Transcript First Reports of Injury by Population Type

FY13 SHERM Metrics-Based Performance
Summary
Indicators of Safety, Health, Environment & Risk Management (SHERM)
Performance in the Areas of
Losses, Compliance, Finances, and Client Satisfaction
Overview
• The FY 2013 SHERM annual report provides a
metrics-based review of program outcomes in four
key balanced scorecard areas:
Losses
Personnel
Property
Finances
Expenditures
Revenues
Compliance
With external agencies
With internal assessments
Client Satisfaction
External clients served
Internal department staff
Key Loss Metrics
• Personnel
– First reports of injury by employees, residents, students
– Injury and Illness rate
– Workers’ Compensation Insurance experience modifier
• Property
– Losses incurred and covered by UTS Comprehensive Property
Protection Program
– Losses incurred but covered by outside party
– Losses retained by UTHealth
FY13 Number of First Reports of Injury, by Population Type
(estimated total population 11,078; employees: 5,665; students: 4,489; resident/fellows: 924)
Oversight by SHERM
700
Number of First Reports
600
500
Total (n = 456)
400
300
Employees (n = 247)
200
Residents (n = 128)
100
Students (n = 81)
0
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
Fiscal Year
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
Total Number of Employee First Reports of Injury and Subset of Compensable
Claims Submitted to UT System, FY03 to FY12
Oversight by SHERM
400
350
300
250
Number of
reports without
medical claims
200
150
100
Number of
reports with
medical claims
50
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007 2008
Fiscal Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Number of Employee Reported Injuries by Location, FY13
(of 247 total, 233 mapped, 14 occurred in miscellaneous public locations)
10 LBJ
MHH
UTPB 11 29
MSB 29 1 JJL
HMC 1 MSE 6
HCPC 101
UCT 2 SON
SRB 1 11 0 SPH
BBS 1 20 1 CCC
SOD
0 CDC
0 REC
UTPD 2
2 Housing
OCB 3
Annual UTHealth Incidence Rate of Reported Employee Injuries and Illnesses
Compared to Hospital and University Rates and Three Major Companies With Generally Acknowledged
“Best in Class Safety” Programs, As Reported by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics
Workers’ Compensation Insurance Premium Experience Modifier for
UT System Health Institutions Fiscal Years 03 to 13
(premium rating based on a three year rolling average as compared to a baseline of 1.00)
Oversight by SHERM
UTSWMCD (0.15)
UTMB (0.12)
UTHSCSA (0.09)
UTHSCT (0.09)
UTMDACC (0.04)
Fiscal Year

FY13 Property Losses
Retained Losses
Type
Location
Date
Auto
UCT
9/2012
$ 3,300
Water
RAHC
9/2012
$21,000
Water
UCT
11/2012
$22,000
Water
MSB
12/2012
$ 1,700
Water
SOD
1/2013
$ 2,000
Auto
TMC
4/2013
$ 2,200
Water
MSB
4/2013
$ 6,000
Auto
OCB
4/2013
$ 2,100
Water
UCT
5/2013
$10,000
Auto
TMC
5/2013
$ 5,100
Water
BBS
7/2013
$ 3,500
Fire
NSH
8/2013
$30,000
Misc.
-----
-----
$ 4,100
TOTAL
Cost
$113,300

Losses incurred and covered by third party
–
Water --12/2012 $1,700
–
Auto—--5/2013 $1,100
–
Water---11/2012 $22,000 (verbal agreement)

