Human Resources Management

Introduction/Background

Performance Objective: 1.0

Customer Needs Human Resources management will monitor employee/customer feedback in order to ensure high quality service to its employees.

Performance Criteria: 1.1

The requirements, expectations, and preferences of customers are collected and addressed.

Performance Measure: 1.1.a (Weight: 32%)

Based on the analysis of survey data, the Human Resources Department will establish action plans to improve those areas that do not meet customer expectations.

Discussion:

In order to assess customer needs and satisfaction with the Human Resources Department, we asked all SLAC staff with e-mail access to respond to the following questions:

• How well does Human Resources respond to your needs?
• Are you treated respectfully and professionally by Human Resources staff?
• Rate the overall Human Resources Department performance.

On each one of these three questions responding staff were asked to rate the Department on a 1-5 scale with 1 being outstanding and 5 being unsatisfactory.

In addition, all respondees were asked to give their written comments to the following two questions:

• What works well in the Human Resources Department?
• What would you like to see improved in the Human Resources Department?

These questionnaires were distributed and collected by a non-Human Resources Department staff member who specializes in such matters. He gathered the data, collated it, and presented anonymous numeric results along with the written responses to the questions to Human Resources Department management.

Findings:

Results from our customer satisfaction survey were received from 155 (10.3%) of our population of 1500 SLAC employees.

The quantitative results of this survey are displayed in Table 1. Results indicate that over 86% consider Human Resources’ staff to be doing an outstanding or good job in the performance of their duties. As a point of comparison, the overall average for Human Resources Department performance was 2.2 in 1999; 2.5 in 2000; 2.2 in 2001; 1.9 in 2002; 2.0 in 2003, 1.7 in 2004, and 1.8 this year. According to our customers, we have performed extremely well in providing our services during this past year.

The quantitative data is supplemented by narrative comments made by responding survey participants. In general, the Human Resources’ staff was very positively acknowledged for their responsiveness, knowledge, and caring. All of the service areas received numerous positive comments with Employee Relations and Training, Benefits, and Employment most frequently mentioned.

In summary, SLAC employees perceive the Human Resources Department as performing extremely well. The comments identifying areas for improvement will be evaluated and goals will be set in those areas we think are appropriate.

Table1

Performance Gradient:

• Unsatisfactory - no customer survey data is collected.
• Marginal - survey data is collected, but no action plans are developed to respond in needed areas.
• Good – action plans are developed that are directly responsive to valid customer feedback or overall customer feedback is between 3 and 2.5 on a 5-point scale.
• Excellent – action plans are implemented and measurable progress or action is taken or overall customer feedback is between 2.5 and 2.0.
• Outstanding – improvements are achieved which directly respond to the survey data or overall customer feedback lower than 2.0.

Based on the above gradients Human Resources has earned an "Outstanding" rating in customer satisfaction, since our overall customer survey results are less than 2.

Performance Objective: 2.0 - HR Systems and Processes (Weight 34%)

The Laboratory strives to provide efficient HR systems and processes.

Performance Criteria: 2.1

Human Resource systems and processes will optimize the delivery of services with respect to quality and efficiency.

Performance Assumptions:

The system or process reviewed will be characterized in one of three ways: (1) it currently provides optimal quality and efficiency, (2) it needs improvement and project will be initiated or (3) it needs improvement but it is considered not cost-beneficial to initiate a project. The Laboratory will identify the status of the system when first reviewed, will report baseline data at that time, and will report the results of either the improvement or the decision to leave the system as is.

Performance Measure: 2.1.a

The laboratory will evaluate HR systems and processes for improvements.

Discussion:

The Human Resources system selected for review during this self assessment period was the processes, policies, and procedures involved in returning injured employees to the workplace.

Background

In 2003/2004, SLAC experienced an increase in recordable injuries cases and in the number of lost, restricted, or transferred work days (DART) experienced by our injured workers. At the time, SLAC had one of the highest DART rates in the DOE Science Laboratory complex. SLAC Human Resources was asked to evaluate ways to reduce the number of DART days.

The Post Accident Working Group was formed in early April, 2004, chaired by Lee Lyon, with the charge to recommend actions that would reduce the number DART days experienced by our employees who are injured on the job.

