The Effective Display of Health & Safety Data

The Effective Display of Health & Safety Data

The Effective Display of Health & Safety Data to Achieve Desired Decision Making Robert Emery, DrPH, CHP, CIH, CBSP, CSP, CHMM, CPP, ARM Vice President for Safety, Health, Environment & Risk Management The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Associate Professor of Occupational Health The University of Texas School of Public Health Why Training on Data Presentation ? An interesting dilemma: Almost all programs thrive on data Virtually every important decision is based on data to some extent Formal training in the area of compelling data presentations is rare for many professionals The ability to compellingly display data is the key to desired decision making Why Training on Data Presentation (cont.)? The safety profession is particularly awash in bad examples of data presentations! Weve all endured them at some point in our careers! Commentary: This may be the reason for repeated encounters with stakeholders do not understand what safety does. Achieving Safety & Security Data Display Excellence The presentation of complex ideas and concepts in ways that are Clear Precise Efficient How do we go about achieving this? Go to The Experts On Information Display

Tukey, JW, Exploratory Data Analysis, Reading, MA 1977 Tukey, PA, Tukey, JW Summarization: smoothing; supplemented views, in Vic Barnett ed. Interpreting Multivariate Data, Chichester, England, 1982 Tufte, ER, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Cheshire, CT, 2001 Tufte, ER, Envisioning Information, Cheshire, CT, 1990 Williams, R The Non-Designers Book: Design and Typographic Principles for the Visual Novice. Berkley, CA, 1994 Tufte, ER, Visual Explanations, Cheshire, CT, 1997 Recommendations Dont blindly rely on the automatic graphic formatting provided by Excel or Powerpoint! Encourage the eye to compare different data Representations of numbers should be directly proportional to their numerical quantities Use clear, detailed, and thorough labeling Recommendations (cont.) Display the variation of data, not a variation of design Maximize the data to ink ratio put most of the ink to work telling about the data! When possible, use horizontal graphics: 50% wider than tall is usually best

Compelling Remark by Tufte Visual reasoning occurs more effectively when relevant information is shown adjacent in the space within our eye-span This is especially true for statistical data where the fundamental analytical act is to make comparisons The key point: compared to what? Four UTHSCH Make Over Examples Data we accumulated and displayed on: Nuisance Fire Alarms Workers compensation experience modifiers First reports of injury Corridor clearance But first, 2 quick notes: The forum to be used: The big screen versus the small screen? In what setting are most important decisions made? Like fashion, there are likely no right answers individual tastes apply, but some universal rules will become apparent Results of the Great UTHSC-H Nuisance Fire Alarm Challenge 8 Number of Alarms 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Spontaneous Maintenanc e Aug Smoke/Fire J ul J un May Apr Mar Feb J an Dec Nov Oc t Sept C ontrac tor Results of the Great UTHSC-H Nuisance Fire Alarm Challenge 10 Number of Alarms 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

2 1 0 Aug J ul Spontaneous J un May Apr Mar Smoke/Fire Feb J an Dec Nov Oc t Sept C ontrac tor Maintenanc e Results of the Great UTHSC-H Nuisance Fire Alarm Challenge 10 Number of Alarms 9 8 7 6

5 4 3 2 1 0 Aug J ul Spontaneous J un May Apr Mar Smoke/Fire Feb J an Dec Nov Oc t Sept C ontrac tor Maintenanc e Results of the Great UTHSC-H Nuisance Fire Alarm Challenge 10 Number of Alarms 9

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Aug J ul Spontaneous J un May Apr Mar Smoke/Fire Feb J an Dec Nov Oc t Sept C ontrac tor Maintenanc e Results of the Great UTHSC-H Nuisance Fire Alarm Challenge 10

9 Number of Alarms 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Contractor Smoke/Fire Spontaneous Maintenance Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

Results of the Great UTHSC-H Nuisance Fire Alarm Challenge 10 9 Number of Alarms 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Contractor Smoke/Fire Spontaneous Maintenance Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Jul Aug Results of the Great UTHSC-H Nuisance Fire Alarm Challenge 10 Maintenance Spontaneous Smoke/Fire Contractor 9 Number of Alarms 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Jun Jul Aug Results of the Great UTHSC-H Nuisance Fire Alarm Challenge (FY04) 10 9 Number of Alarms 8 Caused by UTHSCH Facilities work Caused by detector malfunction or dust accumulation Caused by actual smoke or fire Caused by outside contractor work 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Fiscal Year 04

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Results of the Great UTHSC-H Nuisance Fire Alarm Challenge 8 Number of Alarms 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Spontaneous Maintenanc e Aug Smoke/Fire J ul J un May Apr Mar Feb

