Targeted Methods for Obtaining Feedback on Your EH

1
Targeted Methods for Obtaining Feedback on Your
EHS Program

• Robert Emery, DrPH, CHP, CIH, CSP, RBP, CHMM,
  CPP, ARM
• Vice President for
• Safety, Health, Environment Risk Management
• Associate Professor of Occupational Health

2
Change in Focus

• EHS programs have changed in recent years
• Originally command and control, regulatory
  driven
• Now service oriented, with goal to support the
  organizational goals

3
Soliciting Feedback

• As part of this service orientation, reliance on
  feedback is crucial
• Feedback is typically obtained in four ways
• Unsolicited usually complaints, rarely
  compliments
• Training courses smile sheets
• A few generic questions as part of a larger
  organizational survey
• Passive link on website let us know how we did

4
Soliciting Client Feedback
5
Soliciting Client Feedback
6
Soliciting Client Feedback
7
Previous Efforts

• Previous client satisfaction work at UTHSCH
  focused on routine safety surveillance program
• Intended to evaluate staff performance in 5
  persistently problematic areas
• Interruptions, discourteous,
• unknowledgeable, not technically proficient,
• and waste not picked up
• Results overwhelmingly positive gt90 approval
  ratings
• Unanticipated results written comments thanks
  for asking!
• Powerful tool for demonstrating program goodwill
  value to upper management

8
Major Challenge

• Feedback from surveys can be skewed or misleading
  if client expectations are not understood first
• The trick is to first understand what client
  expectation are, and then to conduct operations
  accordingly

9
Two Types of Client Expectations

• Realistic expectations that are perceived as not
  being achieved
• Solution recalibrate operations to meet
  expectations
• Unrealistic expectations that can never be met
• Solution educate client so that expectations can
  be adjusted

10
Measuring Expectations and Perceptions

• SERVQUAL tool
• Developed by Parasuraman et al. under the
  auspices of the Marketing Science Institute
• Research shows that customers evaluate firms by
  comparing service performance (perceptions) with
  service expectations

11
Five Dimensions of Service Quality

• Tangibles appearance of staff, facilities
• Reliability ability to perform promised service
  dependably and reliably
• Responsiveness willingness to help clients and
  provide prompt service
• Assurance knowledge and courtesy of staff which
  instills trust and confidence
• Empathy caring, individualized attention

12
SERVQUAL Tool

• 22 paired statements split into two sections
• Expectations
• Perceptions
• Example When excellent cable TV companies
  promise to do something by a certain time, they
  will do it
• Each statement evaluated on a 7 point Leikert
  scale
• Data summarized and graphically displayed,
  comparing expectations versus perceptions

13
Methods

• Modified questionnaire developed, consisting of 7
  paired statements about EHS program services
• Areas of concentration reliability,
  responsiveness, assurance, empathy
• Distributed to 280 principle investigators in
  paper form with a personalized, signed cover memo
• Survey form pre-labeled for return via campus mail

14
Results

• By the end of a 3 week period, 32 return rate
• Data entered into a spreadsheet and displayed
  graphically
• Overtly display to various stakeholders!

15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
Benefits

• Results provide tangible evidence of program
  meeting the expectations of an excellent EHS
  program
• Powerful leverage tool to gain needed resources
• Written comments identified other areas of
  concern
• Great for staff morale feedback for work rarely
  acknowledged

18
Other Examples

• Clients of Radiation Safety Program
• Clients of Chemical Safety Program
• Clients who interact with Administrative Support
  Staff
• Employees and Supervisors Reporting Injuries
• Clients of Environmental Protection Program
  Services
• Determining the Level of Informed Risk

19
Administrative Support Staff Survey Results
Summary distributed to 90 targeted faculty and
staff clients across UTHSCH, with 54 responses in
30 days (60 response rate)
Questions Yes No N/A
Phone answered within 3 rings? 78 2 20
Timely response to inquiries? 93 2 8
Courteous response? 94 3 3
If couldnt answer, offer suggestions or alternatives? 66 2 34
20
Administrative Support Program Client
Satisfaction Survey (distributed to 90 targeted
faculty and staff clients across UTHSCH, with 54
responses in 30 days (60 response rate)
7) Compared to other administrative personnel
you interact with across UTHSCH, please indicate
your impression of the level of proficiency of
the EHS Administrative Support Staff member
demonstrates during your interaction with them
21
Survey of Employees and Supervisors Filing
UTHSC-H First Reports of Injury in 2007 (Email
based Zoomerang survey for period February 2007
to August 31, 2007)
Injured Employees Requiring Care and Lost 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.
Employee Population (not reporting any injuries,
n 4,181)
Employees requiring care, but no lost time (n
28)
Employees not requiring care, no lost time (n
179)
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 recent reported injury event were you aware of your obligation to report any injury or exposure? 88(Y) 12(N) 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) 88(Y) 12(N)
Did you encounter any issues with the reporting process that you didnt 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)
22
(No Transcript)
23
Summary

• Institutional EHS programs are service intensive
  operations
• Important to understand client expectations
  before measuring satisfaction
• Formal surveys quantify intangibles
• Other possible applications surely exist
• Great way to capture and display programs
  goodwill value!

24
References

• Emery, R.J., Sawyer, R.L., Sprau, D.D.,
  "Assessing the Service Provided by an
  Institutional Radiation Safety Survey Program"
  Health Physics, 70(5) 741-743, 1996.
• Emery, R.J., Savely, S., "The Benefits of
  Actively Soliciting Worker Concerns During
  Routine Safety Inspections" Professional Safety,
  42(7) 36-38, 1997.
• Emery, R.J., "Adding Value to Your Radiation
  Protection Program", Chapter in Roessler, C.E.
  Management and Administration of Radiation Safety
  Programs, Medical Physics Publishing, Madison,
  WI. 1998.
• Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A.,
  Guidelines for measuring service industry
  quality. Marketing Research, American Marketing
  Association., December 1990

25
UTH EHS