Commentary pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Student Involvement in Improving the Culture of Safety in Academic Laboratories Kathryn A. McGarry,† Katie R. Hurley,† Kelly A. Volp,† Ian M. Hill,‡ Brian A. Merritt,‡ Katie L. Peterson,† P. Alex Rudd,† Nicholas C. Erickson,‡ Lori A. Seiler,§ Pankaj Gupta,§ Frank S. Bates,‡ and William B. Tolman*,† †
Department of Chemistry and ‡Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, United States § Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan 48674, United States S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: An effective way of addressing the need for an improved culture of safety in research-intensive science departments is described, which involves enabling leadership by graduate student and postdoctoral associate laboratory safety officers (LSOs). In partnership with The Dow Chemical Company, LSOs from the Departments of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at the University of Minnesota formed a Joint Safety Team. With helpful input from Dow, the team has played a key role in improving the culture and practice of safety in both departments, providing support for use of this model for inculcating safety as a core value and an integral part of academic life. KEYWORDS: Graduate Education/Research, Safety/Hazards, Collaborative/Cooperative Learning, Laboratory Management, TA Training/Orientation
S
In a unique partnership with The Dow Chemical Company, the Departments of Chemistry (CHEM) and Chemical Engineering and Materials Science (CEMS) at the University of Minnesota (UM), Twin Cities, have addressed these questions through an initiative driven by graduate student and postdoctoral associate laboratory safety officers (LSOs). The leadership exhibited by these students and postdoctoral associates has resulted in enthusiastic adoption of improved safety practices and noticeable improvements in the culture of safety in CHEM and CEMS. We suggest that this model, in contrast to typically espoused ones that focus on “top-down” approaches led by faculty and administrators, is particularly effective and worthy of emulation.
afety deficiencies in academic research laboratories have received significant attention for decades, particularly following laboratory accidents or the introduction of new safety standards.1 Despite much discussion, however, the culture of safety in academia remains poorly developed relative to that in industrial and government laboratory settings, where there is pervasive emphasis on and widespread awareness of safe laboratory practices. Recent accidents underscore the general observation that adherence to best safety practices is insufficient in academic laboratories and that the requisite attitudes, awareness, and ethics about safety issuesthe “culture of safety”are not sufficiently instilled among the faculty and students.2 As noted in a recent ACS report,3 “safety is a positive valueit prevents injuries, saves lives, and improves productivity and outcomes.” For these reasons, improving the culture of safety in academic laboratories is an important goal. A survey of the literature shows that attempts to address concerns about safety practices in academic laboratories have focused primarily on disseminating protocols and procedures and improving regulatory compliance.4 Particular emphasis is placed on leadership by faculty, laboratory directors, and administrators and on proper operations of departmental safety committees.3 These and other specific recommendations for how to implement safety practices have been described in great detail and are certainly laudable. Less discussed is how to positively influence the culture of safety, which is arguably the key to widespread adherence to safety guidelines and rules. How can we ensure that safety is a critical core value among all department citizens? How can we make safety an integral part of academic life rather than a perceived chore driven by fear of liability? © 2013 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
■
THE DOW AND JOINT SAFETY TEAM (JST) INITIATIVE In response to an overture from the Chief Technical Officer at Dow, William Banholzer, in March 2012, the heads of CHEM (W.B.T.) and CEMS (F.S.B.) agreed to a partnership aimed at improving the safety cultures in the two departments. Although the safety standards in these departments have been regulated for years by laboratory safety plans compiled by departmental leaders and members of the Department of Environmental Health and Safety (DEHS), no prior programs existed to positively influence the day-to-day attitudes and values of the community toward safety. Subsequent discussions led to a proposal that the laboratory safety officers from the research groups in CHEM and CEMS organize a “Joint Safety Team” (JST) to lead efforts to assess safety issues, learn best practices from Dow, and propose solutions to be implemented at UM. A Published: October 1, 2013 1414
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400305e | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1414−1417
Journal of Chemical Education
Commentary
