Transcript FY07 SHERM Metrics Summary Loss, Compliance, Financial, and Client Satisfaction indicators of the UTHSC-H Safety, Health, Environment & Risk Management (SHERM) program’s performance.

FY07 SHERM Metrics Summary
Loss, Compliance, Financial, and Client Satisfaction indicators
of the UTHSC-H
Safety, Health, Environment & Risk Management (SHERM) program’s performance
Objectives
• Provide a metrics-based overview of SHERM
operations in FY07 by describing aspects of
four key areas:
Losses
Personnel
Property
Compliance
With external agencies
With internal assessments
Financial
Expenditures
Revenues
Client Satisfaction
External clients served
Internal department staff
Losses
• 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
Number of UTHSC-H First Reports of Injury, by Population Type
(total population 8,832; employee population 4,425; student population 3,587; resident population 840)
800
Number of First Reports
700
600
500
Total (n = 454)
400
300
Employees (n = 248)
200
Residents (n = 118)
Students (n = 88)
100
0
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
Fiscal Year
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
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)
Reported Injury Rate/200,000 Person-hours
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Residents (7.0)
Students (6.1)
Employees (5.6)
10
0
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
Fiscal Year
*Rate calculated using Bureau of Labor Statistics formula = no. of injury reports x 200,000 / total person-hours of exposure.
Workers’ Compensation Insurance Premium Adjustment for
UTS Health Components Fiscal Years 2003 to 2008
(discount premium rating as compared to a baseline of 1, three year rolling average adjusts rates for subsequent year)
1.00
Oversight by
SHERM initiated
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
UT Health Center Tyler (0.17)
UT Medical Branch Galveston (0.16)
0.20
UT HSC San Antonio (0.13)
UT Southwestern Dallas (0.13)
UT HSC Houston (0.09)
UT MD Anderson Cancer Center (0.07)
0.10
0.00
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY07 Property Losses
•
Losses incurred but covered by UTS
Comprehensive Property Protection
Program
MSB sprinkler loss total of $460,000
Currently pursuing subrogation to at fault
contractor, $250,000 retained by deductible
•
Retained Property Loss by Peril
( Total $645,895)*
Water Related
88%
Losses incurred but covered by 3rd party
RRF Fire $10-$14 Million
Potential retention of $1-$3 Million
Burglary
<1%
Environmental
<1%
Criminal Mischief
1%
Fire
1%
•
Retained losses
Theft
10%
Water leak in MSI $210,000
Theft total $65,000 (predominantly laptops)
Electrical power disruption no implicated in any
losses
Other losses $65,000
*Not inclusive of any recorded Capitol Assets inventory
irregularities. For additional information contact UTHSC-H
Capitol Assets Management
FY08 Actions - Losses
• Personnel
– Continue with aggressive EH&S safety surveillance of
workplaces and case management activities for injured
employees
– Targeted focus on newly acquired oversight of “Employee Health
Clinical Services Agreement”
• Property
– Educate faculty and staff about perils causing losses (water,
theft) and possible simple interventions
– Prioritize focused loss controls efforts based on objective
financial assessments (property value, revenues, etc.)
– Continue development of property fire protection program
Compliance
• With external agencies
– Regulatory inspections, peer reviews
• With internal assessments
– Results of EH&S routine safety surveillance activities
External Agencies
Date
Agency
Findings
Status
Dec 12, 2006
Texas Department of
State Health Services
Radiation Control
1 violation, kVp test
not documented on
one unit
Issue corrected
Jan 31, 2007
Texas Department of
State Health Services
Radiation Control
1 violation, required Issue corrected
contamination
survey
documentation
missing
Mar 5-9, 2007
FM Global Insurance
Roof composition,
electrical testing,
sprinkler additions
Working with FPE
to address
External Agencies
Date
Agency
Findings
Status
Mar 28, 2007
Texas Department of
State Health Services
Radiation Control
No items noted
Jun 26-28, 2007
Texas Department of
State Health Services
Radiation Control
Broad license – no
findings
Increased controls
– 2 findings
Increased controls
program revised,
reviewed by DSHS
July 6, 2007
State Fire Marshal
Follow up to 2006
HCPC post-arson
inspection
New fire alarm
panel being
installed
Internal Assessments
• 2,984 workplace inspections documented
– 520 deficiencies identified
– 211 deficiencies corrected to date
– 309 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)
– 2,992 individuals provided with required safety training
– Continued focus on hallway clearance
– Working with Employee Health Services on improving medical
surveillance issues
FY08 Actions - Compliance
• External compliance
– Continue to work with FPE to systematically address building
issues identified by property insurance carriers
– EH&S continue aggressive routine surveillance program to
provide services to community and correct possible issues to
prevent non-compliance.
– Focus on security aspects related to research
• Internal compliance
– Continue routine surveillance program
– Focus attention on Employee Health medical surveillance
– Explore means of achieving security requirements while
minimizing impact of research community
Financial
• Expenditures
– Program cost, cost drivers
• Revenues
– Sources of revenue, amounts
Campus Square Footage, SHERM Resource Needs, and Resources
6,000,000
Total
projected
SHERM
operating
costs
$3,000,000
Total Campus Square Footage
and Lab/Clinic Subset
Modeled SHERM Resource Needs
and Institutional Allocations
$2,500,000
Amount
not
funded
$2,000,000
5,000,000
Lab area
portion
of total
square
footage
$1,500,000
Institutional
allocation
$1,000,000
4,000,000
$500,000
Non-lab
portion
of total
square
footage
3,000,000
$0
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
2,000,000
SHERM Income
(Worker’s compensation Insurance rebates,
contracts services, etc.)