Losses incurred and covered by UTS insurance

Auto—9/2012 $2,300

Auto—11/2012 $500

Auto—5/2013 $4,100

Losses still in process of recovery from 3rd party

Water---7/2012 $175,000
Retained Loss Cost Summary by Peril
(Total FY13 retained losses, $113,300)
Auto
Fire
UTHealth Retained Property Loss Summary by Peril and Value, FY06 to FY13
$500,000
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
Other
Hurricane
Theft
$50,000
Water
$0
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09
FY 10
FY 11
FY 12
FY 13
Rapid Estimate of Water Damage Clean Up Cost Based on Area
Affected and Type of Water 1
If more than
one room or
one floor is
affected 2
Dirty
Water
One area
affected 3
If more than
one room or
one floor is
affected 2
Clean
Water
One area
affected 3
Square Feet Affected
1
Estimate includes the cost of extracting water, removing affected materials if applicable, drilling holes in sheetrock, equipment rental, service charges, content manipulation, debris removal and moisture readings.
Clean water is defined as potable water; dirty water typically involves sewage.
2Mitigating
multiple rooms or multiple floors, inclusive of drying is more difficult if the affected area is separated by hard walls or floors, such as is the case of multiple offices or multiple floors.
3Estimated
cost to clean up a single area affected that is not separate by hard walls.
FY14 Planned Actions - Losses
• Personnel
– Closely monitor apparent increase in reported employee injury events,
determine root cause and implement preventive measures.
– Develop means of estimating rate of employee injuries by building
– Improve educational awareness activities through various mechanisms
– webpage, postings, outreach presentations
• Property
– Continue to educate faculty and staff about common perils causing
losses (water, power interruption, and theft), simple interventions.
– Develop additional predictive methods for prompt recovery after losses
occur, specifically estimated length of time to recovery
– Given their prevalence, drill down into data on water losses to identify
root causes
– Incorporate into lease arrangements requirement for leaseholder
enrollment in new cost-effective UTS Tenant User Liability Insurance
Program (TULIP)
Key Compliance Metrics
• With external agencies
– Regulatory inspections; other compliance related
inspections by outside entities
• With internal assessments
– Results of EH&S routine safety surveillance activities
External Agencies Inspections
Date
Agency
Findings
Status
September 14, 2012
Texas Department of State
Health Services, Radiation
Control
No items of non-compliance
identified from inspection
(Hermann Hospital Building,
UTHSC-H spaces, X-ray
Registration R10908)
NA
September 19, 2012
Texas Department of State
Health Services, Radiation
Control
No items of non-compliance
identified from inspection
(Van housed at OCB with
dental X-ray, X-ray
Registration R10908)
NA
September 24, 2012
Texas Department of State
Health Services, Radiation
Control
No items of non-compliance
identified from inspection
(South Campus / BBSB &
SCRB 3, Radioactive
Material License L02774)
NA
External Agencies Inspections cont.
Date
Agency
Findings
Status
October 16, 2012
Texas Department of State
Health Services, Radiation
Control
No items of non-compliance
identified from inspection
(Brownsville Site,
Radioactive Material
License L02774)
NA
June 11, 2013
Beecher Carlson – Property
Insurance
No Recommendations
NA
Internal Compliance Assessments
•
4,508 workplace inspections documented
– Progression of routine surveillance program emphasis: labs, building fire
systems, now mechanical and non-lab spaces
– 5,256 deficiencies identified (80% in non-lab spaces)
– 814 deficiencies corrected to date
– Remaining 4,442 deficiencies (predominantly minor issues) subject to
follow up correction:
» Example: mechanical room deficiencies - unlabeled circuit
breakers, missing outlet covers, etc.
– Working with Facilities to correct, tracking progress and reporting
progress to appropriate safety committees
– 2,719 individuals provided with required safety training
– 73% of PIs submitted required chemical inventories (renewed initiative in FY13)
FY14 Planned Actions - Compliance
• External compliance
– Update safety training to include updated hazard communication
regulations for the new globally harmonized system for the
classification and labeling of chemicals (GHS)
• Internal compliance
– Continue routine surveillance program. Incorporate lessons learned
from deficiency data into safety training to prevent recurrence
– Continue to work with Facilities, Planning and Engineering to
systematically address deficiencies and support current projects to
address fire safety violations.
• Provide regular updates to appropriate safety committees
– Continue emphasis on creation of chemical inventories for labs
Key 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)
Total Assignable Square Footage
and Research Subset
Modeled SHERM Resource Needs and Institutional Allocations
4,500,000
$3,000,000
4,000,000
Research
area (sf)
Amount
Not
Funded
$2,500,000
3,500,000
Contracts
& Training
3,000,000
$2,000,000
WCI RAP
Rebate
2,500,000
$1,500,000
2,000,000
Nonresearch
area (sf)
1,500,000
$1,000,000
Institutional
Allocation
1,000,000
$500,000
500,000
0
$0
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY09
*FY11 EHS assumed HCPC safety responsibilities.
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
Total Hazardous Waste Cost Obligation and Actual Disposal Expenditures
(inclusive of chemical, biological, and radioactive waste streams)
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
Total
