1 fy02 asa presentation basic life support for animal research animals presented by: eileen morgan...

1

FY02 ASA Presentation

Basic Life Support for Animal Research Animals

• Presented by:

• Eileen Morgan • Chief, Facility Management Branch • Charmaine Foltz • Chief, Veterinary Medicine Branch

• Office of Research Services• National Institutes of Health

• 18 November 2002

2

Table of Contents

Main PresentationASA Template ……………………………….……………………………….4Customer Perspective……………………….……………………………….5

Customer Segmentation …………………….……………………………………6-7Customer Satisfaction……………………….…………………………………….8Unique Customer Measures………………….…………………………………..9

Internal Business Process Perspective…………………………………….10Service Group Block Diagram…………………………………………………....11-12Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts………………...13Process Measures…………………………………………………………………14-18

Learning and Growth Perspective…………………………………………..19Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data……...20Analysis of Readiness Conclusions……………………………………………...21Unique Learning and Growth Measures………………………………………..22-23

Financial Perspective………………………………………………………..24Unit Cost……………………………………………………………………………25-26Asset Utilization……………………………………………………………………27-30

Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………………….31Conclusions from FY02 ASA..………………………………………………32-33

Recommendations…………………………………………………………………34

3

Table of Contents

Appendices

ASA Template……………………………………………………………………….37VRP Survey Respondents…………………………………………………………38FY02 Animal Husbandry Services Usage………………………………………..39FY02 Animal Husbandry Services Satisfaction Ratings………………………..40FY02 Clinical Veterinary and Technical Services Usage……………………….41FY02 Clinical Veterinary and Technical Services Satisfaction Ratings……….42Radar Charts………………………………………………………………………...43-44Scatter Diagrams……………………………………………………………………45-46What Needs to be Improved……………………………………………………….47Service Group Block Diagram……………………………………………………..48Process Maps……………………………………………………………………….49-52DS1 Process Measure Graphs (9)………………………………………………..53-61DS 2 Process Measure Graph…………………………………………………….62DS3 Process Measure Graphs (2)………………………………………………..63-64DS4 Process Measure Graph……………………………………………………..65-68Readiness Analysis…………………………………………………………………69-70Basic Life Support Service Group HR Data (6)………………………………….71-76Unit Cost Measures for DS2, DS3, DS4………………………………………….77

http://www.geocities.com/Petsburgh/4243/gerbils.html

4

DS1: Provide animal husbandry services

DS2: Provide clinical veterinary and technical services

DS3: Provide environmental enrichment for laboratory animals

DS4: Operate animal nutrition service

ASA Template - 2003

Service Group

Provide Basic Life Support For Animal Research Animals

Discrete Services

Customer Value Proposition

Provide Basic Life Support Service for laboratory animals that meets the scientific needs of the NIH IC's and upholds the AAALAC International standards of accreditation.

Service Strategy

Operational Excellence Growth

Customer Intimacy Sustain

Product Leadership Harvest

Team Leader

Eileen Morgan, Facility Management Branch Chief and Charmaine Foltz, Veterinary Medicine Branch Chief

Team Members

Kelly Prevost, Alphi Cisar, Brent Morse, Lyn Colenda, Jim Poole, Matt Tenace, Sachy Sato, Jim Weed, Eric Hutchinson, Dennis Barnard

X X

5

Customer Perspective

6

Customer Segmentation for Service Group

VRP Average Monthly Inventory 2002Rodents by IC

001232162176243

682974

21022908

33003480

44794843

60136540

1814623321

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

DODNIDA

NIAAA FDA

NHLBI NHGRI NIDCD

NIA CC

NINDS NIAMS NIDCR

NEI NIMH

NICHD NIAID

VRPNIDDK

NCI

Census

7

Customer Segmentation for Service Group

VRP Average Montly Inventory 2002Primates by IC

00000004914

343941

5174

105162

328707

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

DODFDA

NIAAA NIAMS NIDCD NIDCR NHGRI

NIDACC

NEI NICHD NIMH

NINDS NIDDK

WRAIR/USAMRIIDNCI

NHLBI NIA

NIAID

IC

CENSUS

8

• 12% Survey Response Rate (8 of 69)• Primary Responses were from Veterinarians• Need to Improve Survey Response • Husbandry and Veterinary Services Rated• Need for Improved Customer Satisfaction in

Both DSs

Customer Satisfaction Survey

9

• Areas For Improvement:

Customer Satisfaction Survey

•Health checks in one facility.

