A multi-site pilot test study to measure safety climate in the university work setting

Next to leisure, sport, and household activities, the most common activity resulting in medically consulted injuries and poisonings in the United States is work, with an estimated 4 million workplace related episodes reported in 2008 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). To address the risks inherent to various occupations, risk management programs are typically put in place that include worker training, engineering controls, and personal protective equipment. Recent studies have shown that such interventions alone are insufficient to adequately manage workplace risks, and that the climate in which the workers and safety program exist (known as the "safety climate") is an equally important consideration. The organizational safety climate is so important that many studies have focused on developing means of measuring it in various work settings. While safety climate studies have been reported for several industrial settings, published studies on assessing safety climate in the university work setting are largely absent. Universities are particularly unique workplaces because of the potential exposure to a diversity of agents representing both acute and chronic risks. Universities are also unique because readily detectable health and safety outcomes are relatively rare. The ability to measure safety climate in a work setting with rarely observed systemic outcome measures could serve as a powerful means of measure for the evaluation of safety risk management programs. ^ The goal of this research study was the development of a survey tool to measure safety climate specifically in the university work setting. The use of a standardized tool also allows for comparisons among universities throughout the United States. A specific study objective was accomplished to quantitatively assess safety climate at five universities across the United States. At five universities, 971 participants completed an online questionnaire to measure the safety climate. The average safety climate score across the five universities was 3.92 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating very high perceptions of safety at these universities. The two lowest overall dimensions of university safety climate were "acknowledgement of safety performance" and "department and supervisor's safety commitment". The results underscore how the perception of safety climate is significantly influenced at the local level. A second study objective regarding evaluating the reliability and validity of the safety climate questionnaire was accomplished. A third objective fulfilled was to provide executive summaries resulting from the questionnaire to the participating universities' health & safety professionals and collect feedback on usefulness, relevance and perceived accuracy. Overall, the professionals found the survey and results to be very useful, relevant and accurate. Finally, the safety climate questionnaire will be offered to other universities for benchmarking purposes at the annual meeting of a nationally recognized university health and safety organization. The ultimate goal of the project was accomplished and was the creation of a standardized tool that can be used for measuring safety climate in the university work setting and can facilitate meaningful comparisons amongst institutions.^

ACCURACY OF THE BRCAPRO RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL IN MALES PRESENTING TO MD ANDERSON FOR BRCA TESTING

ACCURACY OF THE BRCAPRO RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL IN MALES PRESENTING TO MD ANDERSON FOR BRCA TESTING Publication No. _______ Carolyn A. Garby, B.S. Supervisory Professor: Banu Arun, M.D. Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) syndrome is due to mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Women with HBOC have high risks to develop breast and ovarian cancers. Males with HBOC are commonly overlooked because male breast cancer is rare and other male cancer risks such as prostate and pancreatic cancers are relatively low. BRCA genetic testing is indicated for men as it is currently estimated that 4-40% of male breast cancers result from a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (Ottini, 2010) and management recommendations can be made based on genetic test results. Risk assessment models are available to provide the individualized likelihood to have a BRCA mutation. Only one study has been conducted to date to evaluate the accuracy of BRCAPro in males and was based on a cohort of Italian males and utilized an older version of BRCAPro. The objective of this study is to determine if BRCAPro5.1 is a valid risk assessment model for males who present to MD Anderson Cancer Center for BRCA genetic testing. BRCAPro has been previously validated for determining the probability of carrying a BRCA mutation, however has not been further examined particularly in males. The total cohort consisted of 152 males who had undergone BRCA genetic testing. The cohort was stratified by indication for genetic counseling. Indications included having a known familial BRCA mutation, having a personal diagnosis of a BRCA-related cancer, or having a family history suggestive of HBOC. Overall there were 22 (14.47%) BRCA1+ males and 25 (16.45%) BRCA2+ males. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed for the cohort overall, for each particular indication, as well as for each cancer subtype. Our findings revealed that the BRCAPro5.1 model had perfect discriminating ability at a threshold of 56.2 for males with breast cancer, however only 2 (4.35%) of 46 were found to have BRCA2 mutations. These results are significantly lower than the high approximation (40%) reported in previous literature. BRCAPro does perform well in certain situations for men. Future investigation of male breast cancer and men at risk for BRCA mutations is necessary to provide a more accurate risk assessment.

Evaluation of Knowledge Regarding Diagnostic Strategies for Genetic Diseases in Select Residents

Genetics education for physicians has been a popular publication topic in the United States and in Europe for over 20 years. Decreasing numbers of medical genetics professionals and an increasing volume of genetic information has created a dire need for increased genetics training in medical school and in clinical practice. This study aimed to assess how well pediatrics-focused primary care physicians apply their general genetics knowledge to clinical genetic testing using scenario-based questions. We chose to specifically focus on knowledge of the diagnostic applicability of Chromosomal Microarray (CMA) technology in pediatrics because of its recent recommendation by the International Standard Cytogenomic Array (ISCA) Consortium as a first-tier genetic test for individuals with developmental disabilities and/or congenital anomalies. Proficiency in ordering baseline genetic testing was evaluated for eighty-one respondents from four pediatrics-focused residencies (categorical pediatrics, pediatric neurology, internal medicine/pediatrics, and family practice) at two large residency programs in Houston, Texas. Similar to other studies, we found an overall deficit of genetic testing knowledge, especially among family practice residents. Interestingly, residents who elected to complete a genetics rotation in medical school scored significantly better than expected, as well as better than residents who did not elect to complete a genetics rotation. We suspect that the insufficient knowledge among physicians regarding a baseline genetics work-up is leading to redundant (i.e. concurrent karyotype and CMA) and incorrect (i.e. ordering CMA to detect achondroplasia) genetic testing and is contributing to rising health care costs in the United States. Our results provide specific teaching points upon which medical schools can focus education about clinical genetic testing and suggest that increased collaboration between primary care physicians and genetics professionals could benefit patient health care overall.