J an Dec Nov Oc t Sept C ontrac tor Employee Workers Comp Experience Modifier compared to other UT health components, FY 98-FY 04 1 Rate of "1" industry average, representing $1 premium per $100 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 98 99 UT-Tyler 2000 UTMB 2001 2002 2003 2004 UT-SA MDA UT-H

UT-SW WCI Premium Adjustment for UTS Health Components (discount premium rating as compared to a baseline of 1) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 UT Health Center Tyler (0.40) UT Medical Branch Galveston (0.38) 0.4 0.3 UT HSC San Antonio (0.27) UT Southwestern Dallas (0.24) 0.2 UT HSC Houston (0.17) UT MD Anderson Cancer Center (0.14) 0.1 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Fiscal year 2004 2005

2006 2007 2008 Losses Personnel Reported Injuries by Population 800 690 694 715 675 623 608 511 600 400 200 0 98 99 Employee 00 01 02 Resident 03

04 Student Number of First Reports of Injury, by Population Type 800 700 600 Total (n = 513) 500 400 300 Employees (n = 284) 200 Residents (n = 140) 100 Students (n = 89) 0 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 Medical School Building Hallway Occlusion (2004)

Penthouse - J ason Bible 7 - J ulie Broussard Feb-04 Apr -04 6 - Selome Ayele May-04 5 - Dit a Geary J un-04 J ul-04 4 - Leon Brown Aug-04 3 - GamalialTorres Sep-04 Oct-04 2 - M atthew Keck Dec-04 1 - J ason LeBlanc J an-05 Feb-05 Ground - Pete Martin ez Basement (under construction) - Pete M artin ez 0 100 200 T otal O c c l uded Feet 300

400 MSB Corridor Blockage in Cumulative Occluded Linear Feet, by Month and Floor (building floor indicated at origin of each line) 2000 7th 1800 Cumulative Occluded linear feet 1600 6th 1400 1200 5th 1000 800 4th 600 3rd 400 2nd 1st 200 0 G Mar Apr May

Jun Jul 2004 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 2005 Mar Important Caveats Although the techniques displayed here are powerful, there are some downsides to this approach Time involved to create assemble data and create nonstandard graphs may not mesh with work demands Relentless tinkering and artistic judgment Suggested sources for regular observations to develop an intuitive feel for the process Suggested consistent source of good examples: Wall Street Journal Suggested consistent source of not-so-good examples: USA Today char-toons Summary The ability to display data compellingly is the key to desired decision making Always anticipate compared to what?

Maximize the data-to-ink ratio e.g. eliminate the unnecessary Think about what it is youre trying to say Show to others unfamiliar with the topic without speaking does this tell the story were trying to tell? Your Questions at This Point? Now Lets Look at Some Other Examples COLLABORATIVE LABORATORY INSPECTION PROGRAM (CLIP) During October 2005, 80 Principle Investigators for a total of 316 laboratory rooms were inspected A total of 30 CLIP inspections were performed PI Inspections: Total PIs #Without Lab Violations # With Lab Violations %Without Lab Violations %With Lab Violations May 2005 94 53 41 56.38 43.62 June 2005

78 40 38 51.28 48.72 July 2005 84 54 30 64.29 35.71 August 2005 74 54 20 72.97 27.03 September 2005 69 39 30 56.52

43.48 October 2005 80 50 30 62.50 37.50 Comprehensive Laboratory Inspection Program (CLIP) Activities and Outcomes, 2005 Month in Year 2005 Number of Principle Investigators Inspected Inspections Without Violations Inspections With Violations May 94 53 (56 %) 41 (44%) June 78 40 (51%) 38 (49%)

July 84 54 (64%) 30 (36%) August 74 54 (73%) 20 (27%) September 69 39 (56%) 30 (44%) October 80 50 (62%) 30 (38%) 2005 Collaborative Laboratory Inspection Program (CLIP) Inspection Activities and Compliance Findings No. of Principal Invesitgator Inspections 100 90 80 70 60

Number without violations 50 40 30 Number with violations 20 10 0 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Months within Calendar Year 2005 Nov Dec 2005 Collaborative Laboratory Inspection Program (CLIP) Inspection Activities and Compliance Findings No. of Principal Invesitgator Inspections 100 90 80 70 60 Number without violations 50 40

30 Number with violations 20 10 0 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Months within Calendar Year 2005 Nov Dec Figure 3. Receipt of Radioactive Material Number of Receipts 6000 5000 4000 Non-Medical Medical Total 3000 2000 1000 0 FY00 FY01

FY02 FY03 FY04 Fig. 3. Receipts of Radioactive Materials 6,000 Number of receipts 5,000 4,000 Number of non-medical use radioactive material receipts 3,000 2,000 Number of medical use radioactive material receipts 1,000 0 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 Fiscal Year FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 Fig. 3. Receipts of Radioactive Materials 6,000 Number of receipts