$1,500,000
IMM
funding
$1,000,000
1,000,000
$500,000
0
$0
FY04
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
UTP
contract
revenues
SHERM
portion of
WCI RAP
rebate
Total Hazardous Waste Cost Obligation and Actual Disposal Expenditures
(inclusive of chemical, biological, and radioactive waste streams)
$250,000
Hazardous
Waste Cost
Obligation
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
Actual Disposal
Expenditures
$0
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY06 savings: $166,124
FY07 Revenues
• Continuing education courses/outreach
– UT SPH SWCOEH
$ 5,000
– Miscellaneous training honoraria $ 11,710
• Service contracts
– UTP
– UT Med Foundation
– National University of Singapore
– University of California System
– Cyclotope
– UT Arlington
Total
$130,000
$ 25,000
$ 5,000
$ 1,000
$
100
$ 18,000
$195,810
FY08 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
– Focus on property loss prevention efforts to reduce the cost of
institutional losses
– Work with FPE on proposal for creation of “retained loss fund” 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
(FY07 revenues equated to about 10% of state funds)
– Explore other granting opportunities to provide support for
emergency preparedness and business continuity efforts
(example: CDC/HRSA local health department training)
Client Satisfaction
• 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 – Radiation Safety Program
– FY04 – Client expectations and fulfillment of expectations
– FY05 – Chemical Safety Program
– FY06 – Administrative Support Staff
– FY07 – Employees and Supervisors Reporting Injuries
Survey of Employees and Supervisors Filing UTHSC-H First Reports of Injury in 2007
(Email based Zoomerang survey for period February 1, 2007 to August 31, 2007)
Employee Population
(not reporting any
injuries, n = 4,181)
Injured Employees Requiring Care and Loss Time (n = 39):
Not Included in survey, as each injured worker that accrues
lost time is assigned a case manager to personally assist in
the rehabilitation process.
Employees requiring care, but no loss time (n = 28)
Employees not requiring care, no loss time (n = 179)
No Care or Lost
Time
(18% response rate)
Care But No Lost
Time
(57% response rate)
Supervisors
(13% response
rate)
Was this the first time you have reported an injury or exposure at UTHSC-H?
67%(Y) 33%(N)
62%(Y) 38%(N)
37%(Y) 63%(N)
Prior to the reported injury event, were you aware of you obligation to report any injury or exposure?
88%(Y) 12%(N)
88%(Y) 12%(N)
96%(Y) 4%(N)
Did you receive a copy of the completed first report of injury form?
70%(Y) 30%(N)
62%(Y) 38%(N)
96%(Y) 4%(N)
To your knowledge has the source of your injury or exposure been addressed?
81%(Y) 19%(N)
88%(Y) 12%(N)
88%(Y) 12%(N)
Did you encounter any issues with the reporting process that you didn’t know or anticipate?
12%(Y) 88%(N)
38%(Y) 62%(N)
27%(Y) 73%(N)
Our records indicate that you did not receive any health care in response to your injury or exposure. Who made the determination that
health care was not needed?
72% Yourself
9% Supervisor
19% Other
Have you experienced any residual affects from your injury or exposure?
9%(Y) 91%(N)
Where did you access health care?
Please indicate your impression of the level of service provided by the health care provider who addressed your injury or exposure?
12%(Y) 88%(N)
53% Employee Health
20% Student Health
27% Other
38% Very Good
44% Good
6% Average
0% Poor
12% Very Poor
Were you able to easily access the necessary Supervisor's First Report of Injury form?
92%(Y) 8%(N)
If any assistance was needed in order to complete and submit the Supervisor's First Report of Injury form, was this assistance readily
available?
46% (Y)
8% (N)
46% (none needed)
Were you provided with the information needed for you to effectively manage the affected employee?
100%(Y) 0%(N)
Key Findings
• Most employees and supervisors (88 to 96%) indicated their
knowledge of the importance of reporting injuries and exposures
• It is largely the affected employees (72%) making the determination
to seek or not seek health care
• Most employees (88 to 91%) reported not experiencing residual
effects from their reported event
• Affected employees noted that the cause of their injury was
corrected (81 – 88%)
• All supervisors reported that they were provided with the information
needed to effectively manage the affected employee (100%)
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
• Membership, participation in professional organizations
FY08 Actions – Client Satisfaction
• External clients
– Continue with “customer service” approach to operations
– Conduct satisfaction survey in FY08 of environmental protection
program clients, with particular focus on the hazardous waste
generation, collection and disposal process
• 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 are at the lowest rate in the history of the institution
– Despite continued growth in the research enterprise, hazardous waste
costs aggressively contained
– Client satisfaction, even for employees reporting injuries, 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 involvement in these areas also likely to be high. 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 services most
valued cannot be automated!
•
Resource needs continue to be driven primarily by campus square footage
(lab and non-lab)