Evaluating the relative status of health and safety programs for minority academic and research institutions

A variety of occupational hazards are indigenous to academic and research institutions, ranging from traditional life safety concerns, such as fire safety and fall protection, to specialized occupational hygiene issues such as exposure to carcinogenic chemicals, radiation sources, and infectious microorganisms. Institutional health and safety programs are constantly challenged to establish and maintain adequate protective measures for this wide array of hazards. A unique subset of academic and research institutions are classified as historically Black universities which provide educational opportunities primarily to minority populations. State funded minority schools receive less resources than their non-minority counterparts, resulting in a reduced ability to provide certain programs and services. Comprehensive health and safety services for these institutions may be one of the services compromised, resulting in uncontrolled exposures to various workplace hazards. Such a result would also be contrary to the national health status objectives to improve preventive health care measures for minority populations.^ To determine if differences exist, a cross-sectional survey was performed to evaluate the relative status of health and safety programs present within minority and non-minority state-funded academic and research institutions. Data were obtained from direct mail questionnaires, supplemented by data from publicly available sources. Parameters for comparison included reported numbers of full and part-time health and safety staff, reported OSHA 200 log (or equivalent) values, and reported workers compensation experience modifiers. The relative impact of institutional minority status, institution size, and OSHA regulatory environment, was also assessed. Additional health and safety program descriptors were solicited in an attempt to develop a preliminary profile of the hazards present in this unique work setting.^ Survey forms were distributed to 24 minority and 51 non-minority institutions. A total of 72% of the questionnaires were returned, with 58% of the minority and 78% of the non-minority institutions participating. The mean number of reported full-time health and safety staff for the responding minority institutions was determined to be 1.14, compared to 3.12 for the responding non-minority institutions. Data distribution variances were stabilized using log-normal transformations, and although subsequent analysis indicated statistically significant differences, the differences were found to be predicted by institution size only, and not by minority status or OSHA regulatory environment. Similar results were noted for estimated full-time equivalent health and safety staffing levels. Significant differences were not noted between reported OSHA 200 log (or equivalent) data, and a lack of information provided on workers compensation experience modifiers prevented comparisons on insurance premium expenditures. Other health and safety program descriptive information obtained served to validate the study's presupposition that the inclusion criteria would encompass those organizations with occupational risks from all four major hazard categories. Worker medical surveillance programs appeared to exist at most institutions, but the specific tests completed were not readily identifiable.^ The results of this study serve as a preliminary description of the health and safety programs for a unique set of workplaces have not been previously investigated. Numerous opportunities for further research are noted, including efforts to quantify the relative amount of each hazard present, the further definition of the programs reported to be in place, determination of other means to measure health outcomes on campuses, and comparisons among other culturally diverse workplaces. ^

The relationship between leadership practices and a medication safety regime

Errors in healthcare are commonplace and have significant impact on mortality, morbidity, and costs. Other high-risk industries are credited with strong safety records. These successes are due in part to a strong, committed organizational culture and their leadership. A consistent pattern of effective leadership behaviors; creating change, establishing a vision and strategic actions, and enabling and inspiring the organization's members to act, is present in these high-risk industries. This research examined the relationship between leadership practices and a medication safety regime. The hypothesis is strong leadership practices have a positive relationship with the degree of sophistication of a medication safety program (safety performance). Leadership was used as a surrogate for organizational culture and was measured in this research through the Kouzes and Posner's Leadership Practices Inventory. The Institute of Medicine's 14 Selected Strategies to Improve Medication Safety was used to measure the development of a medication safety regime. Leadership practices towards safety were assessed by surveying 2,478 critical care Registered Nurses in the greater Houston area. A response rate of 19% was achieved. Thirteen hospitals participated in the medication safety regime assessment. Data from 386 RN respondents from 53 institutions provided an overall description of unit (ICU) and organization (hospital) leader's practices towards safety. There is some recognition of the medical error problem and that leaders exhibit moderate levels of leadership practices to promote safety. There were no differences noted in unit and hospital leaders' behaviors, with the exception that unit leaders promote change and enable staff to act more often than hospital leaders. There were no statistically significant relationships between overall leadership, or individual leadership practices and the organization's safety performance. There was a significant relationship between leadership and safety performance when other factors in organizational culture were considered. Teaching and Magnet hospitals also exhibited stronger behaviors towards safety. Organizational culture, as measured by academic affiliation and Magnet recognition, is strongly related to safety performance as measured by the degree of development of a medication safety regime. ^

