Transcript First Reports of Injury by Population Type

FY09 SHERM Metrics-Based
Performance Summary
Indicators of Performance in the Areas of
Losses, Compliance, Finances, and Client Satisfaction
Overview
• The objective of this report is to provide a
metrics-based review of SHERM operations in
FY09 in four key areas:
Losses
Personnel
Property
Compliance
With external agencies
With internal assessments
Finances
Expenditures
Revenues
Client Satisfaction
External clients served
Internal department staff
Loss Metrics
• Personnel
– Reported injuries by employees, residents,
students
• Property
– Losses incurred and covered by UTS
Comprehensive Property Protection Program
– Losses incurred and covered by outside party
– Losses retained by UTHSC-H
FY09 Number of UTHSC-H First Reports of Injury, by Population Type
(total population 9,782; employee population 4,425; student population 3,895; resident population 850)
Total (n = 451)
Employees (n = 235)
Residents (n = 117)
Students (n = 99)
FY09 Rate of First Reports of Injury per 200,000 Personhours of Exposure, by Population Type
(Based on assumption of annual exposure hours per employee = 2,000; resident = 4,000; student = 800)
Residents (6.88)
Students (6.35)
Employees (4.67)
*Rate calculated using Bureau of Labor Statistics formula = no. of injury reports x 200,000 / total person-hours of exposure.
FY09 Reported Injuries/Exposures by Population Class and Type
Employees (n=248)
H1N1 Flu Exp.
Burn
Silica Exp
Foreign Body
in Eye
Animal or
Insect Bite
BBP Exposure
Vehicle
Accident
Sprains and
Strains
Assault
Cuts, other
than needles
Contusion
Needlestick
Slips, Trips,
Falls
In FY09, slight decreases in student and medical
resident sharps injuries were detected based on injury
surveillance data tracking.
The decreases stem largely from interventions focused
on work involving cutting tools (for students) and
sutures (for residents). Interventions for these types of
injuries will continue to be a major focus of FY10
efforts
Workers’ Compensation Insurance Premium Adjustment for
UTS Health Components Fiscal Years 03 to 09
(discount premium rating as compared to a baseline of 1, three year rolling average adjusts rates for subsequent year)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
Oversight by SHERM
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
UT Medical Branch Galveston (0.16)
UT Southwestern Dallas (0.16)
UT Health Center Tyler (0.13)
UT HSC San Antonio (0.12)
UT HSC Houston (0.09)
UT MD Anderson Cancer Center (0.06)
0.20
0.10
0.00
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
FY09 Property Losses
Retained Property Loss Summary By Peril
(Total FY09 losses by cause and amount in dollars, Total Loss~$414,656)*
Water
Related
- Losses Incurred but covered by UTS
Comprehensive Property Protection Program
Hurricane Ike property damage $1,500,000
- Losses incurred by but covered by third party
Theft
Fire
MSB Basement, Contractor left conduit exposed to exterior
basement impacted by rain event $25,000
-Retained Losses
Freezer Loss at SRB $125,000
Loss of Power
MSB fire behind a refrigerator $50,000
Water damage due to power loss at NSH $40,000
Burglary, Vandalism, Forgery
Loss of
Temperature
*Not inclusive of any recorded Capitol Assets inventory irregularities. For
additional information contact UTHSC-H Capitol Assets Management
**Estimate based on replacement cost of damaged property
FY09 Actions - Losses
• Personnel
– Continue with aggressive EH&S safety surveillance of
workplaces and case management activities for injured
employees, with particular emphasis on the prevention of
student and resident sharps injuries
– Improve synchronization with Employee Health Clinical Services
Agreement to further contain Worker’s Compensation Insurance
premiums
• Property
– Continue educating faculty and staff about perils causing losses
(water, power interruption and theft) and simple interventions
– Conduct focused loss control assessments of selected facilities
based on objective financial assessments (property value,
revenues, etc.)
Compliance Metrics
• With external agencies
– Regulatory inspections, peer reviews
– Other compliance related activities
• With internal assessments
– Results of EH&S routine safety surveillance activities
External Agencies
Date
Agency
Findings
Status
Sept 30, 2008
Willis HRH Insurance
2 recommendations
Regarding securing
compressed gas
cylinders and sprinklers
in MSE electrical room
Completed
Oct 1, 2008
Willis HRH Insurance
No recommendations
(RAHC)
NA
Nov 5, 2008
CDC Select Agent Division
Unannounced follow up
inspection of Aug 27,
2008 inspection. No
findings noted.
