fy05 sherm annual report key workload, performance, and managerial aspects of the uthsch safety,...
TRANSCRIPT
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qrt 3rd Qrt 4th Qrt 1st Qrt 2nd Qrt
FY04 FY05
Total
RadiationChemical
Biological
FY06
Number of EH&S Safety Surveys, by Type(not inclusive of follow up surveys for deficiencies)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qrt 3rd Qrt 4th Qrt 1st Qrt 2nd Qrt
FY04 FY05
Total
RadiationChemical
Biological
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)*
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qrt 3rd Qrt 4th Qrt 1st Qrt 2nd Qrt
FY04 FY05
Employees
Residents
Students
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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qrt 3rd Qrt 4th Qrt 1st Qrt 2nd Qrt
FY04 FY05
Compensable
First Reports
FY06
WCI Premium Adjustment for UTS Health Components(discount premium rating as compared to a baseline of 1)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Fiscal year
UT Health Center TylerUT Medical Branch Galveston
UT HSC San AntonioUT Southwestern Dallas
UT HSC HoustonUT MD Anderson Cancer Center
Hazardous Waste Cost Obligation and Actual Disposal Expenditures (inclusive of chemical, biological, and radioactive waste streams)
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
$100,000
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qrt 3rd Qrt 4th Qrt 1st Qrt 2nd Qrt
FY04 FY05
Waste Cost Obligation
Actual Disposal Expenditures
FY06
Number of SHERM Permanent Employees (both EH&S and Risk Management & Insurance) in Full Time Equivalents (FTE)
0
10
20
30
40
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qrt 3rd Qrt 4th Qrt 1st Qrt 2nd Qrt
FY04 FY05
Total Staff
FY06
Increases due to transfer of Fire & Life Safety and Risk Management functions, not expansion of existing EH&S staff
EH&S Resources and Campus Square Footage
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
$2,000,000
FY04 FY05 FY06
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
FY04 FY05 FY06
Increase due to added Fire & Life Safety and Risk Management & Insurance functions
Amount held until substantial completion of IMM
Lab area portion of total square footage
Resource Allocation By Year 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%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
HighlySatisf ied
Satisf ied Neutral Not Satisf ied StronglyDissatisf ied
Nu
mb
er o
f re
spo
nse
s
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
HighlySatisf ied
Satisf ied Neutral Not Satisf ied StronglyDissatisf ied
Nu
mb
er o
f re
spo
nse
s
Protocol Submission and Review Process(5 questions)
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)