•Management of Animal Care Contract.

• Centralized management involvement with implementation of changes at the facility level.

•Increase sensitivity of staff to importance of customer satisfaction.

•Communication of cost/fee increases during budget preparation time frame for next FY.

•Consistency of quality of technical and husbandry services between facilities.

• Expand availability of rodent technical services.

10

Internal Business Process Perspective

11

Service Group Block Diagram

• The largest discrete service is husbandry followed by veterinary services, environmental enrichment, and nutrition.

12

Basic Life Support Service GroupBlock Diagram

Researchrequirements f rom

ICs

Regulatoryrequirements

Prov ide clinicalv eterinary

technical serv ices

Prov ide animalhusbandryserv ices

Prov ideenv ironmentalenrichment f or

laboratory animals

Operate animalnutrition serv ice

Productiv eresearch results.

Provide Basic Life Support for Research Animals

13

Conclusions from Discrete Services Deployment Flowcharts

• All Discrete Services are Closely Connected and Are Interdependent.

14

Process Measures

• Process measures for each discrete service• DS1: Increase animal holding capacity and

occupancy.• DS2: Improve researcher response time.• DS3: Decrease the number of behavior cases

and increase the number of socializations.

• DS4: Improve QA turn around time.

• Growth in holding capacity and occupancy was demonstrated.

• Other (see Appendices)

15

DS1: Process Measure GraphIncrease Holding Capacity/Occupancy

35000

12870

32000

11500

27800

10750

23450

9350

17500

7140

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03

Bldg. 10A Rodent Avg. Monthly Census

Cages

Animals

16

DS1: Process Measure Growth in Husbandry

VRP AVERAGE WEEKLY RODENT CENSUS

2839232651

36263

82075 8430787944

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

FY 00 FY 01 FY 02

FISCAL YEAR

CE

NS

US

TO

TA

L

CAGES

ANIMALS

17

DS1: Process Measure Growth in Husbandry

VRP AVERAGE WEEKLY PRIMATE CENSUS

1359

1498

1735

1000

1300

1600

1900

FY 00 FY 01 FY 02

FISCAL YEAR

CE

NS

US

TO

TA

L

PRIMATES

18

DS1/DS2- Process Measure GraphGrowth in Vet Activities Associated With Growth In Animal Holding

193 217 219376

604

72297008

3.2%12.4% -0.9% 45.2% 33.3%221 259

453

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Rodent

Import

Permits

Rodent

Transfer In

Rodent

Transfer Out

Animal

Health

Report

Animal

Study

Proposal

FY01 - FY02 FY01 - FY02 FY01 - FY02 FY01 - FY02 FY01 - FY02

FY 01

FY 02

19

Learning and Growth Perspective

20

• Data provided by Human Resources includes the Office of the Director and the Business Office.

• Large animal care contract staff data not analyzed.• Majority of Awards given in July.• Internal Data for our Service Group compared to HR

Data:

Conclusions from Turnover, Sick Leave, Awards, EEO/ER/ADR Data

Average Sick Leave

Awards Received

Human Resources

3.5 days 1 out of 4

Internal VRP Data

9.5 days 1 out of 1

21

• Skill Mix- Medical, technical, husbandry, and administrative.

• Staffing- Marginal; Hiring is problematic; Animal Care Contract is critical.

• Training Needs- Increased technical skills.• Tools or Materials (Equipment)- High density

ventilated caging; multi-species caging; automated cage wash equipment; biocontainment equipment.

Analysis of Readiness Conclusions

22

• Technical Competency Documentation• A list of technical competencies was generated for

animal and veterinary care staff.• Identified that similar capabilities are required

between various small animal housing facilities and large animal housing facilities.

• Cross training between buildings desirable.• Limited pilot implementation underway, full

implementation planned for the next year.

