Transcript First Reports of Injury by Population Type

FY08 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
FY08 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
FY08 Number of UTHSC-H First Reports of Injury, by Population Type
(total population 8,852; employee population 4,425; student population 3,587; resident population 840)
800
Number of First Reports
700
600
Total (n = 538)
500
400
300
Employees (n = 234)
200
Residents (n = 181)
Students (n = 123)
100
0
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
Fiscal Year
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY08 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)
Reported Injury Rate/200,000 Person-hours
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Residents (10.7)
Students (8.6)
Employees (5.3)
10
0
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
Fiscal Year
*Rate calculated using Bureau of Labor Statistics formula = no. of injury reports x 200,000 / total person-hours of exposure.
FY08 Reported Injuries/Exposures by Population Class and Type
Allergic
Reaction
Employees (n=231)
Chemical
Exposure
Burn
Foreign Body
in Eye
Animal or
Insect Bite
Medical Residents (n=181)
BBP Exposure
Cuts, Other
than needles
BBP Exposure
Vehicle
Accident
Needlestick
Cuts, other
than needles
Chemical
Exposure
Assault
Sprains and
Strains
Contusion
Slips, Trips,
Falls
Slips, Trips,
Falls
Needlestick
Students (n=123)
Needlestick
BBP Exposure
In FY08, slight increases in student and medical
resident sharps injuries were detected based on
injury surveillance data tracking.
The increases stem largely from injury events
that involve cutting tools and sutures. Specific
interventions for these types of injuries will be a
major focus of FY09 efforts
Contusion
Slips, Trips,
Falls
Vehicle
Accident
Cuts, other than
needles
Allergic
Reaction
Foreign body in
eye
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
FY08 Property Losses
- Losses Incurred but covered by UTS
Comprehensive Property Protection Program
Retained Property Loss Summary By Peril
(Total FY08 losses by cause and amount in dollars, Total
Loss~$231,970)*
Hurricane Dolly estimated loss to UTHSC-H Brow nsville, RAHC
$125,000
Theft**
Fleet
- Losses incurred by but covered by third party
Metro Bus damaged the Ross Sterling Breezew ay at MSB,
Water Related
Criminal Mischief**
$25,000
- Retained Losses
Did not experience any reported losses due electrical pow er
disruption
Hurricane Dolly
*Not inclusive of any recorded Capitol Assets inventory irregularities.
For additional information contact UTHSC-H Capitol Assets Management
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.)
– Ensure full recognition of extensive campus fire sprinkling efforts
in property premium allocation modeling scoring
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
Sep 20, 2007
FM Global Insurance
4 recommendations
regarding facility
equipment
maintenance such as
transformers, valve
testing
Working with FPE
regarding
recommendations to fit
into routine
maintenance activities
Oct 30 – Nov 1,
2007
Texas State Fire Marshal’s
Office
68 items of noncompliance noted
from across the
campus as part of a
comprehensive
building-by-building
inspection
64 items corrected to
date
4 require exploration of
other means to address,
but are being managed
by various means
External Agencies
Date
Agency
Findings
Status
Nov 13, 2007
Texas Department of
State Health Services
Radiation Control
No items of non compliance noted for
Brownsville sub site
No other action
necessary
Dec 6, 2007
Texas Department of
State Health Services
Radiation Control
No items of non compliance noted for
x-ray registration
No other action
necessary
March 12, 2008
Texas Department of
State Health Services
Radiation Control
1 item of noncompliance for
inadvertently providing
calibration services to
Cyclotope not
authorized by license
Service discontinued
and agency notified
Aug 27, 2008
CDC Select Agent
Division
9 items of non compliance noted
Corrected and agency
notified
Other Compliance-Related Activities
•
Hosted voluntary National Nuclear Security Administration security review of
radioactive sources subjected to increased controls requirements
•
Successfully refuted assertions of non-compliance associated with
radioactive materials increased controls requirements
•
Completed and filed with Department of Homeland Security CFATS
chemical inventory
•
Completed and submitted to UTS/State Fire Marshall Office report
regarding comprehensive campus fire safety program
•
Participated in compliance training activities with UTS, NIH OBA and NNSA
•
Made significant progress in updating institutional HOOP policy documents,
particularly the TB surveillance policy which was the most outdated
Internal Compliance Assessments
• 3,627 workplace inspections documented
– 887 deficiencies identified
– 305 deficiencies corrected to date
– 582 best practice 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)
– 3,183 individuals provided with required safety training
– Some internal compliance was affected by moves from MSB into
Impacts of moving laboratories into SRB & MSE, but worked with faculty
to correct
– Focusing on the Employee Health Clinical Services program to improve
medical surveillance issues
FY09 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.
