Fall 2013 Facilities And Services Customer Satisfaction Survey Results

2y ago
938.27 KB
71 Pages
Last View : 27d ago
Last Download : 4m ago
Upload by : Adalynn Cowell

Fall 2013Facilities and ServicesCustomer Satisfaction Survey ResultsNew Mexico State University – Las CrucesDanielle DengOffice of Institutional Analysis

Fall 2013: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey ResultsTable of ContentsAbout This Survey: .2General Response Rates and Summary of Results: .2Figure 1: Comment Themes .2Section 1: General Satisfaction Scale .3Table 1: General Satisfaction with Facilities and Services, Respondent Percentages .3Table 2: Buildings with a "Dissatisfied" or “Very Dissatisfied" Rating .4Section 2: Primary Building .4Table 3: Number of Responses by Building Affiliation .5Section 3: Custodial Care .6Table 4: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Custodial Services, Respondent Percentages .7Section 4: Building and Environment .8Table 5: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Building Environmental and Utilities Services, RespondentPercentages .8Figure 2: Satisfaction with the Effectiveness of Energy Conservation .9Section 5: Grounds Services .9Table 6: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Ground Services, Respondent Percentages .10Section 6: Office of Sustainability .10Table 7: Satisfaction with the Office of Sustainability, Respondent Percentages .11Section 7: Project Development .11Table 8: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Special Projects and Engineering Services, RespondentPercentages .12Section 8: Facilities and Services Administrative Services .13Table 9: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Administrative Service Areas, Respondent Percentages .13Section 9: Environmental Health and Safety .13Table 10: Satisfaction with Environmental Health and Safety (EHS), Respondent Percentages .14Section 10: NMSU Fire Department .14Table 11: Satisfaction with NMSU Fire Department, Respondent Percentages .14Section 11: Final Question and Comments.15Figure 3: Comment Word-Cloud .15AppendicesAppendix A: Comments by Comment CategoryAppendix B: Comments by Building AffiliationOffice of Institutional AnalysisPage 1

Fall 2013: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey ResultsAbout This Survey:New Mexico State University's (NMSU) Facilities and Services Office (FS) worked with the Office ofInstitutional Analysis (OIA) to administer the FS Customer Satisfaction Survey. The original survey wasdesigned according to specifications of a Facilities and Services audit and standards set by APPA, thefacilities professional organization to which NMSU belongs. The 2013 survey focused on the samequestions as in the prior year but added a "neutral" rating to the Likert scale questions. The survey alsoadded new functional areas about the NMSU Fire Department and the Office of Sustainability.General Response Rates and Summary of Results:For Fall 2013, 484 total responses were received. This was a slight increase from the 452 responsesreceived for the Fall 2012 survey. Each section of the survey received a different number of responsesas few respondents completed the questions for the entire survey. Although overall there were moreindividual responses to this survey than for last year’s survey, there were fewer responses for eachsection in this year’s survey.Approximately 160 respondents provided comments in the last question in the survey regarding thework provided by FS. The comments were categorized into seven themes (Figure 1). All comments aresummarized by Comment Category in Appendix A and by Building Affiliation in Appendix B.Figure 1: Comment ThemesFacilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey - Fall 2013Comment ThemesBuilding0.5%15%14%Custodial CareGrounds Services20%26%OverallAdministrative Services and ProjectDevelopment12%Office of Institutional AnalysisSurvey Instrument13%SustainbilityPage 2

Fall 2013: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey ResultsSection 1: General Satisfaction Scale"How would you rate your overall satisfaction level with the work you have seen completed by theFacilities and Services in the last twelve (12) months?"Respondents indicated they were satisfied with FS services; about 70% of respondents indicated theywere either satisfied or very satisfied with the service they had received (Table 1). This was a substantialincrease from the prior year's survey (45%, Fall 2012). However, more than 17% of respondents weredissatisfied overall. This percentage was also much higher than in 2012 (8%). Around 13% ofrespondents chose "Neutral."Respondents from twenty-five buildings submitted the overall “Dissatisfied” or "Very Dissatisfied”ratings. Although most buildings had one or two negative ratings, four respondents from Regents Rowrated their general satisfaction as "Dissatisfied" or "Very Dissatisfied." Engineering Complex I and MiltonHall each had three respondents submit "Dissatisfied" or "Very Dissatisfied" ratings (Table 2).Twenty-three (12%) comments referred to general FS services. Sixteen of these comments were positiveindicating "FS did an outstanding job overall." Some comments suggested providing better equipmentand transportation for FS staff, especially the movers who are constantly on-demand. Otherrespondents felt communication with FS was an issue. They suggested FS represent itself as one unitinstead of "a conglomeration of several departments.""Generally, I am very pleased with the professionalism and customer service of OFSemployees. Many folks admire how well our campus looks and many believe it to be an oasisin the desert. Keep up the good work."Table 1: General Satisfaction with Facilities and Services, Respondent PercentagesOverall%SatisfactionVery %Satisfied9234.8%Very Satisfied9234.8%Number of ResponsesFacilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey - Fall 2013Overall Satisfaction with Facilities & Services100806040200Very DissatisfiedDissatisfiedNeutralSatisfiedVery Satisfied1531349292Overall SatisfactionOffice of Institutional AnalysisPage 3

