Evidence-Based Safety & Health Andy Tatum, Zenith Safety & - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Evidence-Based Safety & Health Andy Tatum, Zenith Safety & Health Manager 1

DISCLAIMER Zenith Insurance Company (Zenith) assists employers in evaluating workplace safety exposures. Surveys and related services may not reveal every hazard, exposure and/or violation of safety practices. Inspections by Zenith do not result in any warranty that the workplace, operations, machinery, appliances or equipment are safe or in compliance with applicable regulations. Any recommendations and related services are not and should not be construed as legal advice or be used as a substitute for legal advice. Employee protection is ultimately the responsibility of the employer. Policy coverage is not contingent upon the provision, efficacy or sufficiency of these services. No part of this presentation may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without express written permission from a Zenith officer.

 Do You Manage Safety & Health?  Oversee Company Workers’ Compensation?  Assist with Risk Management?  Any or all of these?

Then Your Primary Functions Include:  Employee Wellbeing  Risk Evaluation  Loss Improvement  Company Premium Savings  Compliance

5

2 Critical Questions W hat at W hat at sho houl uld sho houl uld I I do? o? w or ork on on? 6

Loss Cause is…  The injury or illness cause  Any situation that has/could produce employee injury or illness where the identity/relationship among people, methods, equipment, facilities, and environment interact to produce/increase risk of loss  A well defined S&H problem 7

A Loss Cause is NOT…  A TOOL, EQUIPMENT or MATERIAL such as a knife, ladder, pallet or plastic sheet  An INJURY TYPE such as cut, strain or contusion  A JOB POSITION such as welder, driver or forklift operator  A TASK such as lifting, painting or polishing  A BODY PART such as eye, wrist or back  An ACCIDENT TYPE such as struck-by, fall or contact with 8

Work Comp Claim Data Elements   Accident Location Full/Part Time   Accident Date & Day Injury Type   Accident Time Length of Employment   Accident Type Lost Work Days   Attorney Involvement Medical Provider   Body Part Report Date   Claim Cost Return to Work Date   Employee Age & Sex Shift   Employee Dept. Supervisor   Employee Name Tool/Equipment Involved   Employee Position Work Tasks Data Elements are not Causes! 9

Loss Cause Definition Body Accident Part Type Injury WHY! Task Type Job Position Equipment/ Environment 10

Loss Cause Definition Two important features of a well defined loss cause: 1. The relevant elements – people, methods, equipment, facilities, and environment – are considered and have been clearly identified. 2. With loss cause-and-effect relationships clearly defined, the most effective S&H intervention becomes clear. 11

Inspection-Based Safety & Health S&H centers around search for unsafe conditions and employee behaviors. S&H action items are for general safety hazards and OSHA type compliance issues identified during walk- thru safety surveys. Not always a strong correlation between most significant exposures, claims, and S&H action items. 12

Program-Based Safety & Health S&H efforts and action items established to address past claim trends and identified S&H program deficiencies. S&H efforts center around helping create or improve S&H programs and training. 13

Inspection and Program-Based Safety & Health 1. UW Survey and Loss Data Analysis 2. Loss Cause Definition 3. Communicate Conclusions 4. S&H Service Plan Solutions Active S&H Service Assistance 5. 14

Programs I nspections Analysis Safety I njury Safety Siloed Safety Efforts 15

Evidence-Based Safety & Health Systematically target key loss exposures and impact loss results quicker than conventional S&H inspection and program-based efforts. Concentrate limited resources (time & money) on service activities that will ensure the greatest financial payback & employee wellbeing in the shortest amount of time. This S&H process is an effective 5 step problem solving process where S&H “problems” = “loss causes.” 16

S&H Processes I nspection & Program-Based Evidence-Based 1. Risk Assessment and Loss 1. Risk Assessment and Loss Data Analysis Data Analysis 2. Loss Cause Definition 2. Communicate Conclusions 3. Communicate Conclusions 3. S&H Solutions 4. S&H Solutions Active S&H Assistance 4. Active S&H Assistance 5. 17