The working group met weekly (with a few exceptions) from April, 2004 through August, 2004. At its meetings, the group heard feedback from sub-groups, had presentations by various visitors, had frequent discussions on a variety of related topics, brainstormed causes and possible recommendations, and agreed upon next steps.

Based on the information that the Post Accident Working Group gathered and reviewed, we concluded that there is no “smoking gun” contributor to the high DART day rate at SLAC. In the big picture, it is obvious that the greatest impact on reduced DART days would be fewer accidents. We believe that the next biggest impact on DART day reduction will come via the medical providers who are involved in the care of our injured employees. We expect to realize some of this impact through changes in the workers’ compensation law which took effect in January 2005 and through improved communication with the medical community.

It was also clear that SLAC’s return-to-work (RTW) program was not reflective of best practice RTW programs. For that reason, we recommended significant changes to our RTW program. We believed that over time the RTW program will have an impact on the attitudes of all people involved in the workers’ compensation system including employees, their supervisors, and the medical providers. We were convinced that returning employees to work sooner rather than later is the right thing to do for both the employee and for the laboratory.

We anticipated that the implementation of the working group’s recommendations would reduce the number of lost days immediately and would eventually lead to a reduction in the overall DART rate at SLAC by setting a tone that returning to work is valued and expected.

Recommendations

The following summarizes the recommendations that were presented to and accepted by SLAC Senior Management (See Appendix B for complete details):

• Mandate a more robust Return-to-Work program that requires the accommodation of all medical restrictions with value added work to the mission of the laboratory. This includes the creation of transitional positions which an injured worker could fill for a limited period of time.
• The investigation of all accidents by the Division Director along with a meeting with the injured worker and his/her supervisor.
• The creation of a full time Return-to-Work Coordinator Would serve as a liaison between the injured employee, the medical community, and SLAC supervision.
• Develop and make available more user friendly and complete information on the Workers’ Compensation process at SLAC via a more robust website, handouts, and other communication vehicles.
• Maintaining regular communication with the injured employee
• Have the SLAC Occupational Medicine Physician become part of the treatment network for injured SLAC employees.

Results

The SLAC budget for FY 2005 was insufficient to allow expenditure on many of the recommendations. Most importantly, we were unable to fill the Return-to-Work Coordinator position. Many of the recommendations relied on having a person dedicated to the return-to-work tasks. As a result, many of the recommendations have not yet been implemented, but we do anticipate that we will be able to do so during FY 2006.

We have, however, implemented the following recommendations:

• Even without the mandate, nearly all injured employees are being accommodated.
• Divisional management is reviewing every accident in their respective divisions
• The SLAC physician has become part of the treating network for SLAC employees
• Accident statistics are communicated to the SLAC community.
• Employees who willfully disobey safety requirement or practices are subject to discipline. In a general way, the disciplinary actions are communicated to the SLAC staff each quarter.
• Checklists on how to navigate through the Workers’ Compensation process have been developed and given to the injured worker and his/her supervisor.
• There is more frequent communication with the injured worker than previously was the case.

Performance Gradients:

• Unsatisfactory: little or no effort has been demonstrated towards achievement of the performance measure.
• Marginal: some effort is demonstrated, but the results fall short of the expectations for "good" gradient.
• Good: one or two major systems or processes are identified for review, baseline data has been taken, and, if action is initiated, there is measurable progress toward improvement.
• Excellent: if action was initiated, analysis against baseline data for the system or process improvement shows clear improvement or the system is streamlined, enhanced or eliminated or baseline data and the review show the systems meet our expectations.
• Outstanding: in addition to the significant improvements in “excellent”, the completion of the project is ahead of schedule and the expected results are achieved or analysis against baseline data indicates the systems are excellent.

Based on these performance gradients, we rate our performance as "Excellent" on the basis that the needed improvement was identified, some changes were made, and those that were implemented contributed to the desired results: DART days were reduced this fiscal year by 50% from 18 to 9 cases.

Performance Objective: 3.0 - Attraction and Retention of Qualified People (Total Weight = 34%)

SLAC will attract and retain highly qualified employees, especially PhD level scientific staff and faculty, by offering competitive salaries and by maintaining a work environment which minimizes undesirable turnover.