Unique Learning and Growth Measures Increase Technical Competencies

23

Learning and Growth Unique MeasureTechnician Competencies

Technician Certification Record

Employee: ______________________

Task and Training DateCertified

CertifyingOfficial

EmployeeInitials

AnnualRecert.

AnnualRecert.

SOP Review

110 - Daily Vet Care, Obs, Tx, and Record Keeping for lab Animals

802 - TB Testing of NHPs

803 - NHP ID Method - Tattooing

804 - NHP Health and Facility Monitoring

805 - Feeding and Watering NHPs

806 - NW NHP - Care and Husbandry

807 - Disposition of Dead NHPs

808 - Anesthetizing NHPs

809 - Safety with NHPs

810 - Protective Clothing and NHP Room Access

815 - Manual and Pole and Collar Restraint of NHPs

818 - Procedures for Handling Escaped NHPs

24

Financial Perspective

25

• DS1 and DS2- Husbandry and Veterinary Care unit costs compared as per diem versus per unit cost by species.

• DS3 and DS4- See Appendices

• FY02 Animal Holding Unit Cost• Service Unit Cost Per Diem• Rodent Holding $ 0.92 $ 1.03• Primate Holding $ 9.57 $10.91• Carnivore Holding $24.27 $12.60• Ungulate Holding $45.78 $13.80

Unit Cost Measures

26

Unit Cost Measures Conclusions

• Majority of usage is rodent, followed by primate.• Carnivore/Ungulate holding comprises 2% of VRP

expenses.• Over time we intend to more fully recover

operational expenses while continuing to support science

27

• DS1- Husbandry- Number of personnel/animal census by building.

• DS2- Veterinary Care- Number of personnel/animal census by building.

• DS3- Environmental Enrichment- Number of personnel/large animal census = 4/1768.

• DS4- Nutrition = 1FTE/nutrition services.• Ratios are consistent between buildings and

between large and small animals.

Asset Utilization Measures

28

Asset Utilization

RATIO OF VRP PERSONNEL TO AVERAGE NUMBER OF ANIMALSRODENTS

749 611 713 948

74916355

4633 5685

29964

23832

18531

8528

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Bldg 10A Bldg 14C Bldg 14F/G Bldg 28D

BUILDING

CE

NS

US

TO

TA

L

Ratio of FMB Employees to Animals Ratio of VMB Employees to Animals Total Number of Animals

29

Asset Utilization

RATIO OF VRP PERSONNEL TO AVERAGE NUMBER OF ANIMALSPRIMATES

31 34 60124 96

128

464

192

896

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Bldg 14D Bldg 14BN Bldg 103

BUILDING

CE

NS

US

Ratio of FMB Employees to Animals Ratio of VMB Employees to Animals Total Number of Animals

30

Asset Utilization

VRP PERSONNEL TO AVERAGE NUMBER OF ANIMALSCARNIVORE/UNGULATES

44

20

7867

155

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Bldg 100 Bldg 102

BUILDING

CE

NS

US FMB Employees

VMB Employees

Number of Animals

31

Conclusions and Recommendations

32

Conclusions from FY02 ASA

• Business Model/Organizational function disconnect identified.

• DS1 and DS2 have grown/improved optimization of space.

• Recognized opportunity to improve training, developed competencies list, pilot implementation of competencies training.

• Recognized continued need for modernizing facilities and equipment.

• Recognized marginal staffing levels, hiring difficulties, and importance of effective contract operations.

33

Conclusions from FY02 ASA (cont.)

• Improve Availability of Technical Services• Endeavor to Improve Customer Service

34

• Establish Plan for Business Model to Match Functional Units (requires higher authority than Service Group).

• Full implementation of competencies training documentation.

• Continued growth/optimization of space.• Endeavor to improve customer satisfaction.• Equipment needed for technical improvement;

enhances business efficiency and quality of care. (requires increased funding for equipment)

• Improve availability of technical services.