5,000 4,000 Number of non-medical use radioactive material receipts 3,000 2,000 Number of medical use radioactive material receipts 1,000 0 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 Fiscal Year FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 OSHA LAB STANDARD & EPA COMPLIANCE 350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50

25 0 2004 labs audited 2005 Total # of labs # in compliance Results of University EH&S Lab Inspection Program, 2003 to 2005 Number of labs existing but not inspected 350 300 Number of labs inspected and one or more violation detected Number of Labs 250 200 Number of labs inspected and no violations detected 150 100 Note: 33 labs added to campus in 2005, increasing total from 269 to 302. 50 0 2003 2004 2005

Calendar Year 2006 2007 Cost of Claim Average Cost of Workers Compensation Claims By Cause Period FY01 - FY06 $45,000.00 $40,000.00 $35,000.00 $30,000.00 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 Avg/Claim # ... g in . n. .. . e. /.. t n a d o lu si pe

c n e r ll e in ll o fa xt fa t t( g e r c r r in o e o ue dl ve d/ bj d/ d n o n o n / a a a g s

/h se p n p i i s i g u r k r e /t in /tr tri ve l ln ip ift ip I l S l L O S S .. s. t ou ... id s in t c

je ob Type of Claim Average Cost of Workers Compensation Claims, by Cause, for Period FY01 - FY06 $45,000 $40,000 Slips, trips, falls inside $35,000 Cumulative trauma $30,000 Overextension, twisting $25,000 Slips, trips, falls outside $20,000 Lifting/handling $15,000 Uncontrolled object $10,000 $5,000 $0 Average cost from total of 3 events Average cost from total of 10

events Average cost from total of 4 events Average cost from total of 3 events Average cost from total of 4 events Average cost from total of 4 events 2005 Workers' Compensation by Injury Type 30 Burn/Scald Number of Cases 25 Caught In Cut, Puncture, Scrape 20 Fall, Slip, Trip MVA 15 Strain Strike Against

10 Struck By Rub/Abraded 5 Misc. 0 Month 2005 Total Number of Monthly Workers Compensation Claims inclusive of the three most frequent identifiable classes of injuries 80 Number of events 70 60 50 Total 40 30 20 Fall Strain Cut, Puncture 10 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Jul Year Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Building Related Programs 500 400 Percent Growth 300 Fire Ext. Systems Fire Extinguishers Fire Related Incidents Asbestos Projects 200 100 0 1986 1996 1998 2003 -100 Years

Fire Extinguisher Systems Fire Extinguishers Fire Related Incidents Asbestos Projects 1986 0 0 0 0 1996 203 19 91 55 1998 208 25 15 68 2003

437 46 -18 191 Growth in Occupational Safety Responsibilities 1986 to 2003 Required Portable Fire Extinguishers 250 4,000 200 3,000 Number Number Building Fire Systems to be Serviced 150 100 50 0 2,000 1,000 0 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Years Years Asbestos Projects

Fire Related incidents 1500 60 Number 40 20 0 1000 500 Years 20 04 20 02 20 00 19 98 19 96 19 94 19 92 19 90 Years 19 88

0 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 19 86 Number 80 UCR EH&S Staff, Extramural Research Funding and Grant Awards 900 180 $166 816 800 800 160 Number of Awards $143 735 Grants in Millions $ 710 EHS Career Staff 140 610 583 600 120

559 529 498 500 $106 523 484 100 457 $82 $87 418 400 80 $65 $58 300 60 $51 200 $33 $23 $39 $43

$45 40 $28 $26 18.5 100 $36 $40 $45 19 19 20 19 19 18.5 15 17 15 18 20 22 Campus Sq. Footage & EHS Staffing

60.00 70,000 60,000 50,000 72,964 GSF in Tens of Thousands 50.00 40.00 55,200 30.00 40,000 30,000 29,700 17 20 10.00 1990 2005 2010 Fiscal Year 2008 2007 2006 2005

2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 0 1991 0 Fiscal Year EH&S Staffing Trends 60 25 20,000 EHS Staffing & Student Growth 55 20,140

20 50 15,000 45 15,666 EHS Staff 40 35 10,000 30 Career FTE All Students 15 10 25 8,006 5,000 20 5 15 0 - 10

1990 2005 Fiscal Year 2010 20.00 20.5 20,000 1990 Number of Grant Awards 619 $123 EHS Staff; Extramural Awards-Million $ 622 EHS FTE 700 EHS Staff Budget Augments Budget Cuts Fiscal Year UCR Campus Growth Indicators Compared to EH&S Staffing Campus Gross Square Footage Student Population Numbers of Students Square Footage

