Laboratory Safety Education in Higher Education: A Five-Dimensional Framework and Institutional Practice

Abstract

Background: Training often remains formalistic, access systems are not always linked to actual competence, and responsibilities are dispersed across several departments without strong coordination. Under such conditions, laboratory safety education struggles to form an effective process connecting instruction, practice, assessment, and improvement. Aims: The present study examines the major limitations of current laboratory safety education in universities, construct a five-dimensional reform framework from an educational perspective, and evaluate its practical value through institutional practice. Study Design: This study employed a qualitative case-study design supported by document analysis and literature-based review. Place and Duration of Study: The study was conducted at Jiangsu University, China, based on laboratory safety education reform practices implemented in recent years. Methodology: The study analyzed policy documents, institutional regulations, and relevant studies on laboratory safety education in higher education. Current problems were examined from five aspects: educational philosophy, training content and methods, institutional responsibility, access and assessment, and safety culture. On this basis, a five-dimensional reform framework was developed, covering educational philosophy, governance structure, curriculum and training, digital platform support, and safety culture. Jiangsu University was selected as a case to illustrate how the framework was applied through layered responsibility, differentiated training, digital governance, and campus-wide safety activities. Results: The analysis showed that current university laboratory safety education is still constrained by inadequate conceptual integration, homogeneous teaching content, fragmented responsibility, weak alignment between access and competency assessment, and insufficient cultural support. The institutional case indicated that the reform improved both management effectiveness and educational outcomes. Participation in safety-related activities reached 93%, safety violations decreased by 42%, the hazard rectification rate exceeded 98%, access qualification reached 100%, and satisfaction with safety education increased from 72% to 91%. Conclusion: Laboratory safety should be understood not only as a management issue, but also as an important educational issue in higher education. A reform model centered on philosophy, governance, curriculum, digital support, and culture may help universities establish a more systematic, sustainable, and education-oriented approach to laboratory safety education, although further multi-site research is needed to test the framework across different institutional contexts.