Recommendations- Action Items

35

Appendices

36

Appendices

• Include the following:Customer segments graphs

Process measure graphs• Growth graphs • Nutrition graphs • Unit cost graphs• Asset utilization graphs• Any unique measures graphs

37

Appendices A- Page 2, ASA Template

Customer Perspective

Performance Objective Performance Measure

Service Group: Provide quality and organizational development services

Increase understanding of customer base DS1: Total hours of ASA assistance by team (OQM staff hours from OQM Assistance Log plus consultant hours)

DS2: Hours spent on strategic initiatives (from OQM Assistance Log)

Increase customer satisfactionDS1: Customer Scorecard feedback on FY02 ASAs from ASA Teams, ASA Consultants, and Division Directors

DS2: Customer evaluation of OQM on strategic initiatives using the ORS Customer Scorecard

DS2: Percent of ASA Teams identifying at least one assess utilization measure per Discrete Service in FY02

DS2: Percent of ASA Teams completing the Readiness Index and preparing narrative summary.

DS2: Percent of ASA Teams adding unique measures to ASA template in FY02

DS2: Percent of ASA recommendations implemented from FY01 ASAs in FY02

Internal Business Process Perspective

Performance Objective Performance Measure

Provide senior ORS leadership with organization change and improvement data DS2: Percent of ASA Teams with customer segmentation completed in FY02

DS2: Percent of ASA Teams gathering customer satisfaction data in FY02

DS2: Percent of ASA Teams completing Process Maps in FY02

DS2: Percent of ASA Teams identifying at least one process measure per Discrete Service in FY02

DS2: Percent of ASA Teams identifying at least one unit cost measures per Discrete Service in FY02

Increase understanding of processes.Complete process maps of Service Group and 2 DSs

Identify Methods to Measure Processes DS1: Type of help provided to ASA Teams (quantified by hours from OQM Assistance Log)

DS1: Percent of ASA Team Members trained in TT, PM, DA, FM

DS1: Training evaluation scores

DS1: Evaluation ratings of presentations during ASA Conference

38

VRP Survey Respondents FY02 Respondents by Type of Customer

2

3

1

2

0

1

2

3

4

APD Facility Veterinarian Facility Manager APD and Facility Veterinarian

Customer

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Data based on 8 respondents

39

FY02 Animal Husbandry Services Usage

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Used in FY02 Will Use in FY03

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

No

Yes


40

FY02 Animal Husbandry Services Satisfaction Ratings

90%

80%

70%

617% 5

0%

Outstanding 1017%

217%

30%

Unsatisfactory 10%

449%


Note: The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where “1” represents Unsatisfactory and “10” represents Outstanding

41

FY02 Clinical Veterinary and Technical Services Usage

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Used in FY02 Will Use in FY03

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

No

Yes


42

FY02 Clinical Veterinary and Technical Services Satisfaction Ratings

90%

80%

730%

614%

514%

Outstanding 1014% 2

0%3

14%

Unsatisfactory 10%

414%


Note: The rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where “1” represents Unsatisfactory and “10” represents Outstanding.

43

Radar ChartFY02 Product/Service Satisfaction Ratings

ORS Index = 8.27

8.40

8.28

8.48

7.42

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Cost

Quality

Timeliness

Reliability


Service Group Index = 5.77

5.75

5.63

5.75

6.00

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Cost

Quality

Timeliness

Reliability



44

Radar ChartFY02 Customer Service Satisfaction Ratings

ORS Index = 8.55

8.60

8.58 8.54

8.518.51

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Availability

Responsiveness

ConvenienceCompetence

Handling ofProblems


Service Group Index = 6.00

5.385.88

6.135.88

6.75

1.00

4.00

7.00

10.00Availability

Responsiveness

ConvenienceCompetence

Handling ofProblems



45

Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and Satisfaction Ratings

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

Satisfaction

Imp

ort

ance

NOT SATISFIED, IMPORTANT

NOT SATISIFIED, NOT IMPORTANT

SATISFIED,IMPORTANT

SATISFIED, NOT IMPORTANT


Note: The Importance rating scale ranges from 1 - 10 where “1” represents Unimportant and “10” represents Important

46

Scatter DiagramFY02 Customer Importance and Satisfaction Ratings: A Closer Look

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

10.00

5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00

Satisfaction

Imp

ort

ance

SATISFIED,IMPORTANT

Cost

Convenience

Availability

Quality

Timeliness


Reliability

Handling of Problems Competence,

Responsiveness

47

Customer Comments What Needs To Be Improved

•Health checks in 14G and turnaround time for molecular diagnostics.