– Continue focus on security aspects related to research (select
agent laboratories and irradiators)
• Internal compliance
– Continue routine surveillance program
– Focus attention on Employee Health medical surveillance to
improve compliance with aspect such as vaccines 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
IMM
funding
5,000,000.00
Lab area
portion
of total
square
footage
4,000,000.00
$1,500,000
Institutional
allocation
$1,000,000
$500,000
Non-lab
portion
of total
square
footage
3,000,000.00
$0
FY05
FY07
FY08
FY09
$1,000,000
$900,000
$800,000
2,000,000.00
FY06
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
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
$0
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
* 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)
$250,000
$200,000
Hazardous
Waste Cost
Obligation
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
Actual Disposal
Expenditures
$0
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY08 savings: $133,787
FY08 Revenues
• Service contracts
– UT Physicians
– UT Med Foundation
$ 150,000
$ 24,094
• Continuing education courses/outreach
– UT SPH SWCOEH
$ 9,000
– University of California System
$ 1,000
– University of Houston
$ 17,400
– Texas Medical Center
$
2,500
– Miscellaneous training honoraria $ 13,950
• Total
$ 217,944
FY09 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
– Work with FPE to implement newly established “retained loss
pool” to aid in the prompt recovery from uninsured losses
• Revenues
– Continue with service contract and community outreach activities
that provide financial support to operate institutional program
(FY08 revenues equated to about 10% of total budget)
– Explore other granting opportunities to provide support for
emergency preparedness and business continuity efforts
Client Satisfaction Metrics
• External clients served
– Results of targeted client satisfaction survey
• Internal department staff
– Summary of professional development activities
Client Satisfaction
• 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
Survey of Principal Investigators Utilizing Environmental Protection Program Services in 2007
Email based Zoomerang survey distributed from 11/5/07 to 11/30/07 to 88 Principal Investigators identified as requesting hazardous waste disposal services in 2007.
Survey response: 30 out of 88, for a 34% response rate
Responses
Survey Question
Yes
No
No Opinion
1.
In your opinion, have you been provided with the information necessary (either through a training class, in person, or on the EHS webpage)
for you to safely manage and dispose of the hazardous waste materials generated in your work area?
30 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2.
Does the provision of hazardous waste management supplies, such as containers, bags, and labels by EHS to your laboratory ease the
process of complying with waste disposal procedures?
30 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3.
Are the necessary labels to identify the contents of the chemical, biological, or radioactive wastes easy to complete?
26 (90%)
0 (0%)
3 (10%)
4.
Are you able to easily request hazardous waste pickups utilizing the current voice mail system?
25 (83%)
1 (3%)
4 (13%)
5.
Would an online hazardous waste pickup request be a more desirable means of submitting request for waste collection?
17 (57%)
7 (23%)
6 (20%)
6.
After placing a hazardous waste pickup request, have your chemical, biological, or liquid radioactive wastes been collected within the stated
three day time period?
23 (77%)
2 (7%)
5 (17%)
Services at UTHSC-H were:
7.
If you have been involved with the disposal of hazardous wastes at other institutions, please rate
how the service provided at UTHSC-H compares?
Worse
Same
Better
No Previous Experience
0 (0%)
2 (7%)
13 (45%)
14 (48%)
Written Comments:
(1) Thanks for all your efforts.
(2) You guys are doing a great job. Keep it up.
(3) I greatly appreciated the hazardous waste services provided by EHS.
(4) Great job!
(5) EHS is an outstanding group of people and the operation is extremely user friendly.
(6) Good job
(7) I do not have a heavy load of wastes, so don’t interact often with this process, but every interaction and enquiry has been handled very well, rapidly and professionally. Excellent program.
Key Findings
•
100% of respondents reported they were provided with the information
needed to safely manage and dispose of hazardous materials
generated in the workplace
•
100% of respondents reported the provision of supplies to the
laboratory at no additional cost helped improve compliance with
hazardous waste disposal procedures
• Current labels and phone system service request mechanism were
reported to be easy to use by 83 – 90% of the respondents
•
57% of respondents indicated an online mechanism for requesting
service would be beneficial
•
45% of respondents with previous experience ranked the UTHSC-H
hazardous waste disposal programs better than other institutions
Internal Department Staff Satisfaction
• Continued support of ongoing academic pursuits
• Weekly continuing education sessions on a variety of topics
• 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
storms in FY08
– Hurricane Dolly, which inflected damage to the UT SPH
Regional Campus in Brownsville
– Tropical Storm Edouard which eventually turned away from
Houston
– Hurricane Ike, which inflicted significant regional damage
• Feedback from major program stakeholders regarding
the information and services provided during these
events was very positive
FY09 Actions – Client Satisfaction
• External clients
– Continue with “customer service” approach to operations
– Explore creation of on-line hazardous waste collection request
form as identified in client satisfaction survey
– Conduct survey in FY09 to determine the level of “informed risk”
across the campus community
• 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 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)