Performance Criteria: 3.1 - In Hire Compensation

For the best identified candidate for each posted position, SLAC will offer total compensation competitive in the local market and consistent with internal equity.

Performance Measure 3.1.a: - (Weight: 14 %)

SLAC will offer an in-hire total compensation package sufficient to assure a positive offer acceptance rate for posted positions.

Discussion and Results:

SLAC Staffing Services made offers during FY 2005 to 104 applicants for positions at SLAC. Of those 104 offers, 5 were declined – 2 for compensation reasons. The others declined for various other reasons. The data indicate, therefore, that our offers were accepted 95% of the time overall and that only 2% were declined for compensation reasons. We can conclude that SLAC and Staffing Services were successful in making offers that candidates found attractive.

Performance Gradient:

• Unsatisfactory: Offers to candidates are accepted less than 50% of the time due to an insufficient compensation package.
• Marginal: Offers to candidates are accepted at least 65%of the time.
• Good: Offers to candidates are accepted at least 75% of the time.
• Excellent: Offers to candidates are accepted at least 85% of the time.Outstanding: Offers to candidates are accepted at least 90% of the time.

Based on the above performance gradients, SLAC has earned an "Outstanding" rating on this measure.

Performance Criteria: 3.2a - Attraction and Retention of Staff

SLAC turnover, defined as the departure of any benefits eligible employee from SLAC for any reason, will be compared to the annual turnover for all of the remainder of Stanford University.

Performance Measure: (Weight: 10%)

The SLAC work and work environment will be sufficiently attractive that total turnover at SLAC will be less than the total turnover on the Stanford University campus.

Findings:

The annual turnover rate for Stanford University, excluding SLAC, for FY 2004-2005 was 1354 terminations from an average population of 8,518 for a turnover rate of 15.9%. During this same time period, the overall turnover rate for SLAC was 12.0%. This number included 65 budget-driven layoffs; excluding the layoffs, the turnover rate was 7.6%.

Discussion:

The SLAC turnover rate (including layoffs) for this fiscal year was lower than that of the main Stanford campus by 24.5%. We attribute this difference to the combination of the intrinsic nature of the work we perform at SLAC and to the work environment that exists here at the laboratory.

Performance Gradient:

• Unsatisfactory – SLAC turnover rate is higher than Stanford University.
• Needs Improvement – SLAC turnover rate is lower than Stanford University by less than 5%.
• Good – SLAC turnover rate is lower than Stanford University by between 6% and 14%.
• Excellent – SLAC turnover rate is lower than Stanford University by between 15% and 24%.
• Outstanding – SLAC turnover rate is lower than Stanford University by more than 25%.

Based on the gradients above, we have earned an "Outstanding" on this performance measure.

Performance Criteria: 3.2b - Attraction and Retention of Staff

SLAC will provide a work and scientific environment that will facilitate the retention of PhD -level scientific staff and faculty at the Laboratory.

Performance Measure: (Weight: 10%)

The annual turnover rate, excluding voluntary retirements, for PhD physicists and engineers will be lower than 8%.

Findings:

The annual turnover rate for SLAC PhD physicists and engineers for fiscal year 2005 was 10.6% including involuntary layoffs. It was 9.8% excluding layoffs.

Discussion:

The turnover rate of 10.6% for SLAC PhD physicists and engineers is significantly higher than last year’s 4.2% rate. We believe this increase is due to a combination of factors: layoffs at the lab; an improving local economy; and the lengthy scientific downtime we experienced while recovering from the October, 2004 accident.

Performance Gradient:

• Unsatisfactory – Turnover rate higher than 20%
• Needs Improvement – Rate between 15% and 19%
• Good – Rate between 10% and 14%
• Excellent – Rate between 5% and 9%
• Outstanding - Rate below 5%

Based on the above gradients, SLAC Human Resources has earned only "Good" in this category.

2005 Customer Satisfaction Action Plan Results:

Even though we achieved outstanding feedback from our customers last year, we established three customer related goals;

• Benefits will develop and implement a plan to make more benefit information available to our staff.

