Validating a measurement culture survey for use in improving analytics readiness

Organizations lean more heavily on large quantities of data to base their decisions using analytics. However, analytics using big data relies heavily on data quality, which can be compromised by a lack of data variability. A major obstacle is the reduced variability in these reports due to the measurement culture of an organization. If employees perceive they may be reprimanded if near miss data is reported then they may record inaccurate data or even hide the incident by not reporting. Additionally, if employees perceive that their participation in safety measurement is met with management inaction, they are far less likely to spend effort on reporting safety incidents. These perceptions have a pronounced effect on data quality. To assess employee perceptions that impact data quality a Measurement Culture Survey was developed to assess factors impacting employee participation and management action in safety measurement. This study will attempt to assess the reliability, factor structure, and validity of the Measurement Culture Survey

DART: Data Analytics Readiness Tool

Various obstacles such as a lack of analytics readiness (e.g. disparate databases, missing data, low validity) or competencies (e.g. personnel capable of cleaning data and running analyses) are causing underutilization of analytics in organizations. A safety-analytics maturity assessment such as the Data Analytics Readiness Tool (DART) can assist organizations with understanding their current capabilities. Organizations can then advance their analytics capabilities to eventually predict safety incidents and identify preventative measures for specific risk variables. The proposed safety-analytics assessment evaluates: (a) quality of the data currently available, (b) organizational norms around data collection, scaling, and nomenclature, (c) foundational infrastructure for technological capabilities and expertise in data collection, storage, and analysis of safety and health metrics, and (d) measurement culture around employee willingness to participate in reporting, audits, inspections, and observations and how managers use data to improve workplace safety

Does safety make a difference? The impact of safety observations on injury likelihoods

According to Liberty Mutual’s 2021 Workplace Safety Index, it was estimated that employers paid more than $1 billion per week in direct workers’ compensation costs for disabling, non-fatal workplace injuries in 2018 (2021 workplace, 2021). Accordingly, organizations frequently engage in safety practices in the hopes of reducing these financial and human costs. The aim of this study was to examine whether performing safety observations reduced the likelihood of adverse outcomes. A safety observation refers to a checklist of behaviors deemed “safe” that should be conducted to help decrease or completely eliminate a safety incident. A safety incident is an event that causes an injury to an employee. We obtained three years of safety data, which included the observation counts and incident counts, from a large chemical manufacturing company in the United States. Safety observations were normalized by work hours to ultimately reflect the total number of observations per an 8-hour shift. Safety incidents were dichotomized to indicate: did an incident occur (1) or an incident did not occur (0). A rolling sum time-series logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze whether observations over the previous seven days decreased the odds of an incident occurring over the next seven days. The logistic regression analyses were performed within two different work units: Division 1 (chemical manufacturer) and Division 2 (maintenance). These divisions engage in disparate yet similarly risky types of work, allowing us to examine the generalizability of results across multiple work units. Our results indicated that observations reported today (day 0) reduce the probability of an incident occurring over the next three days across Division 1 and Division 2. Specifically, the odds of an incident occurring over the next three days was reduced by 0.23 (odds ratio) and 0.14 respectively, per each additional observation performed. This could prevent three incidents for Division 1 and could result in 16 fewer incidents for Division 2 over a year. These results suggest that using safety observations to mitigate incident risk is possible and highly advantageous. Performing safety observations while engaging in dangerous work can reduce injuries in the workplace, saving not only lives, but also time, energy, effort, and money. However, to make this a consistent practice requires a very proactive safety culture, accurate and consistent safety reporting, and support from upper management

The relationship between leadership engagement and workplace incidents

Organizations with strong safety cultures tend to have fewer injuries, which is likely attributed to an increased engagement in safe work behaviors (Dejoy, 2005; DeJoy et al., 1995; Zou, 2011). Furthermore, Hahn and Murphy suggest that engagement behaviors in safety management systems also contribute to a strong safety culture (2008). Engagement behaviors in safety management systems include reporting near misses and minor injuries as well as engaging in safety policies and practices that are perceived as important to the organization and its leaders. In this study, we will be examining how leadership engagement in safety practices is related to near misses and workplace incidents at a large chemical manufacturing company in the United States. The company recently implemented a leadership engagement tool called the ZIM Tracker (Zero-Incident Mindset), which is designed to encourage leaders to engage in and track safety practices in hopes that it will ultimately lead to a decrease in workplace incidents. The ZIM Tracker presents individuals and groups with monthly safety goals, which include over 20 different safety practices, such as Pre-Job Hazard Assessment or Emergency Drill Participation, identified by the company. We suggest that if leaders are more engaged in safety practices and tracking those practices, then the number of reported near misses will increase and the number of workplace incidents will decrease. The number of reported near misses will increase because the leaders’ engagement will signal to the employees that it is important to report near misses, which will allow for the situations leading to a near miss to be addressed. By addressing these near misses, we expect a subsequent decrease in workplace incidents. Because the ZIM Tracker is a relatively new tool, it is important to evaluate its validity over its three years of implementation. We expect that if the ZIM Tracker is encouraging leaders to engage in and report safety practices then there will be an increase in safety practices reported and conducted because leaders will be motivated to achieve their safety goals within the ZIM Tracker. We also expect that this increase will subsequently lead to an increase in reported near misses and a decrease in workplace incidents. To test this hypothesis, we will examine safety outcome data over the three years prior to the implementation of the ZIM Tracker compared to three years after implementation

Speech Addressed To Children: Issues And Characteristics Of Parental Input

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98418/1/j.1467-1770.1975.tb00251.x.pd

"Qué es una agencia de noticias".

p.11-25

P3.368 STD Clinic Patients’ Preferences For HIV Prevention Strategies

Background More information is needed to understand how the newer HIV prevention methods should be positioned and which mix of prevention methods should be offered and promoted within the at risk populations. This study sought to obtain data about the preferences for effective biomedical interventions by individuals from the diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds that comprise the STD clinic populations in Miami Methods A cross sectional survey was used to assess knowledge and preference of traditional (condoms) and new biomedical methods to prevent HIV (Circumcision -C-, Pre-exposure prophylaxis -PreP and microbicides -M) in STD clinic patients. After an initial assessment, the study coordinator provided basic simple descriptions of three new methods of HIV prevention by pamphlets and/or recorded video. The relative preference for each of all the prevention strategies was re-assessed information was provided. Results Thirty five participants are reported in this interim analysis; 55% were female; 58% were African American; 25% were Hispanic and 12% were Haitians. Most of the participants were not aware of the efficacy of C (68%), PreP (77%) or M (79%) in decreasing the risk of acquiring HIV infection. At baseline, participants described as their preferred method to prevent HIV the use of male condoms (77%) and had marginal preference for the newer methods C (3%), M (6%) and PreP (3%). After the information about the new methods was provided, most of the participants reported to be aware of these methods (80%) and although male condoms was still the first choice for most of the participants (46%) a higher percentage of participants preferred M (20%) and PreP (14%). Conclusions STD clinic patients who participated in this study had very limited knowledge about the new biomedical strategies to prevent HIV infection. A brief informational session can increase their willingness to use the newer HIV preventive strategies