Transcript Slide 1

Risk Management
Loss Control
Metrics That Matter
Jason Bible, MSM, ARM, CHMM
Risk Manager
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
1851 Crosspoint Drive, OCB 1.330
Houston, Texas 77054
(713) 500-8100
[email protected]
Colleges & Universities as
Worksettings

Very unique places of work due to the potential for
simultaneous exposures to all four hazards types





Physical
Chemical
Biological
Radiological
And a diverse “population at risk”

Students, faculty, staff, visitors, others
Training Gap
•
There are over 4,700 colleges and universities in the
U.S.
•
Interestingly, none the loss control professionals
who serve them were formally trained on how
universities operate
•
This lack of understanding results in a lot of
frustration and confusion
•
Enhanced understanding can improve services and
support
Objectives
•
To begin to articulate the risk control needs of
an institution, we first must understand its
characteristics
•
To accomplish this, we need some basic
descriptive institutional data such as…
Institutional Measures




How big is your
campus?
How is size
measured?
What measures are
important (e.g.
resonate with
resource providers?)
What risks are
present?




How are these risks
managed?
Are these risks real
or hypothetical?
How might you
determine that?
How does
management
determine that?
Loss Prevention Measures






How many staff?
In your opinion, are you
over or understaffed?
How would you know?
How would others know?
How are you performing?
Within the context of the
mission of your institution,
is your program viewed as
hindering or helping?




How is your program’s
performance measured?
In your opinion, are these
measures true indicators of
performance?
What do the clients served
really think of your program?
Do clients feel there are real
(or perceived) loss
prevention program
duplications of effort?
Loss Prevention Staffing

An age old question: how many EH&S (or loss
prevention) staff should I have?

Perhaps an equally important question is: what
can we realistically hope to obtain from a
benchmarking exercise involving staffing metrics?

At best, we can likely only achieve a reasonable
estimation of “industry averages”, such as number
of EH&S FTE’s for an institution exhibiting certain
characteristics
Sampling of Possible Staffing
Predictors and Influencing Factors

Quantifiable









Institution size
Number of labs
Level of funding
Population
Geographic location
Deferred
maintenance
Public/private
Medical/Vet schools
Disjunct campus

Non-quantifiable




Regulatory history &
scrutiny
Tolerance of risk by
leadership
Level of trust/faith in
program
Ability of EH&S program
to articulate needs
Desirable Characteristics of
Predictors for Benchmarking





Consistently quantifiable
Uniformly defined by a recognized authority
Easily obtained
Meaningful and relevant to decision makers
(provides necessary context)
Consider something as simple as the definition of
“number of EH&S staff”
Suggested Definition

“EH&S Staff”: technical, managerial, and directorial staff that
support the EH&S function
 Suggest including administrative staff, but it probably
doesn’t make a big difference

Can include staff outside the EH&S unit, but must devote half
time or greater to institutional safety function (0.5 FTE)
 Example
 Safety person in another department
 Student workers (>0.5 FTE)

Contractors included only if on-site time is half time or greater
(0.5 FTE)
 Example –
 contract lab survey techs, yes if >0.5 FTE
 Fire detection testing contractors, likely no.
Preliminary Results

Findings indicated that Total NASF and
Lab NASF are the most favorable
(statistically significant) and pragmatic
predictors

On a two dimensional graph, we can only
show 2 parameters, but the relationship
between sq ft and staffing is clear.
Number of EHS FTE vs. Total NASF
80
70
Number of FTE
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
Total NASF
20,000,000
25,000,000
Predictability of Various Models
(based on n = 69)
Total campus
sq ft
Lab + non-lab
sq ft
ln (total campus
sq ft)
ln (lab) + ln (non
lab sq ft)
Med/vet
school
General
“others”
category
BSL3 or
impending
BSL4
X
R Squared
Value
47.69
X
50.46
x
64.90
X
71.10
x
x
x
x
x
x
78.19
x
78.41
x
80.05
Current Metrics Model
# EH&S FTE = e [(0.516*School) + (0.357*ln (Lab NASF)) + (0.398*ln (Nonlab NASF)) + (0.371*BSL)] 8.618]
R2 value based on 69 observations = 80%
Definitions for predictor variables:
Lab NASF: the number of lab net assignable square footage
Nonlab NASF: the number of non-lab net assigned square footage
(usually obtained by subtracting lab from gross)
School: defined as whether your institution has a medical school as
listed by the AAMC or a veterinary school as listed by the AAVMC; 0
means no, 1 means yes
BSL: this variable indicates if the institution has a BSL3 or BSL4
facility; 0 means no, 1 means yes
Staffing Predictors

The data from 69 institutions from across the country indicate that
four variables can account for 80% of the variability in EH&S staffing:




Non lab net assignable square footage
Lab net assignable square footage
Presence of Medical or Vet School
Existence of BSL-3 operations

These predictors important because they are recognized and
understood by those outside the risk control profession

With the collection of more data, the precision of the model could
likely be improved to the benefit of the entire profession
Caveat

Note: even an estimate for the number of
EH&S staff doesn’t give us any indication
about their proficiency and effectiveness

So what should we be measuring in loss
prevention?

