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 Compliance Personnel With external agencies Property With internal assessments

Financial Client Satisfaction Expenditures External clients served Revenues 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)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Fiscal Year

Nu

mb

er

of F

irst

Re

po

rts

Total (n = 454)

Employees (n = 248)

Residents (n = 118)Students (n = 88)

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)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Fiscal Year

Re

po

rte

d In

jury

Ra

te/2

00

,00

0 P

ers

on

-ho

urs

Employees (5.6)

Residents (7.0)Students (6.1)

*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)

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

UT Health Center Tyler (0.17)UT Medical Branch Galveston (0.16)

UT HSC San Antonio (0.13)

UT Southwestern Dallas (0.13)UT HSC Houston (0.09)UT MD Anderson Cancer Center (0.07)

Oversight by

SHERM initiated

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

• Losses incurred but covered by 3rd party

RRF Fire $10-$14 Million

Potential retention of $1-$3 Million

• Retained losses

Water leak in MSI $210,000

Theft total $65,000 (predominantly laptops)

Electrical power disruption no implicated in any losses

Other losses $65,000

Fire1%

Burglary<1%

Environmental <1%

Water Related88%

Theft 10%

Criminal Mischief1%

*Not inclusive of any recorded Capitol Assets inventory irregularities. For additional information contact UTHSC-H Capitol Assets Management

Retained Property Loss by Peril( Total $645,895)*

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 contamination survey documentation missing

Issue corrected

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

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

Campus Square Footage, SHERM Resource Needs, and Resources

Total Campus Square Footage and Lab/Clinic Subset

Modeled SHERM Resource Needs and Institutional Allocations

SHERM Income (Worker’s compensation Insurance rebates,

contracts services, etc.)

Lab area portion of total square footage

Non-lab portion of total square footage

Institutional allocation

Total projected SHERM operating costs

Amount not funded

SHERM portion of WCI RAP rebate

UTP contract revenues

IMM funding

Total Hazardous Waste Cost Obligation and Actual Disposal Expenditures (inclusive of chemical, biological, and radioactive waste streams)

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

Hazardous Waste Cost Obligation

Actual Disposal Expenditures

FY06 savings: $166,124

FY07 Revenues

• Continuing education courses/outreach– UT SPH SWCOEH $ 5,000– Miscellaneous training honoraria $ 11,710

• Service contracts– UTP $130,000– UT Med Foundation $ 25,000– National University of Singapore $ 5,000– University of California System $ 1,000– Cyclotope $ 100– UT Arlington $ 18,000

Total $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

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) 12%(Y) 88%(N)

Where did you access health care? 53% Employee Health 20% Student Health 27% Other

Please indicate your impression of the level of service provided by the health care provider who addressed your injury or exposure?

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)

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)

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)

Employee Population (not reporting any injuries, n = 4,181)

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)