Safety Management Systems at 9 Hong Kong Universities: Safety Management Systems at 9 Hong Kong Universities Martha McDougall, Retiree/EHS Consultant and Nan Austin, Risk Management & Safety, Western Health, Melbourne, Australia July 17, 2006


Project: Project Sponsor – University Grants Committee (UGC), Hong Kong SAR Charge – Review existing health and safety management systems of the 8 tertiary UGC-funded institutions Develop a long term strategy to sustain EHS policies and achievements Consider potential areas of collaboration and sharing of resources


An International Team: An International Team Marty McDougall, San Diego, CA Nan Austin, Melbourne, Australia Professor Marcel Lie, University of Hong Kong Lily Yip, Executive Officer, UHK Des Mabbott, EHS Director, UHK TISAG – Tertiary Institutions Safety Advisory Group


Reason for Program Review Project: Reason for Program Review Project 2 Universities previously reviewed, with identification of some problems Impact of 3-3-4 structure on universities Adequacy of infrastructures, staffing, space Influx of mainland China and international students Desire for Hong Kong to be the “hub” of excellence in research in the Orient


HK Regulatory Framework: HK Regulatory Framework Occupational Health and Safety Regulation - 1998 Dept. of Labor audited the EHS operations of all universities during the years 1998-2000, with minimal follow-up. “Best Practices” – from Australia, UK, U.S., Canada


Process: Process Team Appointments Introductions and Meetings with EHS Directors Development of a Report Format Scheduling Program Profile (Emery’s) Completion 3-Month Review Process – 3-10 days on each campus with a confidential report to the President or Chancellor Meetings with Hospital Authority Final Report to UGC


Format for EHS Program Reviews: Format for EHS Program Reviews EHS Team briefing Vice Chancellor/President/Sr. Mgmt Deans, Department Chairs EHS Committee members Departmental Safety Representatives Peer Dept Managers – e.g. Facilities, Animal Resources, Personnel, Housing, Student Reps Exit Meeting with Sr. Mgmt, EHS Director


Reviewer Ground Rules: Reviewer Ground Rules Remain as objective as possible LISTEN Observe and understand local culture Maintain strict confidentiality – no names Ask general questions and drill down Make no assumptions


HK Tertiary Education Facilities: HK Tertiary Education Facilities City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong Baptist University Lingnan University The Chinese University of Hong Kong The Hong Kong Institute of Education The Hong Kong Polytechnic University The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology The University of Hong Kong


Diversity of Institutions: Diversity of Institutions 3 Large Research-Oriented (12,000-32,000 students) 1 Teacher Education (5,000-6,000) 1 Polytechnic (approx 20,000) 1 Large Commuter (30,000) 1 Small Liberal Arts (1,200) 1 Medium Multiple Disciplinary (10,000) 1 Large Distance Learning (20,000)


Challenges: Challenges Gaining confidence of EHS Directors and Managers Developing one reporting system to address all issues at all universities Maintaining Confidentiality Time Understanding the Role of UGC Identifying Areas of Collaboration Keeping open minds with regards to regulations


Findings: Findings Safety Policy – written policy existed at all campuses with varied level of implementation Safety Resources – EHS staffing varied from 1 – 29; but most campuses departments had safety representatives Responsibilities and Accountabilities – training needed in several instances


Findings, Cont’d: Findings, Cont’d Consultation and Communication – safety committees, DSR networks, languages, web pages Safety Training – varied from none to very structured; limited external safety skills training available


Findings, Cont’d: Findings, Cont’d Safety Procedures – many “best practices” observed: DG Mgmt System, after-hours personal alarm, clearance forms, defined review processes, smart card access to buildings, labs, hostels; significant difference in review of research proposals Contractor Management – good systems in place generally; some campuses spending significant resources monitoring capital projects Safety Performance Targets – only one campus had any performance indicators


Findings, Cont’d: Findings, Cont’d Risk Management – limited awareness with focus on manual handling and display screen equipment (DSE) Inspection, Testing and Corrective Actions – significant procedural variation with campuses focusing on high-risk activities and equipment Incident Reporting – excellent paper-based programs in place, but not tracking “near misses”


Findings, Cont’d: Findings, Cont’d Emergency Preparedness and Response – programs well organized and implemented Injury Management – good on-site programs in place and functioning well Document Control – procedures non existent


Findings, Cont’d: Findings, Cont’d Audit Program – only 3 campuses had good audit programs Reporting of Safety Performance – responsibility devolved to departments without monitoring in most cases; lack of feedback Continuous Improvement– efforts in place at only one campus


Safety Performance Chart: Safety Performance Chart


Collaborations: Collaborations Tertiary Institutions Safety Advisory Group (TISAG) – need more sharing of technical expertise, training, documentation, purchasing, “best practices” Hong Kong Hospital Authority Open University of Hong Kong Specific Technical Expertise Training Benchmarking – internal and external (TEFMA or CSHEMA)


Recommendations - Leadership: Recommendations - Leadership Vice Chancellor or President of each campus to promote importance of safety management system Joint Annual Meeting between Heads of Universities Committee (HUCOM) and TISAG to work on strategic planning for OHS improvements HUCOM to sponsor biennial OHS conference


Recommendations - Funding: Recommendations - Funding Establish a Central Fund (approx $12 million) for OHS Initiatives – to be divided equally between the 8 UGC campuses Establish a Project Fund (approx $36 million) – inviting grant proposals to improve individual campus safety programs


Recommendations - Auditing: Recommendations - Auditing Audit the Safety Management Systems at all universities again during the period January through June 2009


Significant Differences (from U.S. Institutions): Significant Differences (from U.S. Institutions) Cultural Issues Minimal regulations Minimal enforcement inspections Reliance on departmental safety contacts – mostly academics Strong desire to do the right thing


Significant Regional Issues: Significant Regional Issues Support of central government – UGC SARS and avian flu Nanotechnology Chinese medicine Lack of service agents Air quality issues Tri-lingual requirements


Conclusions and Future Issues: Conclusions and Future Issues In all cases, EHS professional and technical staff are technically competent Mature safety management systems existed at all campuses Accountability – both legislated and implied….more training of senior management needed


Conclusions and Future Issues: Conclusions and Future Issues Develop recognition and rewards programs for good performance Collaboration and sharing – more effort needed here Develop performance measures to more fully demonstrate to Senior Management the value of a strong, successful safety management system


Conclusions and Future Issues: Conclusions and Future Issues Develop better communication systems Incorporate an industry-wide risk prioritization tool to better allocate resources Incorporate EHS planning into university strategic plans


Epilogue: Epilogue Appointment of Sr. Administrators to Committee Funding issues being investigated Host periodic campus safety conferences Follow-up program audits Report to HUCOM pending