Targeted Methods for Obtaining
Feedback on Your EH&S Program
Robert Emery, DrPH, CHP, CIH, CSP, RBP, CHMM, CPP, ARM
Vice President for
Safety, Health, Environment & Risk Management
Associate Professor of Occupational Health
Change in Focus

EH&S programs have changed in recent years
–
Originally “command and control”, regulatory driven
–
Now service oriented, with goal to support the
organizational goals
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”
Soliciting Client Feedback
Soliciting Client Feedback
Soliciting Client Feedback
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 >90% approval ratings
Unanticipated results – written comments: “thanks for asking!”
Powerful tool for demonstrating program goodwill value to upper
management
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
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
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
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
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
Methods

Modified questionnaire developed, consisting of 7
paired statements about EH&S 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
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!
Figure 1. UTHSCH laboratory personnel rating of the importance of certain service characteristics
of "excellent" environmental health & safety programs, compared to their rating of the level of
service currently being provided by UTHSCH EH&S.
7.0
Excellent EH&S
Programs
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
de
Un
rs
tan
s
rs
d
ee
ou
dN
tH
i en
ble
do
ea
us
to
g
ed
en
l
ow
teo
nv
Co
Kn
ur
Co
e
er
pt
om
Pr
nc
Si
ise
om
Pr
Figure 1. UTHSCH laboratory personnel rating of the importance of certain service characteristics
of "excellent" environmental health & safety programs, compared to their rating of the level of
service currently being provided by UTHSCH EH&S.
7.0
Excellent EH&S
Programs
6.0
UTHSCH
EH&S
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
de
Un
tan
rs
d
tH
i en
s
rs
ed
Ne
ou
ble
do
ea
us
to
g
ed
en
l
ow
o
te
nv
Co
Kn
ur
Co
e
er
pt
om
Pr
nc
Si
ise
om
Pr
Benefits

Results provide tangible evidence of program meeting
the expectations of an excellent EH&S program

Powerful leverage tool to gain needed resources

Written comments identified other areas of concern

Great for staff morale – feedback for work rarely
acknowledged
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
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 couldn’t answer, offer suggestions
or alternatives?
66%
2%
34%
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)
50
45
40
35
Number of responses
“ 7) Compared to other
administrative
personnel you interact
with across UTHSCH,
please indicate your
impression of the level
of proficiency of the
EH&S Administrative
Support Staff member
demonstrates during
your interaction with
them”
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Very low
prof iciency
Low
prof iciency
Averge
prof iciency
Somew hat
prof icient
Very
prof icient
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)
Employee Population
(not reporting any
injuries, n = 4,181)
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.
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 didn’t 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)
Where did you access health care?
Please indicate your impression of the level of service provided by the health care provider who addressed your injury or exposure?
12%(Y) 88%(N)
53% Employee Health
20% Student Health
27% Other
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)
Survey of Principal Investigators Utilizing EH&S Biological Safety Program Services
Email based survey distributed from 4/29/2010 to 6/2/2010 to 210 Principal Investigators identified as utilizing biological safety services in FY 2010.
Survey response rate: 47 out of 210 (22%)
Survey Question
Yes
44 (94%)
1. Do you feel the Biological Safety Program understands your needs and
requirements as a faculty member or researcher?
Responses
No
3 (6%)
No Opinion
0 (0%)
2. Do you feel you have adequate access to the Biological Safety Program via
phone and/or email?
47 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3. Do you feel the Biological Safety Program responds to your requests in an
acceptable time frame?
46 (98%)
1 (2%)
0 (0%)
4. Do you feel the Biological Safety Program has adequate professional knowledge
to address your needs related to biological safety? (n= 46 responses)
43 (93%)
2 (4%)
1 (2%)
5. Do you feel the Biological Safety Program provides helpful and courteous service?
46 (98%)
1 (2%)
0 (0%)
6. Are you able to obtain assistance if you are having issues submitting an Institutional 34 (72%)
Biosafety Committee protocol, renewal, or update?
1 (2%)
12 (26%)
7. In your opinion, do you feel that accessing the Institutional Biosafety Committee
protocol submission forms online is convenient?
31 (66%)
4 (9%)
12 (26%)
8. Does the online Institutional Biosafety Committee protocol submission process
provide adequate instructions for completion of the forms? (n=45 responses)
22 (49%)
7 (16%)
16 (36%)
9. Do you feel the online protocol submission system allows for easier initial
submissions, updates, and renewals of Institutional Biosafety Committee protocols
as compared to the previous paper-based process?
26 (55%)
5 (11%)
16 (34%)
10. If you have been involved with Biological Safety Programs
at other institutions, please rate how the service provided
at UTHealth compares?
Better
Same
21 (45%)
6 (13%)
Worse
1 (2%)
No Previous Experience
19 (40%)
Summary





Institutional EH&S 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 program’s
goodwill value!
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
UTH
EHS