Transcript FY05 SHERM Annual Report Key workload, performance, and managerial aspects of the UTHSCH Safety, Health, Environment & Risk Management function.

FY05 SHERM Annual Report
Key workload, performance, and managerial aspects of the
UTHSCH Safety, Health, Environment & Risk Management function
Objectives/Contents
• Provide a metrics-based overview of
SHERM operations in FY05 by describing
aspects of:
– Activities/workload
– Outcomes
– Operations
– Client satisfaction
Number of Safety Committee
New Protocol Reviews, by Type
25
20
15
10
Total
Biological
5
Chemical
Radiation
0
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr
FY04
4th Qtr
1st Qtr
2nd Qrt 3rd Qrt
FY05
4th Qrt
1st Qrt
2nd Qrt
FY06
Number of EH&S Safety Surveys, by Type
(not inclusive of follow up surveys for deficiencies)
800
700
600
500
Total
400
300
200
Chemical
Radiation
100
Biological
0
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr
FY04
4th Qtr
1st Qtr 2nd Qrt 3rd Qrt
FY05
4th Qrt
1st Qrt 2nd Qrt
FY06
Rate of First Reports of Injury per 200,000 Person-hours of
Exposure, by Population Type
(Based on assumption of annual exposure hours per employee = 2,000; resident = 4,000; student = 800)*
14.0
12.0
10.0
Residents
8.0
Employees
6.0
Students
4.0
2.0
0.0
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
FY04
1st Qtr 2nd Qrt 3rd Qrt
FY05
4th Qrt
1st Qrt 2nd Qrt
FY06
*Rate calculated using Bureau of Labor Statistics formula = no. of injury reports x 200,000 / total person-hours of exposure, which is
derived based on the working exposure of 100 individuals. Values pro-rated for calendar quarters.
Number of Employee First Reports of Injury and
Compensable Injuries
100
90
80
70
First Reports
60
50
40
30
20
10
Compensable
0
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr
FY04
4th Qtr
1st Qtr 2nd Qrt 3rd Qrt
FY05
4th Qrt
1st Qrt 2nd Qrt
FY06
WCI Premium Adjustment for UTS Health Components
(discount premium rating as compared to a baseline of 1)
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
UT Health Center Tyler
UT Medical Branch Galveston
0.4
0.3
UT HSC San Antonio
UT Southwestern Dallas
0.2
UT HSC Houston
UT MD Anderson Cancer Center
0.1
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Fiscal year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Hazardous Waste Cost Obligation and Actual Disposal Expenditures
(inclusive of chemical, biological, and radioactive waste streams)
$100,000
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
Waste Cost
Obligation
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
Actual
Disposal
Expenditures
$10,000
$0
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qrt 3rd Qrt 4th Qrt 1st Qrt 2nd Qrt
FY04
FY05
FY06
Number of SHERM Permanent Employees (both EH&S and Risk
Management & Insurance) in Full Time Equivalents (FTE)
40
30
Total Staff
20
Increases due to transfer of Fire &
Life Safety and Risk Management
functions, not expansion of existing
EH&S staff
10
0
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
FY04
4th Qtr
1st Qtr
2nd Qrt
3rd Qrt
FY05
4th Qrt
1st Qrt
2nd Qrt
FY06
EH&S Resources and Campus Square Footage
$2,000,000
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
$1,400,000
4,500,000
Increase due to
added Fire & Life
Safety and Risk
Management &
Insurance
functions
Amount held until
substantial
completion of
IMM
4,000,000
Lab area
portion of
total square
footage
3,500,000
3,000,000
$1,200,000
2,500,000
$1,000,000
2,000,000
$800,000
1,500,000
$600,000
1,000,000
$400,000
$200,000
500,000
$0
0
FY04
FY05
FY06
Resource Allocation By Year
FY04
FY05
FY06
Campus Square Footage By Year
External Compliance
• FY04
– March 29, 2004 TX Dept of Health Bureau of Radiation Control
• no items of non-compliance
• FY05
– September 14, 2004 TX Dept of State Health Services Radiation
Control
• no items of non-compliance
– May 26-27, 2005 TX Dept of State Health Services Radiation Control
• no items of non-compliance
– June 24, 2005 CDC
• 6 minor lab-based items identified, all corrected immediately
– July 27-29, 2005 AAALAC
• No safety-related issues identified
– August 30, 2005 TX Health Service Radiation Control
• no items of non-compliance
Client Satisfaction
• Focused assessment of a designated aspect
performed annually:
– FY03 – Focus on Radiation Safety Program
– FY04 – Focus on client expectations of safety
programs and fulfillment of expectations
– FY05 – Focus on Chemical Safety Program
– FY06 – Focus on Administrative Support Staff
Chemical Safety Program Client Satisfaction Survey Results
(distributed to 42 investigators with active chemical protocols, response rate 36%)
9
10
8
9
8
7
6
Number of responses
Number of responses
7
5
4
3
6
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
Highly
Satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Not Satisfied
Strongly
Dissatisfied
Protocol Submission and Review Process
(5 questions)
Highly
Satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Not Satisfied
Strongly
Dissatisfied
Program Services Provided
(7 questions)
External Client Satisfaction
• Diana Browning, UT Physicians:
“I have only positive feed back, you have
given credibility to our safety program….”
“…taken a practical and pragmatic approach.”
“Your staff has always responded quickly and
appropriately when we have called.”
Metrics Caveats
• What isn’t effectively captured by 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
• Overall comfort/satisfaction with the department and
the work environment – achieving a “workplace of
choice”
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 are at the lowest rate in the history of the institution
– Despite growth in the research enterprise, hazardous waste costs
aggressively contained
– Client satisfaction is high
•
Biosafety is an area of significant growth in the near term future and will
necessitate added support
•
Likewise, Fire & Life Safety & Emergency Response will also be an area of
growth driven by new construction
•
A successful safety program is largely people powered – the most valued
services cannot be automated
•
Resource needs are driven by campus square footage (lab and non-lab)