Results: The Benefits service area did the following to make more information available to our staff. Through the Stanford University website (which is the major source of Benefits information for SLAC staff), the information was updated and made more robust. In addition, we have offered a larger number of “Choices Workshops” which allow attending employees to explore different scenarios in the event that they are considering retirement and allow them to explore different options for the investment of their retirement dollars. In addition, the Benefits Assistant developed informational handouts and organized packets on disability, family and maternity leaves which have been very helpful to staff confronted with those events.

• The Staffing Services area will establish the goal to upgrade their website during this next assessment period.

  Results: The Staffing Services area has worked on their website during this assessment period, making changes for accuracy and currency and adding links to forms and instructions. They are working on completing the "Hiring Toolkit" for the Employment Services web page which will be ready to roll-out with the entire HR-wide website upgrades in 2006.

• Our final customer service goal for the next year is based on feedback in our survey that our process for terminating employees needs improvement. The goal is to clarify expectations concerning the termination process and to revise the procedures so that everyone involved is aware of his/her role and that all stakeholders in the termination process have their needs met.

  Results: Many changes were made to improve and clarify the information and instructions sent to terminating employees and their supervisors. The automatic email initiated by the Personnel Records Department was completely reorganized to give clear instruction, and numerous URLs were added so that both the employee and supervisor could link to areas important during a termination. (See Appendix C) We also revised the form that the employee completes upon termination that verifies the return of property, keys, badges and other items. On this form, the items were reorganized so that they were presented in a more rational way, and the instructions were significantly improved. Based on these improvements, the property control and library staffs are much more satisfied that they are getting complete information and items are being returned prior to an employee’s termination. In addition, the process was improved so that those employees with authority to input purchase requisitions had their access cut off in a timely manner.

2006 Customer Service Action Plan

Even though the departments overall customer satisfaction was very high, in the spirit of continuous improvement, we plan during this next assessment period to address two issues that were identified as needing improvement:

• We will evaluate the training registration and reimbursement process and make changes as appropriate, and
• We will attempt to increase our person-to-person availability to our customers and reduce the number of calls that go to voicemail.

Overall Summary:

In this assessment period, Human Resources has an overall "Excellent" rating. Although we earned "Outstanding" ratings in 3 of the 5 measures, we also earned only a "Good" on the turnover of PhD physicists and engineers. Nonetheless, we are pleased with the overall results, especially those three areas of continued "Outstanding" ratings.

Appendix A

Appendix B

Report: Post Accident Working Group

Background:

In the past two years, SLAC has experienced an increase in recordable injuries cases and in the number of lost, restricted, or transferred work days (DART) experienced by our injured workers. SLAC has one of the highest DART rates in the DOE Science Laboratory complex (See Appendix A). The SLAC Directorate is determined to improve those rates.

The Post Accident Working Group was formed in early April, 2004 with the charge to recommend actions that will reduce the number DART days experienced by our employees who are injured on the job.

The working group consisted of the following members:

• Linda Ahlf: HR, staffing support
• Ian Evans: SSRL Safety Officer
• Karen Fant: Department Head, MFD
• Dr. Maria Gherman: SLAC Medical Department
• Erwin Granados: Zurich Insurance company
• Jack Hahn: Department Head, Safety and Health Assurance
• Sharon Haynes: HR, Workers’ compensation Administrator
• Barbara Hazlett: Department Head, Stanford University Risk Management (has since left the University)
• Carmella Huser: Manager SLAC Employee Relations
• Lee Lyon: Department Head, Human Resources and Working Group Chair
• John Turek: Safety Engineer (has since left SLAC)

The working group met weekly (with a few exceptions) from April, 2004 through August, 2004. At its meetings, the group heard feedback from sub-groups, had presentations by various visitors, had frequent discussions on a variety of related topics, brainstormed causes and possible recommendations, and agreed upon next steps.

Executive Summary:

Based on the information that the Post Accident Working Group gathered and reviewed, we have concluded that there is no "smoking gun" contributor to the high DART day rate at SLAC. In the big picture, it is obvious that the greatest impact on reduced DART days would be fewer accidents. We believe that the next biggest impact on DART day reduction will come via the medical providers who are involved in the care of our injured employees. We will be able to realize some of this impact through changes in the workers’ compensation law and through improved communication with the medical community.