Implemented
undocumented
suggestions by
inspectors
Oct 16, 2008
Texas Department of State
Health Services Radiation
Control
No items of noncompliance (Dental
van)
NA
External Agencies
Date
Agency
Findings
Status
Feb 11, 2009
Texas State Fire Marshal’s
Office
Follow up inspection to
2007 inspection. All
items previously noted
as completed or
controls and plans in
place. 2007 inspection
file closed. (MSE)
NA
Jul 8, 2009
Willis HRH Insurance
No recommendations
(MSI, REC)
NA
Aug 29, 2009
Texas Department of State
Health Services Radiation
Control
No items of noncompliance (Smith
Tower)
NA
Aug 29, 2009
Texas Department of State
Health Services Radiation
Control
No items of noncompliance (HMC)
NA
Other Compliance-Related Activities
• Completed security upgrades to irradiator units,
funded by grant from DOE National Nuclear
Security Administration totaling $103,328
• Updated of all safety-related HOOP policy
documents
• Synchronized safety training for GSBS students
so compliance requirements for both UTHSC-H
and UTMDACC are met simultaneously
• Assisted in AAALAC inspection
Internal Compliance Assessments
• 3,518 workplace inspections documented
– 952 deficiencies identified
– 386 deficiencies corrected to date
– 566 deficiencies subject to follow up correction – primarily
materials stacked too high in lab areas, possibly obstructing
sprinkler discharge (underlying contributing cause is lack of lab
space) and lower risk compliance violations
– 3,520 individuals provided with required safety training
– Some internal compliance was affected by continued internal moves by
PIs into new laboratories, but working with faculty to correct
– Focusing on the Employee Health Clinical Services program to improve
medical surveillance issues
FY10 Actions - Compliance
• External compliance
– Continue to work with FPE to systematically address building
issues identified by SFMO & property insurance carriers
– EH&S continue aggressive routine surveillance program to
provide services to community and correct possible issues to
prevent non-compliance. Incorporate lessons learned from noncompliance data into training programs to prevent recurrence
• Internal compliance
– Continue routine surveillance program. Incorporate lessons
learned from non-compliance data into training programs to
prevent recurrence
– Focus attention on Employee Health medical surveillance to
improve compliance with aspects such as immunizations and
health surveillance for health care and animal care workers
– Accommodate significant impacts of moving labs to new space
and remodeling vacated space
Financial Metrics
• Expenditures
– Program cost, cost drivers
• Revenues
– Sources of revenue, amounts
Campus Square Footage, SHERM Resource Needs, and Funding
(modeling not inclusive of resources provided for, or necessary for Employee Health Clinical Services Agreement)
Modeled SHERM Resource Needs and Institutional Allocations
(Not Inclusive of EHCSA)
$3,000,000
6,000,000.00
Total Campus Square Footage
and Lab/Clinic Subset
$2,500,000
Amount
not funded
$2,000,000
5,000,000.00
Lab area
portion
of total
square
footage
IMM
funding
$1,500,000
Institutional
allocation
$1,000,000
4,000,000.00
$500,000
Non-lab
portion
of total
square
footage
3,000,000.00
$0
FY06
FY08
FY09
FY10
$1,000,000
$900,000
$800,000
2,000,000.00
FY07
SHERM Income
(Worker’s compensation insurance rebates,
contracts services)
$700,000
Med
Foundation
$600,000
$500,000
1,000,000.00
Training
Services
$400,000
UTP
contract
$300,000
$200,000
WCI RAP
rebate *
$100,000
0.00
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
$0
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
* In addition to $214,710 from “Employee Health Account”,
EHCSA received 90% of FY09 WCI RAP allocation
Total Hazardous Waste Cost Obligation and Actual Disposal Expenditures
(inclusive of chemical, biological, and radioactive waste streams)
$300,000
$250,000
Hazardous
Waste Cost
Obligation
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
Actual Disposal
Expenditures
$0
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY09 savings: $201,146
FY09 Revenues
• Service contracts
– UT Physicians
– UT Med Foundation
$ 154,500
$ 25,299
• Continuing education courses/outreach
– UT SPH SWCOEH
$
– Miscellaneous training honoraria $
• Total
7,697
9,521
$ 197,017
FY10 Actions - Financial
• Expenditures
– Continue with aggressive hazardous waste minimization
program to contain costs
– Continue with development of cross functional staff, affording
more cost effective services to institution
– Quantify the results of property loss prevention efforts to reduce
amount of institutional losses
• Revenues
– Continue with service contract and community outreach activities
that provide financial support to operate institutional program
(FY09 revenues equated to about 10% of total budget)
– Cultivate grant opportunities to provide support for program,
such as the new biotechnology training program
– Cultivate fee for service programs such as the provision of safety
services to new biotech start up companies in UCT
Client Satisfaction Metrics
• External clients served
– Results of targeted awareness survey
• Internal department staff
– Summary of professional development activities
Client Feedback
• Focused assessment of a designated aspect performed
annually:
– FY03 – Clients of Radiation Safety Program
– FY04 – Overall client expectations and fulfillment of expectations
– FY05 – Clients of Chemical Safety Program
– FY06 – Clients who Interact with Administrative Support Staff
– FY07 – Employees and Supervisors Reporting Injuries
– FY08 – Clients of Environmental Protection Program Services
– FY09 – Survey of Level of “Informed Risk”
Gauge Your Level of “Informed Risk”
In an attempt to gauge the level of informed risk across campus, an online survey was circulated to manager and
supervisory-level personnel via various institutional e-mail list servs for the period August 24 to September 9, 2009.
