Office of Risk Management

Risk Management Policy and Procedure Manual

Part 20 Safety and Loss Control Issues

Subject: Loss Control Inspection Protocol

  1. Purpose:

    This paper has been developed to provide a protocol for the campus and System risk management, environmental health and safety, and physical planning and development staff to use in preparation for, during, and in follow-up to the annual campus loss control inspections. Adherence to this guideline will help to improve the quality and results of the loss control inspection process as a whole.

  2. Background:

    Each year, in conjunction with the loss control efforts of the Department of Administration Bureau of State Risk Management (BSRM), the UW System Office of Environmental Affairs, Safety, and Risk Management (EASRM) schedules a one-day loss control inspection at each of the 13 four-year campuses. These inspections have been performed by Parker Services Loss Control Consultants for the past ten years and provide an integral part of the UW System loss control effort by identifying the hazards that exist on campus. These inspections result in a list of loss control recommendations compiled by the consultant based on the inspection and the comments of the inspection participants. As the systemwide loss control program continues to evolve it is vital that these annual inspections identify emerging areas of hazard assessment not recognized in the past.

    In an attempt to integrate the annual inspection into a comprehensive loss control program, to achieve more consistency within the UW System, and make more cost effective use of the expertise of the Parker Services consultants, new inspection procedures have been developed. Increased cooperation between Risk Management and Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) will help to meet these goals and will allow for increased involvement by EHS staff in the campus inspections process.

  3. General Protocol:

    1. Inspection Allotments: Annual campus inspections will continue to be performed by the Parker Services Loss Control Consultants. All four-year campuses will be allotted one day per year except Madison, which will have two days of inspection time. Additional inspections may be purchased by EASRM or a campus from Parker Services as needed. Beginning in fiscal year 1992, each two-year campus will have a one day inspection every third year.
    2. Inspection Participants: Participation in each loss control inspection will be comprised of a core group with one representative from the following offices:
      • Bureau of State Risk Management
      • UW System Risk Management
      • UW System Environmental Health and Safety
      • Campus Risk and/or Safety and/or Environmental Health
      • Parker Services Loss Control Consultant

      Past inspections have indicated that when fewer individuals are involved, the inspection is usually smoother and less intimidating to the departments being surveyed. Conversely, it is beneficial to obtain the involvement of specific personnel in specific situations. One efficient way to achieve necessary input without developing a large inspection entourage is to provide a very specific agenda so that specific individuals may converge with the core group at any given point in the process.

    3. Inspection Leader: Each inspection will be directed by a predetermined individual or "leader." This leader will either be someone from EASRM or from the campus. It will be the responsibility of the leader to finalize and communicate the agenda to all other individuals in the group. In addition, the leader will make sure that the agenda is adhered to and the inspection remains on course throughout the day and will act as the decision maker when deviating from the agenda. In most cases it will be logical for the campus risk, safety or EHS personnel to take the role of leader because of their close affiliation with departmental personnel involved. The campus and EASRM participants will designate a leader in advance of the inspection day.

  4. Procedures:

    1. Inspection Area Determination:

      In the past, BSRM and EASRM have suggested a few key areas for each year's inspections based on recent loss experience and comments from the campuses. With the implementation of a risk management information system in the EASRM office, identification of inspection areas should become more significant.

      At the start of each fiscal year, BSRM, EASRM, and campus risk and safety personnel will schedule the campus inspections for the year. Notice sent from BSRM or EASRM will indicate the key areas which will be targeted for the year. These areas will be chosen based on a systemwide evaluation of the exposure level of the area, claims experience, and past inspections. The campus should also include those areas which are of particular concern to them.

    2. Pre-inspection Procedures:

      Upon scheduling of an inspection, the campus should do the following:

      1. Choose an inspection leader or defer to EASRM.
      2. Review previous inspections and discuss the areas of concern.
      3. Develop a full agenda including an opening and closing meeting.
      4. Inform the Assistant Chancellor of Business Affairs.
      5. Communicate with departmental personnel the date, purpose, benefits and requirements of the inspection, and make any necessary arrangements to ensure that facilities can be inspected with ease.
      6. Provide a detailed agenda to BSRM, EASRM, and the consultant one month prior to inspection.
      7. Provide BSRM, EASRM, and Parker Services consultant with a campus map and parking information.
    3. Inspection Day Procedures:
      1. Opening Meeting: Each inspection should include an opening meeting involving all members of the core inspection group, the Assistant Chancellor of Business Affairs, if possible, and any other campus personnel necessary. The purpose of the opening meeting is to introduce the consultant to the campus personnel, to discuss the status of recommendations from previous inspections, and to resolve any changes or uncertainty in the agenda. The Assistant Chancellor may present the campus position regarding loss control and its relationship to their physical planning and development initiatives.
      2. Inspection Leader Responsibilities: As stated above, the inspection leader will be responsible for the direction of the inspection. As various departments/areas are inspected, it is helpful for one employee from the area to join the inspection to provide detailed information to the Parker Services consultant. This participation, which is extremely helpful in pinpointing the source and solution of safety problems, should be prearranged between the campus risk or safety manager and the area employee. During the day, lunch time should be scheduled and facilitated so as to maximize the productivity of the day.
      3. Spontaneous and Follow-up Inspections: When time permits on the day of the inspection, the group may perform spontaneous inspections of areas which have posed a specific problem to campus personnel but which were not included in the agenda. A quick look at such situations may provide an easy remedy. Additionally, there are times when a recommendation from past inspections has not been acted upon due to financial constraints of the campus. Follow-up recommendations are helpful in justifying the cost of loss control to the campus and System Administration.
      4. Inspection Participants Questions, Comments, and Suggestions: Before, during and after the campus inspection, all inspection participants should communicate any questions, comments, and suggestions to the Parker Services consultant. This communication will help the consultant to focus on the concerns of the campus, UW System and DOA. Participation by the group is meant to enhance the thoroughness of the inspection.

        The Parker Services consultants are professionals in the field of general safety. Group members should inform and question the consultant on any safety issues which come to mind. When questions or concerns fall outside of the consultant's expertise, the campus and System will have to decide whether additional expertise should be consulted. In particular, participation of the System and campus EHS staff in the inspections may raise questions which require an occupational health professional. The Parker Services inspections should be used as a forum for discovery and initial evaluation of these types of concerns.

        The Parker Services consultant can help in the development of a more comprehensive loss control program for the University through evaluation of the training and education of employees. Therefore, a copy of the campus/department safety and training procedures should be provided for the consultant. The Parker Services consultant may use this information in developing the final recommendations for the campus.

      5. Closing Meeting: The closing meeting should involve all members of the core inspection group and the Assistant Chancellor of Business Affairs. It is designed to give the Parker Services consultant the chance to highlight the general findings of the inspection, pointing out specifically those areas that need immediate attention, and initiating conversations regarding long-term planning and project development between UW System and the campus. Additional questions and comments of participants should be submitted and discussed at this time so that they may be addressed in the consultant's final written list of recommendations.
    4. Post-Inspection Procedures:
      1. Additional Suggestions for Consultant: In the past, suggestions that were overlooked or only briefly discussed during the inspection have been brought up by the campus or system risk manager in the days and weeks following an inspection. If the campus desires inclusion of such topics in the consultant's final report to bring the concern to the attention of other parties, these topics should be communicated to the Parker Services consultant via the inspection leader. Some time constraint exists as the consultants usually release their report one month after the inspection.
      2. Recommendations from Parker Services: Shortly after the physical inspection of the campus, the Parker Services consultant will issue a final report which consists of a brief overview of the inspection along with a detailed listing of specific loss control recommendations. If a recommendation is not acceptable to the campus, EASRM or BSRM, further discussion between the inspection participants will be necessary. Acceptance of the recommendations will obligate the campus to comply with them according to the set guidelines. The inspection recommendations should be distributed to BSRM, EASRM, the campus Assistant Chancellor of Business Affairs, and the campus risk manager.
      3. Recommendation Compliance: Upon receipt of the recommendations from Parker Services, the campus EHS and RM personnel should meet with campus planners and other appropriate staff to discuss approaches to compliance. At the same time, System EASRM will meet with the System architect and engineering team for the campus to determine what approach should be taken to rectify any problems. The campus should take immediate action on those recommendations which are minor and which can be solved without additional funding. The A/E team will consult with the campus to develop joint recommendations for resolution of the identified problems. For projects which require special funding the following sources should be considered:
        1. Campus Discretionary Funds
        2. Building Commission All-Agency Funds
        3. State or Federal Grant Funds
        4. BSRM Loss Control Funds: emergency funding for projects which need immediate attention. This funding source is contingent upon repayment in the next fiscal year.
        Requests for funding should be submitted as soon as possible after the completion of the inspection.
      4. Written Recommendation Follow-up: Sixty days after the receipt of the inspection report from Parker Services the campus should respond to the recommendations in writing. This response should address each recommendation in the order listed with the status of the recommendation correction. These should be sent to BSRM and EASRM. Because some projects cannot be completed in the 60-day time period, this report should provide an estimated completion date for incomplete projects with final completion reported by the campus to BSRM and EASRM.
      5. Fiscal Year Evaluation of Process: At the end of each fiscal year BSRM, EASRM, and campus personnel will evaluate the inspection process in light of the years experience. Clarification and modification of this procedure will be made based on this evaluation.

Back to RM Table of Contents

Revised 10/18/90