It is also clear that SLAC’s current return-to-work (RTW) program is not reflective of best practice RTW programs. For that reason, we are recommending significant changes to our RTW program. We believe in time the RTW program can have an impact on the attitudes of all people involved in the workers’ compensation system including employees, their supervisors, and the medical providers. We are convinced that returning employees to work sooner rather than later is the right thing to do for both the employee and for the laboratory.

We are also concerned that SLAC’s relative relationship to other laboratories in its overall DART rate is skewed by reporting discrepancies/inconsistencies throughout the DOE complex and within the science laboratories. We will address this subject at a November DOE meeting.

We anticipate the implementation of our recommendations will reduce the number of lost days now and will eventually lead to a reduction in the overall DART rate at SLAC by setting a tone that returning to work is valued and expected.

Recommendations:

Based on the analyses described later in this report, the working group has concluded that the major impact on DART day reduction will come from the medical/physician community with whom we work on workers’ compensation injuries. Since the DART rate statistic considers lost, restricted and transferred work days as equally weighted, we think major impact on the DART days must come almost entirely through accident reduction. On the other hand, there are many best practices in the workers’ compensation arena—especially in Return-to-work Programs (RTW), that we strongly recommend SLAC implement. We are convinced that these best practices are the right and wise thing to do; additionally, we believe they will contribute to a culture in which employees want and expect to return to work as soon as possible after an injury and one in which supervisors will welcome employees back to work even though they may have medical restrictions that prevent them from performing their full, normal job duties.

The RTW program recommendation incorporates the major solutions identified by the working group. The others are separate from the RTW and are discussed separately below, including those implemented in conjunction with the medical community; those involving improved and enhanced communications; and those that we have characterized as "general" in nature.

Return to Work Program:

The working group views the implementation of a more robust RTW program as the cornerstone of an effort to reduce DART days and, over time, to inculcate a culture at SLAC that will endorse the early return to the job. Below, we have briefly outlined the general components of a RTW program that we believe will accomplish these goals. Our recommendations are based on input from our review of the literature, from the input from Zurich Insurance RTW experts, and from the observations/data obtained from our focus groups. The RTW will probably not have an immediate impact on DART reduction (although it will almost certainly reduce the number of lost work days), but will, in the working group’s view, represent best practices in RTW and will eventually show DART reductions as the laboratory demonstrates to its injured workers that we care about them and want them back as quickly as possible.