designated LSO is mandatory for each laboratory in CHEM and CEMS at UM, and, at the time of this initiative, 51 laboratories in CHEM and CEMS had one or more student or postdoctoral LSOs. This subsection of the community appeared suitable to initiate a grassroots change. A small group of volunteers (seven students) from among the 52 laboratory safety officers accepted the task of organizing initial JST activities and setting priorities for future efforts. Initial emphasis was placed on (a) assessing current practices and attitudes toward safety in CHEM and CEMS and (b) visiting with Dow representatives at UM and at Dow. To evaluate the current safety practices and attitudes in CHEM and CEMS, the seven JST student leaders and Dow collaborators toured a subset of laboratories and distributed a survey5 to students, postdoctoral associates, staff, and faculty. The tours, which were independent of inspections performed by institutional safety committees, revealed diverse levels of researcher compliance and attitudes toward safety. Some research groups maintained up-to-date records, kept laboratories organized, and displayed safe behaviors, but other research groups were less compliant, as illustrated by cluttered laboratories and spotty use of proper protective equipment. The survey revealed gaps in communication about safety between researchers and their organization and a perception that training was mostly focused on “what is required” as opposed to “what is practical and useful”. Surprisingly, only 10% of respondents believed that safety training adequately prepared researchers to coach others and to intervene when others were thought to exhibit unsafe behaviors. A subsequent two-day visit by 12 JST members to the Dow facilities in Midland, MI, combined presentations regarding the safety structure within the company with lab tours to see how safety practices are implemented on a day-to-day basis. The well-organized safety infrastructure, well-regulated laboratories, and heightened awareness of safety during the average workday inspired the JST visitors, giving them a clear picture of a mature safety culture. The visit to Dow also highlighted differences between a large company and an academic institution that are relevant to efforts to improve safety attitudes and behaviors. Examples include a high turnover rate of lab members (students vs employees) and decentralized research (diverse and independent groups vs hierarchically managed programs). These and other differences suggested to JST members that creative solutions would be required to motivate the academic community at UM to attain a safety culture like that at Dow. Working independently, but with full support from the department heads, the JST then formulated a comprehensive set of 13 recommendations, each of which included a proposed action, justification for that action, time scale for implementation, required resources, criteria for evaluation of success, and potential barriers. These recommendations were grouped into four fundamental areas that provided direction for the overall JST initiative: Compliance, Awareness, Resources, and Education (CARE) (Figure 1). In consultation with the CHEM and CEMS department heads, who agreed to provide seed funding6 to support the JST efforts, a subset of recommendations were chosen for initial implementation; these are described in the next section. Again working independently, the JST formed committees composed of roughly 3−5 volunteers, which covered education and resources, personal protective equipment (PPE) and audits, technology, and public relations. Each committee selected a chair, and the chairs of those committees formed an
Figure 1. The four areas identified as fundamental to improving the safety culture at UM.
administration committee, which reliably acted to organize JST efforts and communicate between departments, with DEHS, and with collaborators at Dow. It is important to stress that the well-defined committee organization developed by the JST members was critical for ensuring effective delegation of responsibilities, good communication among all stakeholders, and continuation of momentum over time as the JST initiatives have been introduced and implemented.
■
JST ACTIVITIES Table 1 provides a list of JST activities performed during its first year, with indications of the CARE category they address. Several activities had notable impact. Starting in November 2012, JST members were expected to participate in housekeeping tours of each active experimental laboratory in CHEM and CEMS. These tours addressed two goals: (1) examine housekeeping issues not under the purview of regulatory agencies and (2) expose LSOs to safety concerns and practices in different research groups. Overall, 98% of 52 LSOs participated in these tours, evaluating a total of 51 group laboratory spaces in three-person teams. After each tour, the three-person audit team sent a short report to the principal investigator and LSO of the examined laboratory. JST members have commented that the experience promoted accountability, generated discussion within research groups, and helped LSOs to be more aware of safety issues in their laboratory spaces. In response to comments generated from a follow-up survey of the tour procedures, the JST held a tour-training seminar to establish standard guidelines for future semiannual tours. Another notably impactful activity involved improving the level of communication and discussion of safety in the CHEM and CEMS community. The JST developed unique posters with information about proper PPE and guidelines for a safer lab and placed them throughout the department buildings (Figure 2). In addition, researchers now receive safety updates in a variety of forms, including safety notes in weekly departmental e-mail newsletters and “safety moments” presented at the beginning of group meetings and seminars (Figure 3). Past safety moments and other relevant safety information have been compiled on the JST Web site.7 The safety moments are particularly effective in promoting frequent and open communication about safety issues, a conclusion supported by general observations and survey findings; 62% of 1415