•Transportation is difficult, unresponsive and slow. PAI contract management is nonexistent. Facility

management is capricious and appears to make decisions and policy changes without a central plan or

central approval.

•At times the facility management staff in Bldg 14C have acted as if we are unconvincing them when we or investigators made a requests for services or ask for

assistance.

•Communication of cost/fee increases during budget preparation time frame which for the CC is no later than

June for the next fiscal year.

•The quality of technical and husbandry services varies greatly by facility. It is great in 10A and 14D, but

lacking in 14F. Rodent tech services are too limited to be useful. ICU tech services in 28 are OK.

48

Service Group Block Diagram

Researchrequirements f rom

ICs

Regulatoryrequirements

Prov ide clinicalv eterinary

technical serv ices

Prov ide animalhusbandryserv ices

Prov ideenv ironmentalenrichment f or

laboratory animals

Operate animalnutrition serv ice

Productiv eresearch results.

Provide Basic Life Support for Research Animals

49

Discrete Service 1: Provide Husbandry Process Map

Provide Animal Husbandry Services

Husbandry Staff Vet Staff Enrichment StaffIC Customers

Animal Leav es

Prov ide Housing

Identif y & reportabnormal animals

Prov ide f ood &water

Maintainappropriateenv ironment

Ev aluate Animal

Treat clinically

Abnormal?

Ev aluate Animal

Prov ide behav ioralenrichment

Request f orAnimal Holding

YES YES

NO

50

Discrete Service 2: Provide Veterinary Care Process Map

Provide Clinical Veterinary and Technical Services

Vet Staff Investigative StaffIC Customers &Husbandry Staff

Send animals f orev aluation

Animal returned oreuthanized

Perf orm technicalrequest

Ev aluate animal

Establish plan

ContactInv estigator

Implement plan

Re-ev aluate

Normal

Request f ortechnical support

Responds

Concurs

YES

YES

NO

YES

NO

51

Discrete Service 4: Provide Environmental Enrichment Process Map

Provide Environmental Enrichment for Laboratory Animals

Enrichment Staff Vet StaffSocialization

Requests

FacilityManagementHusbandry

New arriv als(animals)

Ref er animals

Prov ide standardcare

Animal leav es

Observ e andev aluate

Abnormalbehav ior?

Dev elop plan

Implement plan

Re-ev aluate

Abnormalbehav ior?