• The Program will contain the following components:
  • A full time Return-to-work Coordinator with the following general duties:
    • Initiating and maintaining continuous communication with the injured employee while off work
    • Monitoring an injured employee’s progress and work assignments following return to work with restrictions
    • Maintaining regular and accurate communications between medical, the employee, and the supervisor
      • Encouraging the supervisor to call the employee to convey his/her concern with the employee’s health and our interest in having the employee return to work as soon as possible.
      • Providing tools to supervisors and/or managers that will assist them in discussing the injury with the employee when he/she returns to work
    • Serving as a liaison between SLAC management, Zurich claims personnel and SLAC medical personnel
    • Providing education, advice and information to all involved in the workers’ compensation process
      • Checklists for injured employees, supervisors of injured employees, and the doctors of injured employees outlining each of their role in our program and the steps each should take during the process, including that employees might be subject to surveillance if warranted
    • Monitoring and communicating work injury statistics and other information
    • Oversee SLAC’s Workers’ compensation website content
    • Overseeing and administering the program to insure that all required paperwork is on-time, complete, and appropriate
      • Monitoring for possible fraud when suspected
  • A general policy requiring SLAC management to find value-added work for all injured employees with restrictions
    • Exceptions will rarely be allowed and will require sign off from both the HR Director and the Division AD
    • The lab will create—with Compensation and Employee Relations staff working with the divisions, a set of "light duty" positions to which returning employees with restrictions can be assigned for a limited period of time.
      • This time will probably be 60 days with one renewal period based on the case-specific facts
      • Funding for these positions will be centrally located in Human Resources
    • A retraining process for employees with injuries that will benefit from such a program
      • The employee, the employee’s direct supervisor, and a safety engineer from ES &H will meet upon the employee’s return to discuss retraining
        • When appropriate, this could incorporate a gradual transition to the employee’s regular work duties
        • Employees who repeatedly injure themselves would have training with an emphasis on the safety practices that must be followed to avoid future reoccurrences
    • For all DART cases and all frequently injured employees, a process will be implemented in which divisional management will review the accident and future preventative actions with the returning employee and his/her supervisor
      • During that meeting with the supervisor, the Associate Director will inquire what actions he/she is going to incorporate into the work place in general, and this employee’s job in particular, to prevent any reoccurrence.
      • During this same meeting, the employee would be asked what actions he/she is going to take to prevent future accidents as well.
• Medical Community: These suggestions all involved SLAC staff working more closely with the medical community that handles our workers’ compensation claims. Much of the communication with the medical community will be the responsibility of the SLAC RTW Coordinator recommended in the RTW proposal later in this report and the SLAC Medical Department. We propose the following in this area:
  • Through our medical department and through Zurich Insurance, encourage the medical practitioners to more quickly refer patients to specialists in what appear to be chronic cases so that serious injuries can be diagnosed more quickly and the employee, therefore, returned to work more quickly. Much of the medical practice in this area is governed by law, so this may be more difficult to implement than we would like.
  • We see great value in having the SLAC physician become the treating physician of record so that she can exercise greater control over the treatment by specialists. The newly enacted Workers’ compensation Reform Law in California requires employers to establish networks of physicians beginning January 1, 2005. Zurich Insurance will provide this network for Stanford/SLAC. Dr. Gherman has become a member of that treating physician network.
  • Establish better working relationships with other medical practitioners that our injured employees may be seeing. This will involve communication by our RTW Coordinator and the SLAC Medical Department, but will be easier after January 1, 2005 when injured employees who have not pre-designated a physician will have to be treated within the physician network for the first 30 days following injury.
• Communication: Again, most of the desirable communication within the Workers’ compensation network will be the responsibility of the RTW Coordinator. Specifically, we recommend the following:
  • That SLAC create a user friendly website that provides all SLAC staff with information regarding Workers’ compensation. This would include all of the procedure/process information, accident statistics, checklists and other communication materials developed for the RTW program.
  • That SLAC routinely communicate accident statistics to all staff through the SLAC Today website and through The Interaction Point newsletter.
  • That regular communication be established and maintained with the injured worker either by his/her supervisor or by the RTW Coordinator.
  • That checklists be provided to the injured employee, the injured employee’s supervisor, and to the treating physicians. These checklists would highlight exactly what each person’s responsibility is in the process and would clearly communicate to the treating physician that SLAC has a RTW program and that we welcome the worker back to the workplace even though there may be restrictions.
• General: This section highlights those recommendations not included elsewhere in the report.
  • Treat safety violations as a performance problem. Supervisors should regularly observe their staff and be certain that they are following prescribed safety guidelines applicable to whatever work they are doing; if they are not exhibiting safe practices, corrective action should be taken.
  • Explore the implementation of recognition programs for groups that remain injury/DART days free for a certain period of time. The recognition should be relatively modest so that groups are not rewarded for failure to report accidents. Possible recognition activities might include lunch with the Associate Director, a plaque or trophy for display, or tee shirts commemorating the accomplishment.
  • Formally bring up the reporting inconsistencies at the DOE-wide meeting on accident reporting to be held this November. SLAC will send a formal letter requesting clarification on some of the reporting anomalies we have become aware of.

Sources of Information and Analysis:

The working group used numerous sources of information both to inform itself and to identify best practices. Included in these sources are the following:

• A literature search of some current practices in Workers’ compensation. (See Appendix B for details)
• A review of the Final Report of Workers’ Compensation Improvement Team, Jack Hahn, Chair, September 1997.(See Appendix C) Articles supplied by Zurich Insurance (our Workers’ compensation Administrator).
• Review of Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory policies regarding leaves, worker’s compensation, and return-to-work programs, including a presentation on LBL practices and programs to the working group by an LBL Safety Engineer.
• Discussions with the Lawrence Livermore Employee Relations Manager regarding their relevant policies and practices.
• A presentation by Darcy Johnson, a consultant with Marsh, on the impact of the newly passed State of California Workers’ compensation Reform Law.
• A detailed work-flow analysis of our current Workers’ compensation process. (See Appendix D.)
• A review of the current SLAC Return-to-work program.
• SLAC accident statistics over the past several years, supplied by SHA.
• A review of the specifics of our most recent severe DART cases.
• A focus group was conducted with SLAC’s previous or current injured employees along with supervisors who have gone through the Workers’ compensation process at SLAC.
• A study of two SLAC departments (EFD and SEM) by the Zurich Insurance return-to-work specialists which resulted in several findings and recommendations.
• A conversation with the head of the Nurse Case Manager’s program at the University of Michigan.