Fall 2013: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey ResultsTable 2: Buildings with a "Dissatisfied" or “Very Dissatisfied" RatingBuildings with a Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied RatingAnderson Hall (PSL)1Astronomy Building1Branson Library2Breland Hall1Business Complex Building1Campus Police/Ag Institute1Chemistry Building2Clara Belle Williams Hall1Computer Center2Corbett Center1Ed and Harold Foreman Engineering Complex1Engineering Complex I3Facilities and Services Office1Gardiner Hall1Gerald Thomas Hall1Guthrie Hall1Health and Social Services Building2Jett Hall2Milton Hall3Natatorium1O'Donnell Hall2Regents Row4Skeen Hall2Stan Fulton Center1Student Health Center1Section 2: Primary Building"In order to better meet your facilities service needs, it is important that we be able to evaluateresponses to see which areas of campus may need special attention. With this in mind, please chooseyour primary building on NMSU from the following drop-down list."Over 60 buildings/areas are represented in the survey responses. Hadley Hall, Gerald Thomas Hall, andEducational Services Center had the highest building affiliation totals with 27, 21, and 20 responsesrespectively (Table 3).Office of Institutional AnalysisPage 4

Fall 2013: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey ResultsTable 3: Number of Responses by Building AffiliationNumber of Responses by Building AffiliationBuildingAcademic Research A, B, CAgricultural Science Center at AlcaldeAlumni & Visitors CenterAnderson Hall (PSL)Astronomy BuildingBarnes & NobleBiology AnnexBranson LibraryBreland HallBusiness Complex BuildingCampus Police/Ag InstituteCervantes Village, Bldg A (Children's Village)Chemistry BuildingClara Belle Williams HallCommunity CollegesComputer CenterCorbett CenterDan W. Williams HallDove HallEd and Harold Foreman Engineering ComplexEducational Services CenterEngineering Complex IFacilities and Services Motor PoolFacilities and Services OfficeFacilities and Services Recycling CenterFoster HallGarcia AnnexGardiner HallGenesis Center CGenesis Center OfficeGerald Thomas HallGoddard HallGuthrie HallHadley HallHardman HallHealth and Social Services BuildingHerschel Zohn TheatreJacobs HallOffice of Institutional 21462711211Page 5

Fall 2013: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey ResultsNumber of Responses by Building Affiliation (cont)James B. Delamater Activity CenterJett HallJohn Whitlock Hernandez HallJornada USDA Exp. Range HQ (Wooten Hall)Knox HallMilton HallMusic BuildingNatatoriumNeale HallNew Mexico Dept. of AgricultureO’Donnell HallRegents RowRentfrow GymScience HallSkeen HallSmall Animal Research LabSpeech BuildingStan Fulton CenterStucky HallStudent Health CenterSugerman Space Grant BuildingTejada Building, Extension AnnexThomas & Brown HallTrack RestroomWalden HallWells HallWilliam B. Conroy Honors CenterZuhl Library5612413321881528181331221111124Section 3: Custodial Care"Facilities and Services provides basic cleaning, recycling, and routine pest control services for Instructionand General Buildings on the Las Cruces Campus. This is done according to a published schedule on theFS website. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following custodial care areas as they pertainto the building you identified as your primary building."For the custodial care areas specified, more than 76% of respondents indicated they were satisfied orvery satisfied with FS custodial services (Table 4). More than 75% of respondents were satisfied or verysatisfied with the overall quality of custodial services; and 67% indicated they were very satisfied withthe courtesy of the custodial staff. The frequency of custodial services was of concern to nearly one outof every five respondents. Comments suggested that vacuuming, trash pickup, and dusting frequencyOffice of Institutional AnalysisPage 6

Fall 2013: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey Resultsneeded improvement. Cleanliness of restrooms was the second area of concern with eleven percent ofrespondents dissatisfied with restroom cleanliness and nearly 5% very dissatisfied. This varies bybuilding; comments suggest that restrooms in Milton Hall, the Chemistry Building and Regents Rowneed more attention. There were suggestions to have the restrooms cleaned first thing in the morningso they are ready for each day’s visitors. Respondents were more satisfied with the cleanliness of publicareas than with the cleanliness of offices and classrooms. The comments implied that personal officespace needs to be vacuumed and dusted.Jett Hall, Health and Social Services, Business Complex and the Chemistry building were mentioned inseveral comments as needing more custodial care. Branson Library and the Conroy Honors Centerwould like to have their windows washed.More than 41% of respondents were satisfied with the effectiveness of the recycling program and anadditional 21% were very satisfied. However, nearly 22% were neutral on this question, much higherthan the other questions in this section.Fifty-two (26%) comments referred to Custodial Services. Several comments singled out employees andbuildings where custodians perform above expectations. Some comments noted improvements inCustodial Services since last year. Other comments specified areas in need of more attention fromCustodial Services. The range of comments indicates a wide variation in opinion by building."The custodial staff in our building is very efficient. We are very pleased with their work.""The floors are not frequently swept in the old section of the Chemistry building.some labrooms are infrequently swept or mopped."Table 4: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Custodial Services, Respondent PercentagesVerySatisfied Neutral DissatisfiedVerySatisfiedDissatisfiedCleanliness of public areas(entryways, lobbies, lounges,37.8%38.4%10.8%10.3%2.7%etc.)# ofResponses370Cleanliness of restrooms35.8%37.6%10.5%11.3%4.8%372Cleanliness of offices andclassrooms30.7%38.1%16.0%11.3%3.9%362Courtesy of custodial .9%3.6%253Frequency of custodialservicesOverall quality of custodialservicesSustainabilityPlease rate the effectivenessof the Recycling program.Office of Institutional AnalysisPage 7

