Transcript First Reports of Injury by Population Type

FY11 SHERM Metrics-Based
Performance Summary
Indicators of Safety, Health, Environment & Risk Management (SHERM)
Performance in the Areas of
Losses, Compliance, Finances, and Client Satisfaction
1
Overview
• The objective of this report is to provide a
metrics-based review of SHERM operations in
FY11 in four key balanced scorecard areas:
Losses
Personnel
Property
Compliance
With external agencies
With internal assessments
Finances
Expenditures
Revenues
Client Satisfaction
External clients served
Internal department staff
2
Key Loss Metrics
• Personnel
– First reports of injury 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
3
FY11 Number of UTHSC-H First Reports of Injury, by Population Type
(estimated total population 11,198; employees: 5,556; students: 4,485; resident/fellows: 1,157)
Oversight by SHERM
Total (n = 381)
Employees (n = 192)
Residents (n = 112)
Students (n = 77)
4
FY11 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)
Oversight by SHERM
Residents (6.45)
Students (4.29)
Employees (3.46)
*Rate calculated using Bureau of Labor Statistics formula = no. of injury reports x 200,000 / total person-hours of exposure.
5
FY11 Compensable Injury Costs by Population Type
(student costs not captured: paid directly by UTHSC-H Student Health or student’s insurance)
Total ($78,785)
Employees ($67,270)
Residents ($11,515)
6
Employee Workers’ Compensation Insurance Premium Experience Modifier for
UT System Health Institutions Fiscal Years 03 to 11
(discount premium rating as compared to a baseline of 1.00, three year rolling average adjusts rates for subsequent year)
Oversight by SHERM
UTSW MCD (0.15)
UTMB (0.13)
UTHSCSA (0.09)
UTHSCT (0.07)
UTHSCH (0.07)
UTMDACC (0.04)
Fiscal Year
7
FY11 Property Losses

Retained Loss Cost Summary by Peril
Retained Losses
(Total FY11 retained losses, $67,100)
Type
Location
Date
Water
DBB
2/2011
$ 6,600
Water
CDC
2/2011
$
MSE
3/2011
$ 1,000
Water
OCB
6/2011
$ 4,000
Water
OCB
6/2011
$ 3,200
Water
UCT
7/2011
$11,700
Mold
DBB
7/2011
$15,000
Water
UCT
8/2011
$ 3,400
Water
DBB
8/2011
$ 3,000
Water
UTPB
3/2011
$ 5,000
Fire
DBB
3/2011
$ 5,000
Thefts
Various
Theft
Vandalism
Fire
$ 5,000
$67,100
Losses incurred and covered by third party
–

600
Water
TOTAL

Cost
Water damage OCB 2/2011 $47,334
Losses incurred and covered by UTS insurance

