laboratory practice.

By adopting ahimsa as a guiding philosophy, biomedical scientists can extend “do no harm” beyond compliance with standards, cultivating a culture of care, mindfulness, and respect in all aspects of laboratory practice.

Bridging Professionalism, Philosophy, and Systems Thinking

The HCPC standards provide biomedical scientists with a professional mandate to protect patients, while ahimsa offers a broader, humanistic approach that deepens this responsibility. Lessons from other professions and cultures remind us that “do no harm” is not only an individual duty but a shared and systemic one, supported by human factors awareness.

Together, these perspectives remind us that “do no harm” is not only about preventing physical injury or diagnostic error, but also about fostering trust, compassion, and responsibility in every action we take. In the quiet, often unseen work of the laboratory, this integration of professional standards, human factors, and philosophical ethics empowers biomedical scientists to embody both scientific excellence and ethical practice.

Optional reflection for CPD:

1. Accuracy & Safety: How do I ensure that every sample I handle is correctly identified, processed, and reported to minimise the risk of harm to patients?
2. Human Factors & Systems Thinking: What systems, workflows, or environmental factors in my laboratory could contribute to errors, and how can I actively mitigate these risks?
3. Ethics & Personal Practice: In what ways can I apply the principle of ahimsa (non-harming) in my daily practice, both toward patients and colleagues, to strengthen a culture of safety and care?
4. Learning from Errors: How can I use near misses or minor laboratory errors as learning opportunities to improve patient safety, foster a culture of transparency, and uphold the principle of do no harm?