And how should we communicate what loss
prevention does?
Why Metrics?
“When you measure what you are speaking
about, and express it in numbers, you know
something about it;
But when you cannot measure it, when you
cannot express it in numbers, your
knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory
kind.”
-
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin
Note; Kelvin also said man wouldn’t fly
Metrics
What measures?
What units?
How often to collect the data?
How to communicate the information?
Measures versus Metrics
A metric is a unit of measurement that
objectively quantifies an organization’s
performance
- What’s measured gets managed
What Measures?
Losses
Personnel
Property
Compliance
External
Internal
Financial
Expenditures
Revenues
Client Satisfaction
External
Internal
Measurements as Indicators
Output - workload
number of individuals trained
surveys or inspections completed
violations assessed
Outcomes – does the program achieve its
desired results
is safety training or inspections effective in
reducing injury or illnesses
What Units?
•
$ (Cost)
•
Square feet
•
Time
•
Number of events
Fire & Occupational Safety
Individuals trained
Number of inspections
Deficiencies identified and resolved
Incident response
Plan reviews
Environmental Health & Safety
Fire, Life Safety, & Emergency Preparedness Program
Fire, Life Safety, & Emergency Preparedness Program FY 2006
Description
Facility Inspections, Checks, and Surveys
Portable Fire Extinguishers Checked
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Totals
5612
779
364
335
780
364
337
636
364
317
635
364
337
Safety Lockers Inspected
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
6
0
0
6
23
Life Safety Reviews
12
49
11
18
49
11
29
49
11
29
29
12
309
Lease Space Reviews
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
7
Hallway Clearance, Egress Checks
12
49
1
13
61
60
2
17
17
15
17
60
324
Safety Showers & Eyewashes Inspected
0
276
0
0
122
47
84
55
121
84
55
120
964
New Devices Tested/Devices Accepted
0/0
416/414
2/2
0/0
28/0
1
23/15
14/1058
30/30
12/12
21/21
20/20
567/1573
Fire Alarm Events
10
17
10
6
19
11
6
6
11
10
15
10
131
3000
724
1250
3758
461
1016
740
1429
744
620
739
862
15343
Fire Drills
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
0
0
19
Annual Electronic Door Closure Tests (c)
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
4
0
0
0
19
Annual Fire Alarm Inspections (c)
2
0
3
0
0
3
0
3
2
0
0
2
15
Weekly Fire Pump Tests
20
20
20
20
15
25
18
18
15
15
20
13
219
Annual Sprinkler Inspections (c)
1
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
1
1
11
Special Hazard & Alternative System Inspections (c)
0
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
7
Annual Fire Extinguishers Inspected (c)
0
138
20
780
135
219
0
0
31
0
84
0
1407
Quarterly Tamper & Water Flow Inspections (c)
0
4
2
2
4
2
0
2
3
1
2
4
26
Hydrotests
0
3
2
2
2
1
3
0
5
5
4
1
28
New Systems Accepted
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
7
1
1
0
12
Fire Alarm Related Activities
Trouble Events
Supression Related Activities
Construction / Renovation / Facility Related Activities
Plan Reviews
2
4
2
3
4
12
1
6
14
10
5
3
66
24/5
12/2
30/6
31/7
31/9
30/5
40/6
36/4
37/4
45/12
22/6
25/5
66
Fire Impairment Permits Submitted & Inspected
4
3
2
2
0
3
3
2
2
1
2
0
24
Job Safety Analysis Reviews
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
6
Site Safety Surveys
5
5
6
8
10
6
15
20
16
20
13
10
134
Surveys Performed
1
4
2
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
7
32
Number Samples
13
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
20
Abatement Jobs Managed
1
2
0
2
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
3
15
Amount Abated (ft2)
8
579
0
2559
17
24
0
0
533
400
600
1000
5720
Individuals Trained
38
30
41
174
189
87
39
29
47
24
40
34
772
Staff Continuing Education Hours
48
22
18
20
32
36
19
32
5
8
6
32
278
Hot Works Permits Submitted / Inspected
Asbestos Activities
Training
*** (c) denotes contractor performed activites
Risk Management & Insurance
Program
Number of first reports of injury
by population type
by location
by cause
Equipment floater losses
other retained losses
Fleet description
Certificates of insurance issues
FY07 Property Losses