Hazardous
Waste Cost
Obligation
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
Actual
Disposal
Expenditures
$0
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY 14
FY13 savings: $140,005
FY13 Revenues
• Service contracts
– UT Physicians
– UT Med Foundation
• Continuing education courses/outreach
– Miscellaneous training honoraria
• Total
$235,212
$27,645
$15,497
$278,354
FY13 Financial Challenges
• Need to maintain awareness of cumulative erosive effect of
program budget not paralleling campus growth (measured
by either square feet or institutional expenditures)
• Employee Health Clinical Services Agreement continues to
be funded on Risk Management Resource Allocation
Program, which is likely to disappear, so permanent line
item funding is needed for this program.
FY14 Planned Actions - Financial
• Expenditures
– Continue aggressive hazardous waste minimization
program to contain hazardous waste disposal costs
– Renewal of UT System hazardous waste contracts
anticipated to have price increase, in particular, for
biohazardous/medical waste.
– Continue to lobby for dedicated funding for Employee
Health Clinical Services Agreement
• Revenues
– Continue with service contracts and community
outreach activities that provide financial support to
supplement institutional funding (FY13 revenues
equated to about 12% of total budget)
Key Client Satisfaction Metrics
• External clients served
– Results of HCPC Safety program client satisfaction survey
• Internal department staff
– Summary of ongoing professional development activities
Client Feedback
• Focused assessment of a designated program aspect performed annually:
– FY03 – Clients of Radiation Safety Program
– FY04 – Overall Client Expectations and Fulfillment of Expectations
– FY05 – Clients of Chemical Safety Program Services
– FY06 – Clients of SHERM Administrative Support Staff Services
– FY07 – Feedback from Employees and Supervisors Reporting Injuries
– FY08 – Clients of Environmental Protection Program Services
– FY09 – DMO/ASL Awareness Survey of Level of “Informed Risk”
– FY10 – Clients of Biological Safety Program Services
– FY11 – Feedback on new UTHealth Alert emergency notification system
– FY13 – Clients of HCPC Safety Program Services
Survey of HCPC Employees Regarding Safety Program at HCPC
Web based survey distributed from July to August 2013 to all HCPC Employees. Survey response rate: 71 out of 436 (16%)
Survey Question
Responses
Yes
52 (73%)
No
8 (11%)
No Opinion
11 (16%)
•
Do you feel the EHS safety program at HCPC understands your needs
and requirements as an employee / healthcare provider at HCPC?
•
Do you feel you have adequate access to the EHS safety program (safety
coordinator) via phone, email and/or in person?
62 (87%)
2 (3%)
7 (10%)
•
Do you feel the EHS safety program at HCPC has adequate knowledge to address
your needs related to safety at HCPC?
54 (76%)
6 (8%)
11 (16%)
•
Do you feel the EHS safety program at HCPC responds to your requests in an
acceptable time frame?
44 (62%)
5 (7%)
22 (31%)
•
Do you feel the EHS safety program at HCPC is concerned about staff and patients
well-being? n=69
55 (80%)
5 (7%)
9 (13%)
•
Do you feel that the EHS safety program at HCPC establishes collaborative
relationships with other departments at HCPC?
45 (63%)
6 (9%)
20 (28%)
•
Do you feel the EHS safety program at HCPC communicates safety information
effectively?
60 (85%)
3 (4%)
8 (11%)
•
Do you feel the EHS safety program at HCPC has reduced interruptions due to
or the length of fire drills at HCPC while maintaining their effectiveness?
48 (68%)
5 (7%)
18 (25%)
•
If you have worked with other psychiatric hospitals, please rate
how the current safety program at HCPC compares?
Better
17 (25%)
Same
23 (33%)
Worse
6 (9%)
No Previous Experience
23 (33%)
Key Findings
• What did we learn?
– Majority of respondents feel the HCPC Safety program:
•
•
•
•
understands needs and requirements
have adequate access to the program
is genuinely concerned about the safety of staff and patients, and
communicates safety information effectively
– A significant proportion of respondents did not have an opinion regarding
• respond time being acceptable
• establishment of collaborative relationships and
• reduction of interruptions
•
Next steps
–
–
–
Develop strategy to improve staff understanding of safety program roles and responsibilities
Explore other means of educational outreach
Possible re-survey in one to two years
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
• Participation in teaching of continuing education course
offerings
• Membership, participation in professional organizations
FY14 Planned Actions – Client Satisfaction
• External Clients
– Continue with “customer service” approach to operations
– Participate in upcoming student satisfaction survey by contributing
assessment question on safety
– Collect data for meaningful benchmarking to compare safety program
staffing, resourcing, and outcomes
• Internal Clients (departmental staff)
– Continue with routine professional development seminars
• Special focus on emerging issues: safety culture, insider threats, GHS
– Continue with involvement in training courses and outreach activities
– focus on cross training
– Continue mentoring sessions on academic activities
– 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 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 continues to be measurably high
•
Impacts of budget reductions experienced at the end of FY11 persists, 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 by clients cannot be automated!
•
Resource needs continue to be driven primarily by campus square footage (lab
and non-lab)