Kim; I wholeheartedly agree that checklists (we avoid the term of inspections as it implies an outside audit) can only every be one part of the process of developing a good safety culture in any kind of laboratory environment. Education programs, development of workable risk assessment tools, well structured regular safety discussions, case study reviews and crisis sessions (what would we do if....)are some of the others we use. I do contend however that it is in the way that they are applied that decides if they will be "just another metric" or a tool for culture change. If implemented well with support from all levels of administration they become a point of discussion and thought with a high component of training. We have found that we need to tailor the implementation quite differently for a research lab which is constantly looking at novel processes and substances to a small production lab with a high degree of standardised work. The end aim is not just to provide a measure of mandatory compliance, which we achieve through yearly audits around the globe of our 37 laboratories against a comprehensive OH&S manual, but to promote discussion and awareness. It is important to give lab supervisors and managers tools to change awareness and challenge the "I know what I am doing" culture that we see in many laboratories. As such the use of any tool needs to be constantly refreshed and reviewed to achieve these goals with an emphasis towards culture improvement. They also need to become a common component of the training and process of all staff, not just a designated group of safety police. We tend to measure the success of safety programs, including safety checklists, not just by the numbers from checklist and incidents (although these are important tools) but rather from the number of safety suggestions and alerts which are generated from individual sites. So the summary of the monologue above, checklists should be not be dismissed as ineffective (not that anyone has) but just viewed as a useful tool to educate and engage those involved in practical work in laboratories. A subsidiary benefit is they can act as one of the tools for measuring change if used effectively and interactively. As a totally unrelated comment I would like to thank all the contributors to this forum for the valuable information and opinions they provide. They have provided a priceless resource to myself and our facilities around the world and helped make at least all our laboratories that little bit safer. As such I wish everyone a wonderful Christmas and new year with my sincere thanks. Regards Eric Dr Eric Wilkes Global Manager Analytical Services Best Practice and Performance Fosters Group Ltd ph: 03 9420 6594 or int: 61 3 9420 6594 mob: 0408 668 718 or int: 61 408 668 718 Fax: 03 9420 6919 or int: 61 3 9420 6919 -----Original Message----- From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Jeskie, Kimberly B. Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2008 11:43 PM To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: [DCHAS-L] FW: Measuring chemical safety program effectiveness Debbie, I agree with the gentleman who sent the posting on lagging indicators versus leading, and would like to add one thought that we've been trying to reinforce here. Inspections are really good at picking up conditions in the work space (labels, deteriorating containers, housekeeping, etc.). What they aren't good at unless you push the issue, are evaluating behaviors and a person's understanding of chemical safety. We push the topic of having conversations with people (What are you working with? How are you using it? What kind of protective equipment are you using? How did you know that that was the right kind to use? What are the hazards of the materials you work with? Hazards of intermediates? What's the worst thing that could happen in what you are doing? What would you do if it did? What are you doing to make sure it doesn't happen?) These are the types of questions that will tell you whether or not you've gotten into the minds and actions of the people you've trained. It's performance-based. Kim Kimberly Begley Jeskie, MPH-OSHM Operations Manager Physical Sciences Directorate Oak Ridge National Laboratory (865) 574-4945 -----Original Message----- From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Debbie M. Decker Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 4:34 PM To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: [DCHAS-L] Measuring chemical safety program effectiveness Some musings, in advance of my chemical safety committee meeting........ How do I measure if the campus chemical and laboratory safety program is _really_ effective? Lack of exposure incidents? Lack of buildings in low earth orbit? I train a lot of people and we don't appear to have too many exposure incidents and the chemistry building hasn't been launched into low earth orbit - is that an "effective program?" I'm really interested in how ya'll think about this. Thanks! Debbie -------------------- Debbie Decker EH&S UCDavis (530)754-7964 FAX (530)752-4527 dmdecker**At_Symbol_Here**ucdavis.edu Co-Conspirator to Make the World A Better Place -- Visit www.HeroicStories.com and join the conspiracy Birkett's hypothesis: "Any chemical reaction that proceeds smoothly under normal conditions, can proceed violently in the presence of an idiot." *************************************************************************** *********** This email and any attachments may be confidential and legally privileged. Please notify the sender immediately if you received this message in error. Please do not delete or alter this notice. *************************************************************************** ***********
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post