Ref er Animals

NO

YES

YES

NO

52

Discrete Service 4: Provide Nutrition Service Process Map

Provide Animal Nutrition Service

Nutritionist VRP OLAOIC Customer

Collaborativ e/Consultation

requests

Process samples/v isits v endors

Produces report

Ev aluates & plansExpert consult

requests

Request f ood &bedding QA

Dev elopsexperimental plan

Perf ormsexperiment

Producespublications

Prov ides inf ormation& recommendations

53


1,875

77177930100

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Animals or cages

FY00 FY01 FY02

Bldg.14B North Rodent Avg. Monthly Census

Cages

Animals

54


23,832

11,852

22,245

11,415

22,114

16,181

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Number of Animals or Cages

FY00 FY01 FY02

Bldg. 14 C Rodent Avg. Monthly Census

Cages

Animals

55


169

118

00

50

100

150

200

Number of Animals

FY00 FY01 FY02

Bldg. 14B North NHP Avg. Monthly Census

56


920

779

836

700

750

800

850

900

950

Number of Animals

FY00 FY01 FY02

Bldg.103/104 NHP Avg. Monthly Census

57


54000004400000

412400036730003250000

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

FY99 FY00 FY03 FY02 FY03

Bldg. 10A Rodent FY Revenue

Income

58


1105296873620

0

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

FY00 FY01 FY02

Bldg.14B North Rodent FY Revenue

59


$382,492$356,234$274,236

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

FY00 FY01 FY02

Bldg. 14C Rodent FY Revenue

60


709884648846

00

200000

400000

600000

800000

FY00 FY01 FY02

Bldg.14B North NHP FY Revenue

61


4030345

34875953463273

3000000320000034000003600000380000040000004200000

FY00 FY01 FY02

Bldg. 103/104 NHP FY Revenue

62

DS 2: Process Measure GraphImprove Researcher Response Time

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Day

s

May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02

Investigator Response Time

Scan/Email Fax

Scan/Email 2.17 1.2 1.29 1 1.1

Fax 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.21

2-May 2-Jun 2-Jul 2-Aug 2-Sep

63

DS 3: Process Measure GraphSocializations

0

400

800

1200

1600

Totals

FY02

Census vs socialized

FY 02 436 1058 1567

Number socialized Non-Exempt animals Census

64

DS3: Process Measure GraphsBehavior Cases

Behavior Cases

0100200300400500600700800900

1000110012001300140015001600

FY 00 FY 01 FY 02

FY Years

Ave

age

Pri

mat

e P

op

ula

tio

n

Beh

avio

r tr

eatm

ents

Census

Behavior

65

Sample Diet Quality Assurance Testing Process

Mill (Manufacturer) Nutrition LabNutrition Office (N.O.)NIH OD (Logistics)

Warehouse

page 1 of1

Orders specificdiets from

Warehouse

Is diet less than30 days on shelf?

Places diet order

Yes

Receives anddelivers order

Receives batchorder

Sends batch forQA testing

Receives batch forQA testing

Performs QAprocess on batch

5 November 2002

Sends QA resultsto N.O.

Average Lead Time = 22 days

Average Lead Time = 19 days

Receives andverifies QA results

Is test sampleo.k.?

Authorize use ofstored diet

Yes

Average Total Lead Time = 41 days

Feed researchanimal diet

Scrap diet or sendback to mill

VRP Nutrition

DS4: Process MapQA for Testing Process

66

DS4: Process Measure GraphTurnaround Time for QA

Nutrition Office Turnaround Time for Sending Sample Diet for Quality Testing

5/25/ 2002 – 7/10/2002

67


QA Lab Turnaround Time for Returning Sample Diet for Quality Testing

68


Total Turnaround Time forSample Diet Quality Testing Process

69

Basic Life Support Readiness AnalysisReadiness Analysis

A mix of medical, technical, husbandry and administrative skills with experience required for all management positions is needed. Current skills and abilities are adequate but changing customer and flexibility requirements dictate an increase in personnel with skills in multiple employment categories and/or specialized skills. Numbers of personnel is marginal and hiring new personnel is problematic for the NIH Animal Center in Poolesville due to the rural location. An increase in required skills will be provided through a combination of training of current personnel and hiring of contract personnel with specialized skills.

Training will focus on increasing technical skills for both veterinary medical and husbandry personnel and in training for specialized skills (Biosafety, critical care) High-density, ventilated rodent caging; multi-species caging systems; automated cagewash equipment; biocontainment equipment, critical care equipment; interior building security equipment; automated data collection and transfer systems; and increased nonhuman primate social enrichment space at VRP facilities on the Bethesda campus.

70

Readiness Analysis (cont.)

·Projected, budgeted increase in high-density rodent caging for upcoming FY and future purchases of nonhuman primate social housing units. ·IC’s requiring increased technical support or specialized support will either provide the support in-house or contract for non-ORS services on or off NIH campus. Low-density, rodent caging is increasingly inefficient and expensive to manage. Lack of flexible space and caging systems leads to inability to provide services to IC’s in a relatively quick turn-around environment. The use of paper-based, non-automated data collection systems will perpetuate the inefficient use of Human Resources and severely limit the ability to transfer vital information to the customer and regulatory entities. The ability of the Veterinary Resources Program to supply Basic Life Support to Research Animals meets the current needs of our customers. Anticipated increased requirements of our customers will result in the need for a workforce that is better trained in technical and specialized skills and facilities and equipment that allows flexibility for quickly changing animal research needs and increased efficiency in operations. Due to the increasing reliance upon performance-based contracting to provide animal husbandry and veterinary medical/technical services, it is imperative that any contract reflects the current and future personnel requirements as stated in this Readiness Analysis.