None
8
Retained Property Loss Summary by Peril and Value, FY06 to FY11
Water
Hurricane
9
FY12 Planned Actions - Losses
• Personnel
– Despite losses in staff (reductions in force, turnover) continue as
best as possible with aggressive EH&S safety surveillance of
workplaces and case management activities
– Focus on staffing needs within SHERM for coming year as injury
reports and WCI rates, although positive, are lagging indicators
of program performance.
• Property
– Continue to educate faculty and staff about common perils
causing losses (water, power interruption, and theft), simple
interventions, and prompt water loss response and mitigation
– Conduct focused loss control assessments of key facilities based
on objective financial assessments (property value, revenues,
etc.)
10
Key Compliance Metrics
• With external agencies
– Regulatory inspections, peer reviews
– Other compliance related activities
• With internal assessments
– Results of EH&S routine safety surveillance activities
11
External Agencies
Date
Agency
Findings
Status
September 17, 2010
Texas Department of State
Health Services Radiation
Control
No items of noncompliance identified
(South Campus, Broad
License L02774)
NA
March 3-4, 2011
Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention
13 alleged items of noncompliance (all minor)
All alleged items
satisfactorily addressed
in response to CDC.
July 1, 2011
Willis HRH (Property
Insurance)
No recommendations
NA
12
Internal Compliance Assessments
• 4,003 workplace inspections documented
– 1,018 deficiencies identified
– 496 deficiencies corrected to date
– Remaining 522 deficiencies subject to follow up correction –
primarily:
» mechanical room deficiencies,
» inadequate clearance impairing sprinkler system efficacy,
» and biological safety cabinets not certified.
– Some issues associated with moves of labs to new facilities
– 1,638 individuals provided with required safety training
13
FY12 Planned Actions - Compliance
• External compliance
– Work with FPE to address mechanical room safety issues
identified during routine surveillance
– Despite losses in staff (reductions in force, turnover) continue as
best as possible with comprehensive safety surveillance
program to prevent non-compliance. Incorporate lessons learned
from non-compliance 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
– Accommodate impacts of moving labs to new spaces and the
remodeling of vacated spaces
14
Key Financial Metrics
• Expenditures
– Program cost, cost drivers
• Revenues
– Sources of revenue, amounts
15
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
Total Campus Square Footage
and Lab/Clinic Subset Serviced
Lab/clinic
portion
of total
square
footage
Non-lab
portion
of total
square
footage
Amount
not
funded
Contracts
/ Training
WCI RAP
Rebate
Institutional
allocation
16
*FY11 EH&S assumed HCPC safety responsibilities.
Total Hazardous Waste Cost Obligation and Actual Disposal Expenditures
(inclusive of chemical, biological, and radioactive waste streams)
Total
Hazardous
Waste Cost
Obligation
Actual
Disposal
Expenditures
FY11 savings: $149,756
17
FY11 Revenues
• Service contracts
– UT Physicians
– UT Med Foundation
$ 200,000
$ 26,057
• Continuing education courses/outreach
– Miscellaneous training honoraria $
• Total
5,873
$ 231,930
18
FY11 Financial Challenges
• Cumulative erosive effect of program budget not paralleling
campus growth (measured by either square feet or research
dollars):
– Loss of 3 part-time fire safety positions
– Loss of local administrative support – subset of personnel
resource to central administrative pool – loss of local safety
committee support function
– Absence of travel resources for staff professional
development
– Constant employee turnover due to uncompetitive salaries –
loss of organizational knowledge
• Assumption of responsibility of HCPC safety with no budget
• Necessary codification of who bears the cost of employee health
services associated with employees who provide clinical services
external to UTHSC-H. Cost equates to a needed FTE
19
FY12 Planned Actions - Financial
•
Expenditures
– To avoid the prospect of program erosion, SHERM will focus specifically on:
• Ability to recruit for, and fill, all current safety position vacancies
• Direct supervision and budget control for HCPC safety program (discussions underway)
• Restoration of some degree of on-site administrative support (resolution in process)
• Restoration of some level of part time fire safety support (partially resolved)
•
• Phased addition of two Biological Safety Program Specialist positions to keep up with
institutional growth and protocol complexity involving infectious agents and animal models
(especially select agents), and assist with employee health aspects (fit testing)
Revenues
– Continue with service contract and community outreach activities that provide financial support
to operate institutional program (FY11 revenues equated to about 10% of total budget)
– Cultivate other fee-for-service programs such as the provision of safety services to new biotech
start up companies in UCT
20
Key Client Satisfaction Metrics
• External clients served
– Results of Biological Safety program client
satisfaction survey
• Internal department staff
– Summary of professional development activities
21
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 – SHERM Administrative Support Staff Clients
– FY07 – Employees and Supervisors Reporting Injuries
– FY08 – Clients of Environmental Protection Program Services
– FY09 – Survey of Level of “Informed Risk”
– FY10 – Clients of Biological Safety Program
22
Survey of Principal Investigators Utilizing EH&S Biological Safety Program Services
Email based survey distributed from 4/29/2010 to 6/2/2010 to 210 Principal Investigators identified as utilizing biological safety services in FY 2010.
Survey response rate: 47 out of 210 (22%)
Survey Question
Yes
44 (94%)
1. Do you feel the Biological Safety Program understands your needs and
requirements as a faculty member or researcher?
Responses
No
3 (6%)
No Opinion
0 (0%)
2. Do you feel you have adequate access to the Biological Safety Program via
phone and/or email?
47 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3. Do you feel the Biological Safety Program responds to your requests in an
acceptable time frame?
46 (98%)
1 (2%)
0 (0%)
4. Do you feel the Biological Safety Program has adequate professional knowledge
to address your needs related to biological safety? (n= 46 responses)
43 (93%)
2 (4%)
1 (2%)
5. Do you feel the Biological Safety Program provides helpful and courteous service?
46 (98%)
1 (2%)
0 (0%)
6. Are you able to obtain assistance if you are having issues submitting an Institutional 34 (72%)
Biosafety Committee protocol, renewal, or update?
1 (2%)
12 (26%)
7. In your opinion, do you feel that accessing the Institutional Biosafety Committee
protocol submission forms online is convenient?
31 (66%)
4 (9%)
12 (26%)
8. Does the online Institutional Biosafety Committee protocol submission process
provide adequate instructions for completion of the forms? (n=45 responses)
22 (49%)
7 (16%)
16 (36%)
9. Do you feel the online protocol submission system allows for easier initial
submissions, updates, and renewals of Institutional Biosafety Committee protocols
as compared to the previous paper-based process?
26 (55%)
5 (11%)
16 (34%)
10. If you have been involved with Biological Safety Programs
at other institutions, please rate how the service provided
at UTHealth compares?
Better
Same
21 (45%)
6 (13%)
Worse
1 (2%)
No Previous Experience
19 (40%)
23
Key Findings
• What did we learn?
– 94% report the Biosafety Program understands lab needs
– 98% report the program is responsive
– 93% report the program staff in knowledgeable
– 98% report the program provides helpful and courteous service
– 40% reported having no previous experience with other safety
programs…
– But of the 60% who had previous experience, 21 of 28 (75%)
reported that the services provided by the UTHSC-H Biosafety
Program were better than experienced elsewhere.
24
Internal Department Staff Satisfaction
•
Continued support of ongoing academic pursuits – leverage unique linkage
with UT SPH for both staff development and research projects that benefit
the institution
•
Weekly continuing education sessions on a variety of topics
•
Solicited 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
25
FY12 Planned Actions – Client Satisfaction
• External Clients
– Continue with “customer service” approach to operations
– Collect feedback on new UTHealth Alert emergency notification
system
– Collect data for meaningful benchmarking to compare safety
program staffing, resourcing, and outcomes
• Internal Clients (departmental staff)
– Continue with professional development seminars
– Continue with involvement in training courses and outreach
activities –focus on cross training
– Continue mentoring sessions on academic activities
– Conduct staff survey focused on job satisfaction
– Continue 360o evaluations on supervisors to garner feedback
from staff
26
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
27
Summary
•
Various metrics indicate that SHERM continues to 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
•
Budget reductions experienced at the end of FY11 impacted needed
staffing, especially in light of continued campus growth (square footage
and research expenditures). Important to protect against erosion of
program.
•
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
28
(lab and non-lab)