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400305e | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1414−1417
Journal of Chemical Education
Commentary
Table 1. Summary of First-Year Activities of the JST Action Identify 10 guidelines for a safer lab Kick-off event Standard lab signage JST Web site (www.jst.umn. edu) Lab tours
Description
CARE Category
Document summarizing most important aspects of lab safety
Awareness
Highly attended event introduced the JST and goals to constituents
Awareness
Templates designed and distributed to display hazards and contact information for each lab space Web site designed with links, information, and JST content
Awareness, compliance Resources, education Compliance
Safety moments, posters, notes Cleanup week
Tours led to examine lab housekeeping and raise safety concerns to laboratory safety officers Communication about safety issues implemented at seminars, in posters, and in Awareness newsletters Event organized to deal with hazardous waste and to clean laboratories Resources
LSO training
Workshop run to teach LSOs about responsibilities and provide resources
Education
Time Frame for Implementation First six months of initiative First six months of initiative First six months of initiative First nine months of initiative First nine months of initiative First six months of initiative First nine months of initiative First nine months of initiative
researchers agreed that they are helping to improve the culture of safety. In another innovative activity, the JST introduced a “cleanup” event that involved a week-long effort to properly identify and dispose of unknown waste that had accumulated in laboratory spaces. Ordinarily, unknown waste must be tested and manifested by DEHS staff, costing $30 per sample8 and valuable time. For this week only, DEHS staff held a general waste-handling seminar and a hands-on workshop to teach LSOs how to test and manifest unknown hazardous waste. By handling and testing the waste themselves, LSOs identified, tested, and disposed of 321 unknowns of varying volume at no charge to the research groups, totaling a combined savings of $4500 and weeks of DEHS staff work. The JST plans a second cleanup week to dispose of old or unused lab equipment and electronics. The significant decrease in laboratory clutter resulting from these efforts represents yet another improvement in the safety environment in CHEM and CEMS. Finally, the JST addressed the need to better define the roles and responsibilities of an LSO by organizing a training workshop, which was attended by 98% of 52 active LSOs. The participants were provided with comprehensive information on LSO duties, training documentation and records, safe operating procedures development, safety signage templates, and other safety resources developed by the JST Education and Resources Committee.9 Overall, this workshop clarified the duties of an LSO, provided the necessary resources for an LSO to accomplish their duties, and established a protocol for LSOs to maintain organized records. Each task proposed by the JST is approached using a fourstep process: (1) define the goal; (2) assess the attitude of the community; (3) provide resources to facilitate change; and (4) implement the change in phases. Upon identifying a target for improvement, a plan was developed that incorporated the suggestions and concerns of the research community. Once a plan was established and criteria for success were determined, an appropriate timeline was chosen and resources were allocated as appropriate to accomplish the desired outcome. Some example resources include a standardized lab-signage template that was distributed to all LSOs, the LSO guidebook that defined the role of an LSO, and an online collection of safety moments that foster communication about safety issues. It is important to note that most of the developed resources are electronic or are paper products (posters, LSO binder, etc.) that are relatively inexpensive. Lastly, we recognize that
Figure 2. Illustrative poster developed by the JST for use in CHEM and CEMS buildings.
Figure 3. Illustrative safety moment slide used in presentations at the beginning of departmental seminars and group meetings.
1416
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400305e | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1414−1417
Journal of Chemical Education
Commentary
“bottom-up” approach can be an effective complement to efforts driven by faculty and administrators aimed at improving the culture and practice of safety in academic laboratories.