Summary of Issues Reviewed:

• Potential Causes: Based on some of the information above and the collective knowledge of the working group, we postulated numerous factors that might contribute to the high SLAC DART rate.
• Pre-designated Physicians: We thought that employees with pre-designated physicians, i.e. their own doctor, might record greater lost work days than those who are treated by a SLAC/Stanford doctor. Our analysis of the data indicated that only two of our 19 over-100 DART day cases involved pre-designated physicians. This suggests that this is not a significant contributing factor to our high DART rate. Age: We also speculated that the rate and seriousness of the injuries might be related to age. Once again, using our over-100 DART day cases as the information source, we found that the average age of the workers was 53 as opposed to the overall SLAC average of 49 years. This is not a significant difference. Similarly, we also eliminated length of service as a factor since the length of service of our over-100 DART day employees was 10 years as compared to the SLAC average of 8 years.
• Missed Appointments: We also speculated that the number of lost work days could be extended by those injured employees who miss their scheduled doctor appointments. We discovered that over the past 2.5 years, there have been 4 injured employees who missed 5 appointments. In four of these instances the total lost days between the missed appointment and the re-scheduled appointment was 16 days. In the fifth instance, the additional time was 82 days. This person did not know that his/her doctor had written restrictions, was feeling fine, and did not see a need for a follow up appointment. We are working with the person to obtain a release back to the earlier date so we can deduct these days from our statistics. In general, however, missed appointments do not appear to be a major source of our lost/restricted days.
• Leave Policies: Stanford/SLAC also have relatively liberal leave policies and practices. The group thought this fact might encourage employees to stay off work longer than necessary simply because they could do so without penalty. A review, however, of the leave policies of both Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (both of whom are ranked quite a bit better than SLAC in DART days measures) revealed that their leave policies were, in fact, more liberal than ours. All three labs have similar practices with regard to when an injured employee is terminated from employment. We concluded that leave policies per se were probably not a contributor to our high DART days.
• Initial Medical Diagnosis: In looking at the specifics of some of our most serious DART cases, we did discover instances where the medical practitioners were very conservative in their treatment. We discovered in a few of our long term cases in which the injury was to “soft” tissue that the medical practice was to delay any diagnostic tests (e.g. MRI, etc.) until several weeks had passed to see if the patient improved. When improvement did not occur, then the more specific (and expensive) tests were done and revealed a more serious injury which needed specific treatment. If these tests were conducted sooner, many lost days would be gained.

Accident Data: A review of the last 4 years of SLAC accident data did not reveal any information that was particularly valuable in our deliberations. However, such an analysis will no doubt be valuable and pertinent to the working group charged with accident prevention. See Appendix E.

Impact of Possible Actions on Past DART Cases: A subgroup evaluated the 14 most severe DART cases over the past 4 years and postulated the probable impact several of the possible remedies would have had on those cases. This analysis indicated that in order of impact, the following actions would have had the most impact:

• Have the SLAC doctor in the role of treating physician when possible
• Implement a transitional Return-to-work program in which an evaluation is done of each employee’s job duties and then a transitional approach to work is proposed to prevent a reoccurrence. We would do this even in some cases when the employee has been returned to work without medical restrictions as a precaution against a repeat injury.
• Work with Zurich to streamline their procedures as much as possible.
• Develop a set of “light duty” positions to which we could return employees with restrictions on a temporary basis.
• Mandate a Return-to-work program for all employees with medical restrictions
• Improve overall post-accident communication to prevent future occurrences
• Establish our own network of physicians

Reporting: Conversations with staff in other laboratories has lead the working group to conclude that there are reporting inconsistencies between the DOE laboratories at best and misleading reporting at some of the laboratories at worst. For example, one laboratory noticed that 5 of their accidents were missing from the monthly incident report provided by DOE. They reported this to DOE, and the staff responsible for the reporting did not think it was important enough to change the report, so the statistics were skewed by under-reporting of accidents at that site. In another laboratory, we were told that if an injury occurred affecting the same body part that had previously been injured on the job, then that incident would be considered a re-injury and was therefore not reportable. We do not know how widespread or common such under-reporting is, but certainly there is some level of these anomalies that impact SLAC’s relative placement in the accident reporting statistics.