71

Basic Life Support Service GroupTurnover Rate (Oct 2001 - June 2002)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

12 16 21 30 27 20 42 13 41 3 24 23 11 7 18 1 2 10 17 31 25 40 28 26 37 29 33 39 5 32 36 38 4 8 9 14 15 19 34 35 43

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

12 16 21 30 27 20 42 13 41 3 24 23 11 7 18 1 2 10 17 31 25 40 28 26 37 29 33 39 5 32 36 38 4 8 9 14 15 19 34 35 43

72

Basic Life Support Service Group Avg. Hours of Sick Leave Oct 2001 - June 2002)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

14 3 9 31 8 17 43 38 36 33 41 12 30 28 18 29 21 39 20 16 24 11 27 40 35 5 32 23 42 19 4 34 15 26 37 25 1 2 10 13 7

73

Basic Life Support Service Group Avg. Number of Awards (Oct 2001 - June 2002)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

9 43 1 2 10 40 42 7 11 41 12 4 5 32 28 39 35 33 8 15 36 38 34 37 29 17 14 31 16 30 19 18 13 20 21 3 24 26 25 23 27

74

Basic Life Support Service Group Avg. EEO Complaints (Oct 2001 - June 2002)

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

20 33 34 7 31 26 25 38 36 5 32 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 24 27 28 29 30 35 37 39 40 41 42 43

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

20 33 34 7 31 26 25 38 36 5 32 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 24 27 28 29 30 35 37 39 40 41 42 43

75

Basic Life Support Service GroupAvg. ADR Cases (Oct 2001 - June 2002)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

7 9 30 24 33 34 26 3 23 25 5 32 20 21 31 29 39 28 36 16 38 1 2 4 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 27 35 37 40 41 42 43

76

Basic Life Support Service Group Learning and Growth Data Table

Pop

ulat

ion

Est

imat

e

No.

of S

epar

atio

ns

Turn

over

Rat

eTo

tal H

ours

of S

ick

Leav

e U

sed

Ave

rage

Hou

rs o

f

Sic

k Le

ave

Use

d

Num

ber

of A

war

ds

Rec

eive

dA

vera

ge N

umbe

r of

Aw

ards

Rec

eive

d

Num

ber

of E

EO

Com

plai

nts

Ave

rage

Num

ber

of

EE

O C

ompl

aint

s

Num

ber

of E

R C

ases

Ave

rage

Num

ber

of

ER

Cas

esN

umbe

r of

AD

R

Cas

esA

vera

ge N

umbe

r of

AD

R C

ases

573 2 0 0.00 2 1 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.435735 21 3 0.14 713 34 7 0.33 0 0.00 6 0.29 1 0.055736 34 1 0.03 1062 31 9 0.26 2 0.06 4 0.12 2 0.065737 7 0 0.00 121 18 2 0.30 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.15

57312 1 0 0.00 35 35 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0057372 9 0 0.00 106 12 3 0.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0057373 9 0 0.00 186 21 1 0.11 0 0.00 1 0.11 1 0.1157374 3 0 0.00 72 27 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Service Group 26

Total86 4 0.05 2296 27 22 0.26 2 0.02 11 0.13 6 0.07

About 5 employee turnover

About 3-1/2 days sick leave per employee

About 1 award for every 4 employees

6 ADR case out of 86 employees

11 ER Cases out of 86 employees

2 EEO cases out of 86 employees

77

Unit Cost Measures for DS2, DS3, and DS4

• DS2- Baseline measure of veterinary procedures was utilized to generate unit costs for Small and Large Animal. Small Animal unit costs are $117/procedure; Large animal unit costs are $35/procedure.

(costs are covered in per diems)• DS3- Environmental Enrichment unit cost

based on total number of behavior observations is $53/observation.

• DS4- Nutrition unit cost based on number of analyses processed is $316/nutrition service.

78

Appendices

Additional appendices material can be e-mailed.

[email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

1 fy02 asa presentation basic life support for animal research animals presented by: eileen morgan...

Documents