changing a culture is an iterative process: gradual change implemented in phases has been valuable in maintaining the support of the research community at large. The above fourstep process was used for each of the previously described activities. We emphasize that the JST activities augmented the already in-place protocols of the departmental safety committees and were specifically designed to address the need for an improved safety culture, rather than particular regulatory compliance requirements. Thus, for example, the JST tours provided additional recommendations for research groups that complemented the specific, “legally binding” inspection reports generated after inspections performed by the departmental safety committees, which comprise faculty, department staff, and DEHS staff members. The additional level of participation by graduate student and postdoctoral members of the JST in providing safety resources, training, and communication has positively affected safety attitudes across CHEM and CEMS. This conclusion was drawn from the results of surveys, observed compliance with safety protocols, enthusiastic presentation of safety moments by faculty seminar hosts at departmental seminars, and high attendance at JST events. Opening the JST membership to the full body of graduate and postdoctoral researchers has been met with an impressive level of support; the current JST member list includes more than 80 people. Equally noteworthy, the faculty research advisors have been overwhelmingly accepting of the safety initiative; when graduate students, postdoctoral associates, and faculty were surveyed in November 2012, 31% agreed and 51% strongly agreed that their advisor promotes or is supportive of incorporating safety into research activities. This distribution remained steady in the May 2013 survey (28% agreed and 54% strongly agreed). This level of support (82%) is perceived as a positive response, but may not reflect the sentiments of nonrespondents and still shows room for improvement as the JST initiative continues into its second year.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
Community surveys, LSO surveys, 13 recommendations. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank all the laboratory safety officers and members who comprise the Joint Safety Team and Manish Sharma and Erich Molitor from Dow Chemical Company for their helpful contributions.
■
REFERENCES
(1) (a) Loperfido, J. C. Development of a Safety Program for Academic Laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 1972, 49, A583−A591. (b) Kaufman, J. A. Safety in the Academic Laboratory. J. Chem. Educ. 1978, 55, A337−A340. (c) Pesta, S.; Kaufman, J. A. Laboratory Safety in Academic Institutions. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, A242−A247. (d) Bretherick, L. Chemical Laboratory Safety: The Academic Anomaly. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67, A12. (e) Foster, B. L. Laboratory safety program assessment in academia. Chem. Health Saf. 2004, 11, 6−13. (2) (a) Johnson, J.; Kemsley, J. Academic Lab Safety Under Exam. Chem. Eng. News 2011, 89 (43), 25−27. October 24 issue (b) Van Noorden, R. A death in the lab. Nature 2011, 472, 270−271. (3) Creating Safety Cultures in Academic LaboratoriesA Report of the Safety Culture Task Force of the ACS Committee on Chemical Safety; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2012. (4) For some recent examples, see: (a) Marendaz, J.-L.; Friedrich, K.; Meyer, T. Safety Management and Risk Assessment in Chemical Laboratories. CHIMIA 2011, 65, 734−737. (b) Matson, M. L.; Fitzgerald, J. P.; Lin, S. Creating Customized, Relevant, and Engaging Laboratory Safety Videos. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 1727−1728. (c) Leggett, D. J. Identifying Hazards in the Chemical Research Laboratory. Proc. Saf. Prog. 2012, 31 (4), 393−397. (5) The survey contained 15 questions in which respondents were asked to express their own perceptions on safety practices and to rate their organization’s communication and implementation of safetyrelated issues. Demographic information was also requested. A total of 207 responses (31%) were received out of a possible 658, with threequarters of the respondents being graduate students and the majority of the rest being faculty. (6) Each department committed $2,500 to the Joint Safety Team. (7) The JST Web site can be found at www.jst.umn.edu (accessed Sep 2013). (8) The cost of waste manifestation is based on the internal management of waste by DEHS at the University of Minnesota. (9) Complete contents of the LSO guidebook are available at www. jst.umn.edu (accessed Sep 2013).
■
CONCLUSIONS Although institutional changes often originate in directives from leaders at industrial or academic institutions, we have found our student-empowered approach to be a viable additional method for improving the culture of safety. Our approach began with the leaders of the departments of CHEM and CEMS at UM commissioning the community of LSOs, the individuals who are working daily in the laboratories, with the task of improving the safety culture. The collaboration between Dow and UM allowed JST members to learn from a company with a great safety record and to adopt and modify aspects of the Dow safety culture to fit the university setting. Recognizing that measuring changes in the culture of safety is difficult and that such changes are likely to be gradual, we nonetheless are convinced based on our preliminary results that the JST model is contributing to significant improvements in safety attitudes, practices, and training of the researchers and faculty in the two departments. Indeed, both JST members and outside supporters have requested that the program grow in breadth and depth, a key challenge being to build upon the initial momentum of the program as it matures. In addition, UM administrators have encouraged the group to branch out and start similar movements in other departments in the College of Science and Engineering. Perhaps the most important lesson learned is that the energy and enthusiasm of the JST members has been a significant driver of change. It is evident that this 1417
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400305e | J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90, 1414−1417
