UNION PACIFIC’S FATIGUE RISK
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (FRMS)
Dennis W. Holland, Ph.D.
Jackie Keenan, M.B. A.
Safe
Operation
RedBlock
Alert
Focused Employees
Fatigue
Safety
Alertness Management
Program
Prevention
Increased Focus
Productivity
Improve
Productivity
Education
Countermeasures
Education
Health Promotion
Increased
Attention
Risk Management
Sleep Disorders
Reduced
Accidents
Peer Intervention
Local Committees
Prevention
Peer Intervention
Workforce Utilization
Resiliency
Stress Management
Education
Critical Incident
Team
Domestic
Violence
Workplace
Violence
Reduced
Absenteeism
Depression
Suicide Prevention
A
L
E
R
T
N
E
S
S
Improved Overall
Health
Return to Work
CISD
Reduced Stress
Reduced Medical
Costs
Improved Morale
Employee
Relations
Work Life
Balance
Fitness for Duty
Behavioral Health
Promotion
Health
Hierarchical Input Process Output HIPO
Human Relations
Fatigue Risk Management System Model
• Corporate Responsibility
Level One (L1)
• Ensuring Adequate Sleep Opportunity
• FAID Analysis /Action Plans
• Individual Responsibility
•Using Time off for Rest
Level Two (L2)
• Behavioral Symptoms
Level Three (L3)
•Screening Tools
•Peer Identification
Level Four (L4)
• Continuous Improvement
Process
•FAID Analysis
•Measurement
Concept Taken From “Managing The
Risks Of Organizational Accidents” by
James Reason
Critical Incident!!
UNION PACIFIC’S FRMS
• Broad comprehensive plan to manage the
human resource.
• Integrated and Interdisciplinary approach to
managing manpower, fatigue and quality of
life issues.
• Safety & Health Priorities.
• Evidence-based
–
Theory and research
FRMS
 Risk Management Model
 Identify, measure and prioritize risk and develop and
implement controls
 Addresses Critical Challenges
 24/7 Operations & 24/7 Society
 Unsupervised TE&Y workforce
 Aging/new workforce
 Unhealthy workforce
 Scientifically based “toolbox” approach
KEY ELEMENTS OF FRMS
 Policy
 Corporate & Local Policies
 Training and Education
 Ensuring adequate average sleep opportunity
 Company responsibility
 Software analysis & Measurement (FAID)
KEY ELEMENTS OF FRMS
 Ensuring employee preparedness: ensure that
individuals who received an adequate average sleep
opportunity have achieved sufficient sleep to ensure
safe level of alertness [SLA]



Education on signs & symptoms
Education & policy regarding minimal sleep and reporting
Shared Responsibility partnerships with employee, labor
organizations and government
KEY ELEMENTS OF FRMS
 Additional Countermeasures (Toolbox)
 Planned Nap Program
 Lodging
 Families
 Alternative to Discipline
 Sleep Disorder Screening
 Measurements
 Technology Review Process
 Research - ongoing process of pertinent
research to ensure FRMS is evidence-based.
IMPLEMENTING FRMS
UNDERSTANDING THE
FRMS LEVELS OF CONTROL
Fatigue Risk Management System
Model
Qualitative Level One Controls
 10-hour Undisturbed Rest/AM Mark-Up

Completed
 Proactive Notification


Completed
Ongoing Enhancement
 Work/Rest Cycles & Call Windows


Magic bullet mentality not justified -- Comprehensive and
integrated process
More than just Crew Scheduling
 Example - Seattle
 Example - North Platte/Marysville
Quantitative Level One Controls
 FAID Process




FAID Analysis -- Software package to identify the extent of any
fatigue problems (i.e. locations or times of reduced average sleep
opportunity)
System identification of where reduced sleep opportunity may
lead to work-related fatigue
Assess whether interventions have increased sleep opportunity
Used in conjunction with the Board Game software for
simulating the impact of changes at the board/pool level
Fatigue Scores are
Indicators Only
• Fatigue scores are indicators only of the
impact of sleep deprivation.
• They are based on a statistical analysis of
research performed into fatigue levels over a
broad sample of population and provide
guidance on the fatigue of an individual.
Level Two Controls
 Level 2 controls are designed to ensure that individuals who




received an adequate average sleep opportunity have achieved
sufficient sleep to ensure safe level of alertness [SLA]
This requires a high level of shared responsibility
This will require significant cultural change and time and is
likely to be the most difficult element to implement effectively
Labor will play an important role in shaping the employee
attitudes. Labor/management consultation will be essential
Implementation: Employee, Management and Family education
and awareness.
Level Two Implementation Plan
 Stage 1 - Initial Awareness
 Minimum Sleep/Wake Needs - 5/12 rule
 Commenced -- Q1 2004
 Stage 2 - Personal Management tool
 Introduce Prior Sleep/Wake Model and behavioral scale
 Used to manage personal behavior and ensure SLA
 No reporting requirement
 Proposed Completion
 Stage 3 - Organizational Integration
 Introduce Scoring System
 Reporting of non-zero scores
 Develop local decision matrices
 Mark off
Additional Level Two Controls Proposed
 Industry collection of US Sleep/Wake Data