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.^

Teaching safety at a summer camp: Evaluation of a children's fire safety curriculum in an urban community setting

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Danger Rangers Fire Safety Curriculum in increasing the fire safety knowledge of low-income, minority children in pre-kindergarten to third grade in Austin, TX during a summer day camp in 2007.^ Methods: Data was collected from child participants via teacher and researcher administered tests at pretest, posttest (immediately after the completion of the fire safety module), and at a 3 week follow-up to asses retention. In addition, a self-administered questionnaire was collected from parents pre- and post-intervention to assess home-related fire/burn risk factors. Paired t-tests were conducted using STATA 12.0 to evaluate pretest, posttest, and retention test mean scores as well as mean fire safety rules listed by grade group. McNemar's test was used to determine if there was a difference in fire-related risk factors as reported by the parents of the participants before and after the intervention. Only those who had paired data for the tests/surveys being compared were included in the analysis.^ Results: The first/second grade group and the third grade group scored significantly higher on fire safety knowledge on the posttest compared to the pretest (p<0.0001 for both groups). However, there was no significant change in knowledge scores for the pre-kindergarten to kindergarten group (p=0.14). Among the first/second grade group, knowledge levels did not significantly decline between the posttest and retention test (p=0.25). However, the third grade group had significantly lower fire safety knowledge scores on the retention test compared to the posttest (p<0.001). A similar increase was seen in the amount of fire safety rules listed after the intervention (p<0.0001 between pre and posttest for both the first/second grade and third grade groups), with no decline from the posttest to the retention test (p=0.50) for the first/second grade group, but a significant decline in the third grade group (p=0.001). McNemar's chi-square test showed a significant increase in the percentage of participants' parents reporting smoke detector testing on a regular basis and having a fire escape plan for their family after the intervention (p=0.01 and p<0.0001, respectively). However, there was no significant change in the frequency of reports of the child playing in the kitchen while the parent cooks or the house/apartment having a working smoke detector.^ Conclusion: We found that general fire safety knowledge improved and the number of specific fire safety rules increased among the first to third grade children who participated in the Danger Rangers fire safety program. However, it did not significantly increase general fire safety knowledge among the pre-k/k group. This study also showed that a program targeted towards children has the potential to influence familial risk factors by proxy. The Danger Rangers Fire Safety Curriculum should be further evaluated by conducting a randomized controlled trial, using valid measures that assess fire safety attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, as well as fire/burn related outcomes.^

The assumptions and effects of conservative procedures in low -dose risk assessment for setting safety standards

Conservative procedures in low-dose risk assessment are used to set safety standards for known or suspected carcinogens. However, the assumptions upon which the methods are based and the effects of these methods are not well understood.^ To minimize the number of false-negatives and to reduce the cost of bioassays, animals are given very high doses of potential carcinogens. Results must then be extrapolated to much smaller doses to set safety standards for risks such as one per million. There are a number of competing methods that add a conservative safety factor into these calculations.^ A method of quantifying the conservatism of these methods was described and tested on eight procedures used in setting low-dose safety standards. The results using these procedures were compared by computer simulation and by the use of data from a large scale animal study.^ The method consisted of determining a "true safe dose" (tsd) according to an assumed underlying model. If one assumed that Y = the probability of cancer = P(d), a known mathematical function of the dose, then by setting Y to some predetermined acceptable risk, one can solve for d, the model's "true safe dose".^ Simulations were generated, assuming a binomial distribution, for an artificial bioassay. The eight procedures were then used to determine a "virtual safe dose" (vsd) that estimates the tsd, assuming a risk of one per million. A ratio R = ((tsd-vsd)/vsd) was calculated for each "experiment" (simulation). The mean R of 500 simulations and the probability R $<$ 0 was used to measure the over and under conservatism of each procedure.^ The eight procedures included Weil's method, Hoel's method, the Mantel-Byran method, the improved Mantel-Byran, Gross's method, fitting a one-hit model, Crump's procedure, and applying Rai and Van Ryzin's method to a Weibull model.^ None of the procedures performed uniformly well for all types of dose-response curves. When the data were linear, the one-hit model, Hoel's method, or the Gross-Mantel method worked reasonably well. However, when the data were non-linear, these same methods were overly conservative. Crump's procedure and the Weibull model performed better in these situations. ^