Conclusion:

Based on the information that the Post Accident Working Group gathered and reviewed, we have concluded that there is no "smoking gun" contributor to the high DART day rate at SLAC. In the big picture, it is obvious that the greatest impact on reduced DART days would be fewer accidents. We believe that the next biggest impact on DART day reduction will come via the medical providers who are involved in the care of our injured employees. We will be able to realize some of this impact through changes in the Workers’ compensation Law and through improved communication with the medical community.

It is also clear that SLAC’s current return-to-work (RTW) program is not reflective of best practice RTW programs. For that reason, we are recommending significant changes to our RTW program, which are working group believes will eventually impact the return to work culture at SLAC.

Appendix C

List of Literature Reviewed

1. Modeling Return-to-work Intervention Strategies: A Method to Help Target Interventions by Catelijne Joling, Peter P.M> Janssen, and Wim Groot, Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, V 14, no.1, March 2004
2. Early Returns by An Brunelle and Renee Mattaliano, B and C Solutions, April 2004
3. Come Back: Myths and Facts about Why Employees Don’t Return to Work, by Kenneth Mitchell, B and C Solutions April 2004
4. Disability Management Pays Off by Mary Ann Fitzpatrick and Phyllis M. King American Society of Safety Engineers, January 2001
5. Why Can’t We Solve the Soft Tissue Injury Dilemma? By Donal J Eckenfelder, Professional Safety, July 2000
6. Safety and the Solver Collar Worker by Michael E. Findley and James O. Bennett, Professional Safety, May 2002
7. Developing A Return to Work Program: A Resource for Employers by the Texas Workers Compensation Commission, Medical Review Division, 2003
8. Understanding Workers’ Compensation by Cathy Hwang and Brian H Kleiner, Management Research News, Patrington: 2002, V 25; page 65
9. How to Reduce your Workers’ Compensation Costs by Sunit Dutta and Brian H Kleiner, Management Research News, Patrington: 2000, V 23, page 74
10. Employee Involvement as a Prerequisite to Reduce Workers’ Compensation Costs: A Case Study by Sonny S Ariss, Review of Business, Jamaica, Spring 2002, V 23, page 12
11. World-Class Strategies for Safety: A Boeing Approach by A. Ansari and Batoul Modarress, International Journal Of Operations & Production Management, Bradford, 1997, V 17, Page 389
12. Medical Cost Containment under Workers’ Compensation by Silvana Pozzebon, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Ithaca: October 1994, V 48, page 153
13. Claiming Behavior in Workers’ Compensation by Jeff Biddle and Kren Roberts, Journal of Risk and Insurance, Malvern: December 2003, V 70, page 759
14. Do High Cliam-Denial Rates Discourage Claiming? Evidence from Workers’ Compensation Insurance by Jeff Biddle, Journal of Risk and Insurance, Malvern: December 2001, V 68, Page 631
15. Workers’ Compensation Recipiency in Union and Nonunion Workplaces by Barry T Hirsch, David A. Macpherson, and Michael J. Dumand, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Ithaca: January 1997, V 50, Page 213
16. Does Workers’ Compensation Encourage Hard to Diagnose Injuries? By John W. Ruser, Journal of Risk and Insurance, Mt. Vernon: March 1998, V 65, Page 101
17. First Steps to Fight Workers’ Compensation Fraud by Richard A Derrig and Laura K Krauss, Journal of Insurance Regulation, Kansas City: Spring 1994, V 12, page 390
18. Workers’ Compensation Fraud in Construction by Richard J. Coble and Bradford L. Sims, Transactions of AACE International, Morgantown: 1996, page CC61
19. Some Legal and Managerial Strategies for Managing Health Care Fraud by Robert J Paul and James B Townsend, Health Marketing Quarterly, New York: 1997, V 13, Page 19

Appendix D