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.^

Predictive validity of the personal background and preparation survey and effectiveness of targeted interventions among health science community college students

Existing data, collected from 1st-year students enrolled in a major Health Science Community College in the south central United States, for Fall 2010, Spring 2011, Fall 2011 and Spring 2012 semesters as part of the "Online Navigational Assessment Vehicle, Intervention Guidance, and Targeting of Risks (NAVIGATOR) for Undergraduate Minority Student Success" with CPHS approval number HSC-GEN-07-0158, was used for this thesis. The Personal Background and Preparation Survey (PBPS) and a two-question risk self-assessment subscale were administered to students during their 1st-year orientation. The PBPS total risk score, risk self-assessment total and overall scores, and Under Representative Minority Student (URMS) status were recorded. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and report the predictive validity of the indicators identified above for Adverse Academic Status Events (AASE) and Nonadvancement Adverse Academic Status Events (NAASE) as well as the effectiveness of interventions targeted using the PBPS among a diverse population of health science community college students. The predictive validity of the PBPS for AASE has previously been demonstrated among health science professions and graduate students (Johnson, Johnson, Kim, & McKee, 2009a; Johnson, Johnson, McKee, & Kim, 2009b). Data will be analyzed using binary logistic regression and correlation using SPSS 19 statistical package. Independent variables will include baseline- versus intervention-year treatments, PBPS, risk self-assessment, and URMS status. The dependent variables will be binary AASE and NAASE status. ^ The PBPS was the first reliable diagnostic and prescriptive instrument to establish documented predictive validity for student Adverse Academic Status Events (AASE) among students attending health science professional schools. These results extend the documented validity for the PBPS in predicting AASE to a health science community college student population. Results further demonstrated that interventions introduced using the PBPS were followed by approximately one-third reduction in the odds of Nonadvancement Adverse Academic Status Events (NAASE), controlling for URMS status and risk self-assessment scores. These results indicate interventions introduced using the PBPS may have potential to reduce AASE or attrition among URMS and nonURMS attending health science community colleges on a broader scale; positively impacting costs, shortages, and diversity of health science professionals.^

A study of nutrition promotion in and consumer nutrition environments of hospitals

Dietary intake is a complex, health-related behavior, and although individual-level theoretical models explain some variation in dietary intake, comprehensive theoretical models such as the ecological framework describe the multiple levels which influence diet-related behaviors. Thus, the ecological framework is a preferred model for designing comprehensive nutrition interventions. While ecological-based nutrition interventions have been described, little work has focused on interventions in the hospital setting. Because hospitals are considered the hallmarks of health, it might seem that hospitals would regularly engage in worksite nutrition promotion; however, recent publications and other anecdotal evidence have indicated otherwise. The first paper of this dissertation systematically reviewed the scientific literature between 1996 and 2012 and identified 13 outcome evaluation trials for hospital-based worksite nutrition interventions. Of these 13 interventions, only one intervention targeted three of the four levels of the ecological framework and no intervention targeted all four levels. Only half of the interventions targeted the physical environment of hospitals, thus warranting more investigation into this specific level of the ecological framework in this setting. ^ A critical type of nutrition-related physical environments is the consumer nutrition environment. Although other tools measure the consumer nutrition environments of stores and restaurants, no tool specifically measured the consumer nutrition environments of hospitals until the CDC developed the Healthy Hospital Environment Scan for Cafeterias, Vending Machines, and Gift Shops (HHES-CVG). The HHES-CVG, a tool which measures the consumer nutrition environments of hospital cafeterias, vending machines, and gifts shops, was released in November 2011, and in the second paper of this dissertation, the reliability of this tool was investigated. Two trained raters visited 39 hospitals across Southern California between February and May 2012, and based on analyses of the raters' findings, the HHES-CVG exhibited strong reliability metrics (inter-observer agreement between 74 and 100%, and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.961 for the overall nutrition composite score). Because the HHES-CVG was found to be a reliable tool, the third paper of this dissertation presented HHES-CVG results from the 39 hospitals. Overall, hospitals only scored about one-fourth of the total possible points for the nutrition composite score, indicating that most facilities do not have acceptable consumer nutrition environments. Some of the best practices observed in cafeterias were significantly associated with having a large facility and with having a contracted foodservice operation, but overall nutrition composite score was not associated with any specific facility or operation type. ^ The dissertation concluded that much work is needed in order to improve the consumer nutrition environments of hospitals. Practitioners and healthcare administrators should consider starting with ecological-based interventions addressing all levels including the physical environment.^