80,000,000 60,000,000 40,000,000 20,000,000 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2010 1990 1995 Years 2005 2010 Years Extramural Research Funding EH&S Staffing 25 Number of Staff 100,000,000 80,000,000 Dollars

2000 60,000,000 40,000,000 20,000,000 0 20 15 10 5 0 1990 1995 2000 Years 2005 2010 1990 1995 2000 Years 2005 2010 Journal of Environmental Health, September 2006, page 49 Quat-Safe and Cotton Food Service Towel Quanternary Ammonium Chloride Solution Concentration Compared Over Time* Quat-Safe Solutions

Cotton Towel Solutions 400 350 300 250 200 FDA Std 150 100 50 0 ppm Quanternary Ammonium Chloride ppm Quanternary Ammonium Chloride 400 350 300 250 200 FDA Std 150 100 50 0 0 15 30 45 60

75 0 Time in minutes *Towels removed and rinsed at each interval 15 30 45 Time in minutes 60 75 Offshore Benzene Time Sample Taken (Hours) Example of oil spill worker benzene exposure monitoring data posted on OSHA website by BP industrial hygiene program prior to the availability of any independent OSHA sampling results (June 2010) Sampling Result in ppm 0 0 2 0.25 4

0.3 6 0.4 8 0.1 10 0.002 12 0.3 14 0.2 16 0 18 0.25 20 0.3 22 0.4 24 0.1 26

0.002 28 0.3 30 0.2 32 0 34 0.25 36 0.3 38 0.4 40 0.1 42 0.002 44 0.3 46 0.2 48

0 50 0.25 Gulf Worker Benzene Exposure 1.2 1.1 OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit 1 ppm (maximum exposure 1.0 allowed over 8 hour timeframe) Sam pling Result (ppm ) 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 OSHA Action level 0.5 ppm 0.5 (harmful level requiring protection for workers ) 0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1 0.0 0 10 20

30 40 50 60 70 80 Tim e Sam ple Taken (hours post leak event) Cristina Alvarez Graphic Assignment

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Final Exam Review

    Final Exam Review

    An adequate amount of all 20 amino acids is required to build proteins for growth and to replace the proteins that are turned over. However, only 8 of these (9 in children) cannot be produced by the body and must...
  • Chapter 5 Using Classes and Objects in Media Computing

    Chapter 5 Using Classes and Objects in Media Computing

    Chapter 5Using Classes and Objects in Media Computing. Fundamentals of Java: AP Computer Science Essentials, 4th Edition. ... Write a nested loop to visit positions in a two-dimensional grid of data values. ... The third statement runs the draw method...
  • Crossing the Quality Chasm: Opportunities and Pitfalls for ...

    Crossing the Quality Chasm: Opportunities and Pitfalls for ...

    Incorporating Evidence Based Medicine into Disease Management Programs ... From the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine located at the University of Toronto. ... Health, United States, 1999. With Health and Aging Chartbook. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. government Printing Office, 1999 The data...
  • All Hail the Power - Hearts to God

    All Hail the Power - Hearts to God

    Hail Him who saves you by His grace And crown Him Lord of all. Let ev'ry kindred, ev'ry tribe On this terrestrial ball, To Him all majesty ascribe And crown Him Lord of all. To Him all majesty ascribe And...
  • Deaf-Blind Summit 2017 Day One Technical Assistance info@nationaldb.org

    Deaf-Blind Summit 2017 Day One Technical Assistance [email protected]

    The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education #H326T130013. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Teaching Research Institute, nor the US Department of Education, and you should...
  • Project - Oconto Falls Agricultural Education Department

    Project - Oconto Falls Agricultural Education Department

    Complex life cycle. Larval stage is most difficult to culture. ... Most common: oysters and clams in the U.S. and mussels in Europe. Bivalve mollusks have two shells composed of two parts that can be closed to completely enclose the...
  • PSYCHOLOGY (8th Edition) David Myers

    PSYCHOLOGY (8th Edition) David Myers

    Frank Searle, photo Adams/ Corbis-Sygma Dick Ruhl To an East African, the woman sitting is balancing a metal box on her head, while the family is sitting under a tree. Context instilled by culture also alters perception. Is perception innate...
  • Prezentace aplikace PowerPoint - VSB

    Prezentace aplikace PowerPoint - VSB

    Nerostné bohatství ČR - potenciál rozvoje hospodářství Ing. Pavel Bartoš viceprezident HK ČR únor 2008 Současné rozhodující problémy podnikatelského prostředí v ČR dostupná, technicky vzdělaná, kvalifikovaná a práceochotná pracovní síla dostupné suroviny a energie dopravní infrastruktura kvalita životního prostředí, zejména...