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

2. Objectives/Contents Provide a metrics-based overview of SHERM operations in FY05 by describing aspects of: –Activities/workload –Outcomes –Operations –Client satisfaction

3. Number of Safety Committee New Protocol Reviews, by Type FY04 FY05 Total Radiation Chemical Biological FY06

4. Number of EH&S Safety Surveys, by Type (not inclusive of follow up surveys for deficiencies) FY04FY05 Total Radiation Chemical Biological FY06

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)* FY04FY05 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.

6. Number of Employee First Reports of Injury and Compensable Injuries FY04FY05 Compensable First Reports FY06

7. WCI Premium Adjustment for UTS Health Components (discount premium rating as compared to a baseline of 1) Fiscal year UT Health Center Tyler UT Medical Branch Galveston UT HSC San Antonio UT Southwestern Dallas UT HSC Houston UT MD Anderson Cancer Center

8. Hazardous Waste Cost Obligation and Actual Disposal Expenditures (inclusive of chemical, biological, and radioactive waste streams) FY04FY05 Waste Cost Obligation Actual Disposal Expenditures FY06

9. Number of SHERM Permanent Employees (both EH&S and Risk Management & Insurance) in Full Time Equivalents (FTE) FY04FY05 Total Staff FY06 Increases due to transfer of Fire & Life Safety and Risk Management functions, not expansion of existing EH&S staff

10. EH&S Resources and Campus Square Footage 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 YearCampus Square Footage By Year

11. 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

12. 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

13. Chemical Safety Program Client Satisfaction Survey Results (distributed to 42 investigators with active chemical protocols, response rate 36%) Protocol Submission and Review Process (5 questions) Program Services Provided (7 questions)

14. 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.”

15. 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”

16. 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)