Losses incurred but covered by UTS
Comprehensive Property Protection
Program
MSB sprinkler loss total of $460,000
Currently pursuing subrogation to at fault contractor,
$250,000 retained by deductible

Losses incurred but covered by 3rd party
Retained Property Loss by Peril
( Total $645,895)*
Water Related
88%
Burglary
<1%
RRF Fire $10-$14 Million
Potential retention of $1-$3M
Environmental
<1%
Criminal Mischief
1%

Retained losses
Water leak in MSI $210,000
Fire
1%
Theft
10%
Theft total $65,000 (predominantly laptops)
Electrical power disruption no implicated in any losses
Other losses $65,000
*Not inclusive of any recorded Capitol Assets inventory
irregularities. For additional information contact UTHSC-H
Capitol Assets Management
Help Avoid the 3 Main Causes of Property Loss at UTHSC-H
The three main causes of property loss at UTHSC-H in FY06 were water leaks, theft, and electrical power interruption. These three perils resulted in over
$331,000 in direct loss and untold disruption to teaching, research, and service activities. The deductible for the UTS Comprehensive Property Protection
Program is $250,000 per occurrence, in FY06 none of the losses exceeded the per occurrence deductible, however the sum of retained losses exceeded the
deductible by $140,000. In special cases additional insurance can be purchased*. Summarized below are simple steps that can be taken to avoid such losses.
Potential For Loss
Simple Prevention Measures
For more information and
assistance
Water Damage
Water damage accounted for $221,000 of
loss in FY06. Water can enter a lab or office
from the same floor or from the floor above.
Move equipment off of the floor and
cover when not in use. Evaluate
possible purchase of supplemental
insurance for certain types of
equipment*
Contact Facilities Planning
and Engineering for more
information, (713)500-3498.
Theft
Theft accounted for $90,114 of loss in FY06,
the majority of which were theft of laptops,
PDAs and cell phones.
Secure laptops, PDA’s, or cellular
phones. Always backup data and
keep it in a physically separate
location. For more information about
how to lock a PC or laptop:
http://www.uth.tmc.edu/med
/msit/howdoi/physical_security.htm
Evaluate possible purchase of
supplemental insurance for certain
types of equipment*
Contact University of Texas
Police Department for more
information, (713)794-4357.
Electrical Power Interruption
Electrical power disruption accounted for
$20,000 worth direct losses in FY06.
However this is not reflective of the loss of
priceless research specimens.
Ensure that all critical equipment has
backup power or has the ability to alert
local personnel when power or
temperature is disrupted. The
production of duplicate or split
samples is encouraged. Finally, some
buildings are equipped with the
necessary infrastructure to provide
monitoring of temperature.
Contact Facilities Planning
and Engineering for more
information, (713)500-3498.
*Information about the purchase of additional insurance can be obtained by contacting Risk Management; 713-500-8100.
Annual Property and Workforce Insurance Premiums, by Policy Type, with
Proportion That Might be Potentially Influenced by EH&S Efforts (based on
FY08 data)
$1,400,000
Portion possibly influenced by EH&S activities
$1,200,000
Portion driven by size, construction type, and physical
location
Annual Premium
$1,000,000
$800,000
Portion driven by injury frequency and
severity
Portion driven by payroll and
head count
$600,000
Portion driven by loss
frequency and severity
$400,000
Portion driven by
asset value
$200,000
$*Property
Employee
WC
*Does not include flood premium on all buildings
CPPP PAM Elements That Might Be Readily Influenced By
EH&S Operations
Emergency Planning
Fire Department
5%
Response
Building Size
5%
15%
Exposure
5%
Water Supply
Fire Sprinklers
10%
15%
Occupancy
Classification
10%
Campus
Construction
Management
Classification Fire System
Programs
Supervision
10%
15%
10%
Resident
WC
Fleet
Equipment
Floater
UTHSC-H Employee Injury Reports and
Workers’ Compensation Insurance Premium Trends, FY01 to 08
Note: insurance premium influenced predominantly by market conditions, employee census, employee payroll,
and injury frequency and severity
Annual Employee Census
Annual Employee Payroll in Thousands of Dollars
Oversight by SHERM
$400,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2003
2004
Fiscal Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Fiscal Year
Total Number of First Reports of Injury and Subset of
