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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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) Total (n = 454) Employees (n = 248) Residents (n = 118) Students (n = 88)

5. 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) 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.

6. 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) 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

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

8. 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

9. Compliance With external agencies –Regulatory inspections, peer reviews With internal assessments –Results of EH&S routine safety surveillance activities

10. External Agencies DateAgencyFindingsStatus Dec 12, 2006Texas Department of State Health Services Radiation Control 1 violation, kVp test not documented on one unit Issue corrected Jan 31, 2007Texas Department of State Health Services Radiation Control 1 violation, required contamination survey documentation missing Issue corrected Mar 5-9, 2007FM Global InsuranceRoof composition, electrical testing, sprinkler additions Working with FPE to address

11. External Agencies DateAgencyFindingsStatus Mar 28, 2007Texas Department of State Health Services Radiation Control No items noted Jun 26-28, 2007Texas Department of State Health Services Radiation Control Broad license – no findings Increased controls – 2 findings Increased controls program revised, reviewed by DSHS July 6, 2007State Fire MarshalFollow up to 2006 HCPC post-arson inspection New fire alarm panel being installed

12. 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

13. 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

14. Financial Expenditures –Program cost, cost drivers Revenues –Sources of revenue, amounts

15. 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

16. Total Hazardous Waste Cost Obligation and Actual Disposal Expenditures (inclusive of chemical, biological, and radioactive waste streams) Hazardous Waste Cost Obligation Actual Disposal Expenditures FY06 savings: $166,124

17. 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

18. 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)

19. Client Satisfaction External clients served –Results of targeted client satisfaction survey Internal department staff –Summary of professional development activities

20. 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

21. 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) 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) 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)

22. 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%)

23. 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

24. 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 360 o evaluations on supervisors to garner feedback from staff

25. 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

26. 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)