Summarized below are the collective responses by percent from 19 respondents. The results indicate that certain
opportunities to enhance community education and awareness exist, and will be pursed in FY10 to help further reduce
the amount of retained losses experienced by the institution.
Did you know that…..
Response
Yes
No
When measured by dollar value of property loss, the most significant cause of property damage at the UTHSC-H is water?
63%
37%
The most common source of the water damage is not from hurricanes or discharges from sprinkler heads, but rather from overflowed
sinks, drainage leaks, and leaks in water supply lines?
74%
26%
The deductible for the UTHSC-H property insurance policy is $250,000?
37%
63%
Personal property stolen or damaged while on UTHSC-H property is not covered by the UTHSC-H property insurance policy?
89%
11%
The insurance for UTHSC-H includes some amount of coverage for “business interruption” but only if the loss event is due to property
damage at UTHSC-H?
63%
37%
When contracting with a firm to move furniture and equipment that the standard coverage for anything damaged in the course of the
move is $0.60/lb?
16%
84%
“Special events” such as parties, catered gatherings and graduations are not covered by the standard UTHSC-H insurance policy, and
require the purchase of a “Special Events Policy”?
32%
68%
If you are injured on the job and cannot work, Worker’s Compensation Insurance will likely not cover your full salary during the period
you are unable to work?
84%
16%
If you drive your personal vehicle for work purposes and are involved in an accident, the primary insurance coverage is your personal
auto insurance?
79%
21%
If something is stolen from your workplace you would report it to UT Police. But if property is damaged or lost in some other way, did
you know you need to report that type of loss to Risk Management & insurance?
47%
53%
Key Findings
•
What did we learn?
– 63% of the respondents did not know that the deductible for the
UTHSC-H property insurance policy was $250,000
– 84% of the respondents did not know that the standard coverage for
damage caused by commercial movers is $0.60 per pound
– 68% of the respondents did not know that “special event” coverage is
needed
– 53% of the respondents did not know about reporting retained losses to
Risk Management & Insurance
•
Implications
– Results indicate opportunities for improving the level of informed risk on
campus to in turn improve institutional risk-related decision making
Internal Department Staff Satisfaction
• Continued support of ongoing academic pursuits
• Weekly continuing education sessions on a variety of topics
• Sought non-monetary reward ideas from staff
• Participation in teaching in continuing education course offerings
• Involvement in novel student and disabled veteran internship
training programs
• Membership, participation in professional organizations
Staff Involvement in Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
• Significant time and effort was directed towards
preparatory and recovery work for several notable
emergencies in FY09
–
–
–
–
Hurricane Ike
Novel H1N1 influenza
MSB fire
New Student Housing water damage from leak in pump room
• Recent state legislation and UTS expectations will likely
mandate more resources being dedicated solely to
emergency preparedness
FY10 Actions – Client Satisfaction
• External Clients
– Continue with “customer service” approach to operations
– Provide targeted “informed risk” education based on findings of
recent survey to enhance decision making when risks are
involved
• Internal Clients (departmental staff)
– Continue with professional development seminars
– Continue with involvement in training courses and outreach
activities
– Continue mentoring sessions on academic activities
– Conduct staff survey focused on job satisfaction
– Continue 360o evaluations on supervisors to garner feedback
from staff
Metrics Caveats
•
Important to remember what isn’t effectively captured by these metrics:
• Increasing complexity of research protocols
• Increased collaborations and associated challenges
• Increased complexity of regulatory environment
• Impacts of construction – both navigation and reviews
• The pain, suffering, apprehension associated with any injury – every dot
on the graph is a person
• The things that didn’t happen
Summary
•
Various metrics indicate that SHERM is fulfilling its mission of maintaining a
safe and healthy working and learning environment in a cost effective manner
that doesn’t interfere with operations:
– Injury rates continue to be at the lowest rate in the history of the institution
– Despite continued growth in the research enterprise, hazardous waste
costs aggressively contained
– Client satisfaction is measurably high
•
Nano scale and high level biosafety research activities will be area of
significant growth in the near term future and will necessitate concurrent
support. Regulatory oversight in these areas also likely to be high. Likewise,
Fire & Life Safety and Emergency Response will also be an area of growth
driven by new construction
•
A successful safety program is largely people powered – the services most
valued cannot be automated!
•
Resource needs continue to be driven primarily by campus square footage
(lab and non-lab)