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

Andy Tatum, Zenith Safety & Health Manager

Evidence-Based Safety & Health

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

• r by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording,
• r 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 sho houl uld I w or

• rk on
• n?

W hat at sho houl uld I do?

• ?

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
• 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

Data Elements are not Causes!

9

Loss Cause Definition

WHY!

Accident Type Equipment/ Environment Injury Type Job Position Task Body Part

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

14

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 5. Active S&H Service Assistance

Siloed Safety Efforts

I njury Analysis Safety I nspections Safety Programs

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

1. Risk Assessment and Loss Data Analysis 2. Communicate Conclusions 3. S&H Solutions 4. Active S&H Assistance

I nspection & Program-Based Evidence-Based

1. Risk Assessment and Loss Data Analysis 2. Loss Cause Definition 3. Communicate Conclusions 4. S&H Solutions 5. Active S&H Assistance

17

18

Common Approaches With Inspection and Program-Based S&H

 Panacea Approach  Shotgun Approach

19

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.

20

• 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.

Shotgun Approach

21

Panacea and Shotgun Approaches

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

Increasing Safety Impact

22

Ideal…

FOCUSED (Evidence-Based) S&H

Loss Focused Inspections Loss Focused Program Assistance Loss Analysis Loss Focused S&H Action Items

23

• 1. What do we work on?
• 2. What do we do?

24

2 Key (S&H) Questions…

25

Step 1 - Loss Data Analysis

Involves two stages…

1. Data Collection 2. Pattern Search

26

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

27

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

28

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

Workers’ Compensation Claim Costs

by Accident Type

29

• 21 injuries in 20 months
• $297,336 claims costs

30

• 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

Single-level Loss Data Analysis

Principle of Refinement …Loss Data Funneling…

31

Trivial Many Vital Few

Single-level Loss Data Analysis

32

All 18 WC Claims 8 Strain Injuries

Injury Type Body Part

7 Back Injuries

33

• 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

Multi-level Loss Data Analysis

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

35

Injury Type

All 58 WC claims for $227,339 incurred 29 strain injuries, $197,552 incurred

Multi-level Loss Data Analysis

36

Injury Type

All 58 WC claims for $227,339 incurred

29 strain injuries, $197,552 incurred

Department

19 strains in Housekeeping, $122,543 incurred

Task

16 strains in Housekeeping from MMH, $101,330 incurred

Object

13 strains in Housekeeping from handling laundry, $99,449 incurred

Safety Effort Focus:

37

Injury Type

All 58 WC claims for $227,339 incurred

Department Task Object

13 strains in Housekeeping from handling laundry, $99,449 incurred

22% of claims (frequency) resulted in 44% of claim costs (severity)

38

Workers’ Comp Claims:

 Forklift operator cut hand on sharp object  Conveyor operator slipped and fell while unjamming load  Helper strained back repositioning load  Production worker fractured finger caught between pallet

Analysis of these claims through different dimensions - materials, maintenance, task - was necessary to address the actual loss cause. Actual Loss Cause:

Damaged pallets in the automatic palletizer frequently prevents its ejection tract from fully taking hold of the pallet. The difficulty of manually forcing damaged pallet loads from the palletizer has caused injury to employees working in this area.

Cross Tabulation Example…

39

1. Detailed individual injury/claim descriptions typically offer the most valuable information. 2. Loss analysis is not a cookie cutter activity. It typically needs to be customized. 3. Use financial data. 4. Loss analysis involves a degree of ‘art’ and there can be more than just 1 right answer.

Key Points

Science Art

Evidence-Based S&H

.

40

• Loss data analysis is not an end in itself
• It’s the first step in the Evidence-Based S&H process
• Loss data analysis steers you to the most significant S&H

issues

• Loss causes are defined through Evidence-Based S&H

process Step 2 – Loss Cause Definition, which involves personal observation, inquiry and research

SUMMARY – Loss Data Analysis

, but does not define loss causes

41

“7 Whys”

Loss causes and effective solutions found here

Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?

42

Problem: Increasing lost work time and WC insurance costs

Why? Upper extremity lacerations and repetitive motion injuries Why? Employees using razor knives in trimming operation Why? Hand trimming plastic truck bed liners Why? Heat mold flashing around product perimeter Why? Injuries on the rise for past 6 months Why? Maintenance dept. switched to

new mold releasing agent

Why? Molds easier to clean,

but made flashing harder to trim

43

4 Common Traps

1. Stop to soon

44

4 Common Traps

1. Stopping too soon

45

Problem: Rising absenteeism and insurance costs

Why? Upper extremity lacerations and repetitive motion injuries

Why? Employees using razor knives in trimming operation Why? Hand trimming plastic truck bed liners Why? Heat mold flashing around product perimeter Why? Injuries on the rise for past 6 months Why? Maintenance dept. switched to

new mold releasing agent

Why? Molds easier to clean,

but made flashing harder to trim

46

Problem: Rising absenteeism and insurance costs

Why? Upper extremity lacerations and repetitive motion injuries

Why? Employees using razor knives in trimming operation Why? Hand trimming plastic truck bed liners Why? Heat mold flashing around product perimeter Why? Injuries on the rise for past 6 months Why? Maintenance dept. switched to

new mold releasing agent

Why? Molds easier to clean,

but made flashing harder to trim

Employee Injury Analysis

47

Injury Type

58 WC claims for $227,339

29 strain injuries, $197,552

Department

19 strains in Housekeeping, $172,543

Task

16 strains in Housekeeping from material handling, $156,330

Object

13 strains in Housekeeping from handling laundry, $129,449

Employee Injury Analysis

48

Injury Type

29 strain injuries, $197,552

Department

19 strains in Housekeeping, $172,543

Task

16 strains in Housekeeping from material handling, $156,330

Object

13 strains in Housekeeping from handling laundry, $129,449 58 WC claims for $227,339

49

4 Common Traps

1. Stopping too soon 2. Placing blame

50

4 Common Traps

1. Stopping too soon 2. Placing blame 3. Jumping to conclusions

1. Risk Assessment and Loss Data Analysis 2. Loss Cause Definition 3. Communicate Conclusions 4. S&H Solutions 5. Active S&H Assistance

51

4 Common Traps

1. Stopping too soon 2. Placing blame 3. Jumping to conclusions 4. Jumping to solutions

1. Risk Assessment and Loss Data Analysis 2. Loss Cause Definition 3. Communicate Conclusions 4. S&H Solutions 5. Active S&H Assistance

52

4 Common Traps

1. Stopping too soon 2. Placing blame 3. Jumping to conclusions 4. Jumping to solutions

53

• Chances of controlling significant losses > after

meaningful loss patterns are defined.

• There’s no assurance efforts will be effective unless

loss analysis is conducted first. Because of this efforts should spring from loss analysis.

• Efforts should proceed along an effective problem

solving track that requires loss cause definition BEFORE S&H solutions.

SUMMARY – Using Evidence-Based Safety for Effective S&H Planning

55

SUMMARY - Loss Cause Definition

Next Step is Effective Loss Control

• Detailed Loss Analysis
• Focused Inspections
• Focused Safety & Health Programs
• Manager/Supervisor Accountability
• Claims Management

56

57

5 Common Traps

• 1. Stop too soon

Thank You!

58