Ensure Level One Models are valid
Link L1 -> L2 -> L3 frequencies to ensure evidence-based policy
Establish industry benchmarks/policy guidelines for Sleep/Wake
behavior
 Research projects

Projects collecting Work/Rest, Sleep/Wake, Behavioral data
 Kansas City [WR,SW, Actigraphy, PVT]
 Des Moines/St. Paul [WR,SW, PVT]
 San Antonio [Diaries, Actigraphy]
Level Three Controls
 These reflect a general organizational shift in
philosophy and policy

Increased focus on employee involvement in fatigue hazard
identification and self-management of fatigue
i.e. self and peer education leading to self assessment
 Clear policy guidelines on managing pre-defined unacceptable
levels of fatigue-related behavior)
 Example: Alternative to Discipline
 Discipline vs. Peer Intervention

Level Three Controls
 Physiological Monitoring Systems
 Ongoing internal technological review process
 No current systems with acceptable Cost/Benefit Analysis
 Self and Peer Identification of Fatigue-Related Behaviors
 Generic symptom checklists (developed)
 Task-specific symptom checklists
 Sleep Disorders Screening
 Certification process
 FRA/UP Assessment Research Project



Voluntary Program (OHNS)
Education and Awareness
Related Health Issues
 Overall Research Program
Level Four & Five Controls
 Identifying fatigue as a cause of errors or incidents


Evidence of L1-3 data consistent with fatigue
Nature of incident is consistent with fatigue-related error
 Needs to be an industry initiative to ensure level playing field

UP willing to collaborate with industry initiatives
 Model and Boardgame Analysis
 CIT
UNION PACIFIC RESEARCH
UPDATE
FATIGUE, SLEEP DISORDERS AND
RELATED HEALTH ISSUES
RESEARCH AGENDA
• Assess the relationship between safety and risk
•
•
•
•
factors such as: fatigue, sleep disorders, stress,
depression, obesity, etc.
Part of UP FRMS
Create evidence-based interventions
Partnerships with Labor and Regulators
Bottom-line Implications: Improve employee
health and safety while reducing medical costs,
absenteeism and presenteeism.
INTRODUCTION
• Behavioral Health: 2003 WHO study (Wang, et
al) suggests that depression most highly
significant factor in accident and injury.
• Depression expected to become #1 cause of
disability world-wide.
• Wellness Inventory (Pfizer) UP studies indicate
behavioral issues (depression, stress, anxiety)
are most costly in presenteeism, absenteeism
and medical costs.
• Fatigue: Sleep Deprivation & Sleep Disorders
are a societal issue impacting the work place:
NSF reports 74% of Americans do not get
enough sleep each night.
FATIGUE & SLEEP DISORDERS
• Sleep Disorders - Uservices
– Objectives:
•
•
–
Assess percentage of TE&Y at risk for excessive daytime
sleepiness
Demonstrate viability of sleep assessment as part of recertification process
Methods
•
•
•
N= 437
Epworth Sleepiness Scale
Scores > 10 categorized at risk
SLEEP (cont’d)
–
Results
•
•
•
•
At risk employee is > 35% (95% CI 35.4-44.8%)
Willingness to participate (confidentiality maintained)
Confirmation Study
– Scores > 10 offered opportunity to wear a device to determine
presence of OSA
– 20 tests ordered, 10 completed
– 9 confirmed positive for OSA
Recommendations
– Additional research
– Continued voluntary screening
– Continued education and awareness
SLEEP (cont’d)
 Actigraph - DU
 Objectives
Determine fatigue levels
 Behavioral implications of feedback
 Data for biomathematical validation


Methods
Sleep Diaries/Self Report
 Two Types of Actigraphs
 Epworth Sleepiness Scale & PSQI
 N (Questionaire) = 180 (60.4% response rate)
 N (Actigraph) = 36

SLEEP (cont’d)
–
Results
•
•
•
Lower mean sleepiness score than other sites (match
approximate national average)
Behavioral outcomes (actigraph):
– No statistical difference between those with feedback
actigraph and those with non-performance actigraph
– Those with self-efficacy more likely to use data to change
behavior
– Those without self-efficacy (external locus of control)
unwilling to change behaviors
Implications for changing behaviors and providing concrete
change
Behavioral Health
 Joint Projects and Funding UPRR/FRA
 Coping Mechanisms – HIS
 Depression – DU
 Obesity – HIS
 Integrated Health Improvement Initiative - HIS
 BAA – FRA
 Additional proposals currently under consideration.
CONCLUSION
• Pilots assessed for system implementation
• Evidence-based development of programs and
•
•
•
•
interventions to reduce or eliminate risks
Informed discussions, communications and
programs
Implications for the industry
Safety, health and productivity focus
Additional safety research needed in all
associated areas.