Compensible Claims Submitted to UT System
600
Annual Policy Premium
87 fewer
reported $1,000,000
injuries from
$800,000
previous
year
$560,000 in
overall
premium
reduction
since FY04
$600,000
400
49 fewer
injuries
requiring
medical care
200
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
Fiscal Year
2007
2008
2009
$400,000
$200,000
$0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Fiscal Year
2008
2009
Survey of Employees and Supervisors Filing UTHSC-H First Reports of Injury in 2007
(Email based Zoomerang survey for period February 1, 2007 to August 31, 2007)
Employee Population
(not reporting any
injuries, n = 4,181)
Injured Employees Requiring Care and Loss Time (n = 39):
Not Included in survey, as each injured worker that accrues
lost time is assigned a case manager to personally assist in
the rehabilitation process.
Employees requiring care, but no loss time (n = 28)
Employees not requiring care, no loss time (n = 179)
No Care or Lost Time
(18% response rate)
Care But No Lost Time
(57% response rate)
Supervisors
(13% response rate)
Was this the first time you have reported an injury or exposure at UTHSC-H?
67%(Y) 33%(N)
62%(Y) 38%(N)
37%(Y) 63%(N)
Prior to the reported injury event, were you aware of your obligation to report any injury or exposure?
88%(Y) 12%(N)
88%(Y) 12%(N)
96%(Y) 4%(N)
Did you receive a copy of the completed first report of injury form?
70%(Y) 30%(N)
62%(Y) 38%(N)
96%(Y) 4%(N)
To your knowledge has the source of your injury or exposure been addressed?
81%(Y) 19%(N)
88%(Y) 12%(N)
88%(Y) 12%(N)
Did you encounter any issues with the reporting process that you didn’t know or anticipate?
12%(Y) 88%(N)
38%(Y) 62%(N)
27%(Y) 73%(N)
Our records indicate that you did not receive any health care in response to your injury or exposure.
Who made the determination that health care was not needed?
72% Yourself
9% Supervisor
19% Other
Have you experienced any residual affects from your injury or exposure?
9%(Y) 91%(N)
Where did you access health care?
Please indicate your impression of the level of service provided by the health care provider who addressed your injury or exposure?
12%(Y) 88%(N)
53% Employee Health
20% Student Health
27% Other
38% Very Good
44% Good
6% Average
0% Poor
12% Very Poor
Were you able to easily access the necessary Supervisor's First Report of Injury form?
92%(Y) 8%(N)
If any assistance was needed in order to complete and submit the Supervisor's First Report of Injury form, was this assistance readily available?
46% (Y)
8% (N)
46% (none needed)
Were you provided with the information needed for you to effectively manage the affected employee?
100%(Y) 0%(N)
Comparison of Annual Institutional Loss Control Costs (EH&S Budget)
to People and Property Risk Financing Costs (WCI & Property)
$4,500,000
Academic Institutions
$4,000,000
Health Institutions
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
Risk Transfer
$1,000,000
UTMB
UTMDACC
UTHSCH
UTSMC
UTHSCSA
UTHC Tyler
UT Austin
UT Arlington
UT El Paso
UTSA
UT Dallas
UTPA
UT Brownsville
UT Per Basin
$0
UT Tyler
$500,000
Comparison of Annual Institutional Loss Control Costs (EH&S Budget)
to People and Property Risk Financing Costs (WCI & Property)
$4,500,000
Academic Institutions
$4,000,000
Health Institutions
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
Risk Control Risk Transfer
$1,000,000
UTMB
UTMDACC
UTHSCH
UTSMC
UTHSCSA
UTHC Tyler
UT Austin
UT Arlington
UT El Paso
UTSA
UT Dallas
UTPA
UT Brownsville
UT Per Basin
$0
UT Tyler
$500,000
Risk Transfer and Risk Control Cost per Square Foot per Institution
As of December 2006 (Source: THECB Annual Report)
$0.70
Academic Institutions
Health Institutions
$0.50
$0.40
Risk Transfer Risk Control
$0.30
$0.20
UTMB
UTMDACC
UTHSCH
UTSMC
UTHSCSA
UTHC Tyler
UT Austin
UT Arlington
UT El Paso
UTSA
UT Dallas
UTPA
UT Brownsville
$0.00
UT Per Basin
$0.10
UT Tyler
Cost per Square Foot
(in dollars)
$0.60
How Often Should Metrics be
Reported?
“Smell the cheese often so you know when it is
getting old.” - Spencer Johnson
Ongoing metrics communicate the effectiveness
of processes (possible interactions?)
“Every time you get the chance” – Emery
Communicating Metrics
Focus on outcome metrics
Select emerging issues and opportunities to
communicate
Report on strategic goals
Remember to tie it to the mission of the
organization
Another Important Caveat
“Not everything that can be counted
counts, and not everything that counts
can be counted”
Albert Einstein