Common Approaches With Inspection and Program-Based S&H  Panacea Approach  Shotgun Approach 18

Panacea Approach  “Panacea” - Greek goddess of universal remedy said to have potion to heal the sick.  Brought about panacea concept in medicine - substance meant to cure all diseases.  Panacea also used figuratively as something intended to completely solve large, multi- faceted problems.  Panacea approach in S&H is universal application of a “tried & true” solution. 19

Shotgun Approach  With uncertainty about what the target is or how to get there, something is likely to be hit if you shoot enough buckshot.  Assumes the more techniques used, the greater the probability of solving the problem.  Shotgun approach in S&H applies several solutions without enough consideration of their appropriateness. 20

Panacea and Shotgun Approaches Time and money are wasted with Panacea and Shotgun S&H approaches because you can easily miss true loss causes. 21

Increasing Safety Impact Ideal… 22

FOCUSED (Evidence-Based) S&H Loss Analysis Loss Focused Inspections Loss Focused Program Assistance Loss Focused S&H Action Items 23

2 Key (S&H) Questions… 1. What do we work on? 2. What do we do? 24

Step 1 - Loss Data Analysis Involves two stages… 1. Data Collection 2. Pattern Search 25

Loss Data Analysis Stage one - Data Collection  Gather all available loss information  Strive to get at least 2 years worth of data, more if possible  A variety of data sources are available 26

Loss Data Analysis Stage Two – Pattern Search  Scanning and sorting loss information identifying common causal factors/areas/injury types or other meaningful loss cause elements Accident Location Accident Date & Day Accident Time Accident Type Attorney Involvement Body Part Claim Cost Employee Age & Sex Employee Dept. Employee Name Employee Position Full/Part Time Injury Type Length of Employment Lost Work Days Medical Provider Report Date Return to Work Date Shift Supervisor Tool/Equipment Involved Work Tasks  Information is classified and grouped to surface the most significant patterns or loss categories 27

Pareto Principal in S&H  Used to underline importance of hazard prioritization  Safety professionals can target those 20% of hazards that cause 80% of injuries/costs  Ensures hazards are addressed in an economical order and that resources used are best used to prevent the most accidents and save the most money When addressed in random order, safety professionals are more likely to fix one of the 80% of hazards which account for just 20% of the injuries/costs 28

Workers’ Compensation Claim Costs by Accident Type  21 injuries in 20 months  $297,336 claims costs 29

Single-level Loss Data Analysis  Classify loss data elements among claim frequency or severity, and one other data element such as accident type, body part, day of week, etc.  Examples: 37% of past employee injuries are lacerations 6 accidents occurred in intersections 53% of workers’ compensation claims costs were related to slip and fall accidents 30

Principle of Refinement … Loss Data Funneling… Trivial Many Vital Few 31

Single-level Loss Data Analysis All 18 WC Claims Injury Type Body Part 7 Back 8 Strain Injuries Injuries 32

Multi-level Loss Data Analysis  Consecutive loss data sorts, one after another, performed to pare down and further specify loss categories.  Especially useful when focusing efforts on larger and/or multiple locations to reduce a larger volume of claims data to actionable size  Examples: 53% of all MMH injuries and 69% of MMH injury costs from coil changing 6 of 8 vehicle accidents occurred in intersections 38 of 83 total claims (46%) and $122,835. of $289,321. total incurred WC claims costs (42%) have resulted from fall injuries at 7 of 31 total property locations 33

Hotel Example Problem: Over the past 2 policy years, 7/10 to 7/12, there have been 58 employee injuries that amount to $227,339. in estimated workers’ compensation claims costs. 34

Single-level Loss Data Analysis All 58 WC claims for $227,339 incurred Injury Type 29 strain injuries, $197,552 incurred 35