Fall 2013: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey ResultsSection 4: Building and Environment"Facilities and Services strives to maintain a comfortable and functional environment for all members ofthe NMSU community. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following building andenvironmental utilities areas of the building you identified as your primary building."Respondents were satisfied, although not always very satisfied, with the building and environmentservices provided by FS (Table 5). Approximately 30% of respondents indicated they were very satisfiedwith the reliability of utilities in their building, and nearly 50% were satisfied with the lighting. Whenrespondents indicated dissatisfaction with an area, it was usually related to temperature. About 27% ofrespondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the temperature in their buildings, especially inBranson Library, Educational Services Center, Garcia Annex, Gerald Thomas Hall, Health and SocialServices Building, and Science Hall. Although about 30% of respondents were neutral with regard tohandicap access, more than 15% of respondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with handicapaccess. More signage and repair or additional accommodations for handicap access were suggested.Of the nearly 200 responses to the question on the effectiveness of energy conservation, nearly a thirdwere dissatisfied to very dissatisfied. However, there were more respondents who said they were verysatisfied than there were respondents who were very dissatisfied (Figure 2).Twenty-eight (14%) comments referred to the building, rooms and environment. Repair requests werementioned for seven buildings: Ed and Harold Foreman Engineering Complex, Garcia Annex, GeraldThomas Hall, Goddard Hall, Health and Social Services Building, Milton Hall, and Natatorium. Eightrespondents were dissatisfied with the uncomfortable temperature in their buildings. Issues withaccessibility include the need for more signage, the need for more handicap accesses, and the need forre-evaluating the key policy. EHS was singled out for excellent service but some respondents suggestedimproving the EHS website.".we have not had reliable temperature control in our office--we have no windows that wecan open and sometimes the temperatures are not conducive for working."Table 5: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Building Environmental and Utilities Services,Respondent PercentagesVerySatisfiedNeutralDissatisfiedVery# ofSatisfiedDissatisfied hting (Is it adequate for the27.3%49.2%12.4%9.1%1.9%362task?)Handicap access22.2%36.4%29.2%9.4%2.8%360Reliability of utilities (electricalpower, heating, cooling, meet29.7%46.4%15.0%7.5%1.4%360our needs and have minimalinterruptions)Office of Institutional AnalysisPage 8

Fall 2013: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey ResultsNumber of ResponsesFigure 2: Satisfaction with the Effectiveness of Energy Conservation45403530252015105012Very Unsatisfied3456Ratings78910Very SatisfiedSection 5: Grounds Services"Facilities and Services provides landscape and grounds maintenance, exterior trash receptaclemanagement and concrete and asphalt maintenance. In addition, Facilities and Services maintains thewalkways and roadways around campus and is responsible for the care of lawns, trees, and shrubs.Facilities and Services is also founded to maintain campus drainage systems. Please rate your level ofsatisfaction with the following areas as they relate to Facilities and Services grounds maintenance in yourarea of the university."As reported in past surveys, the Grounds Staff are very courteous. Almost 50% of respondents werevery satisfied with the courtesy of the Grounds Staff and another 37% were satisfied (Table 7).Approximately three out of every four respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the overallquality of Grounds Services, the maintenance of grounds and the quality of the landscape design andmaintenance. Respondents were less satisfied with litter management as nearly 14% were dissatisfiedto very dissatisfied; however, there were few specific comments regarding littered areas. Althoughmany respondents were neutral on the topic, the quality of pest control had the lowest level ofsatisfaction (23% very satisfied), and more than 3% of respondents were very dissatisfied. According tosome comments, spiders are a problem, especially in outdoor stairways. There were fewer responsesrelated to the effectiveness of the water efficient landscaping and other water conservation measures,and of those who did respond, nearly a fourth (23%) were neutral. Comments indicated some sprinklerspointed into sidewalks and streets, and grass was over-watered in some areas. Some respondentssuggested FS should plant more low-water use plants.Twenty-six (13%) comments specified areas around campus where Ground Services could put moreeffort and areas that have received improved grounds services. Specifically, Skeen Hall, Garcia Annex,Academic Research (A, B, C), Science Hall, Hardman Hall, Computer Center, Milton Hall, and William B.Conroy Honors Center all have requests for improved landscaping. Different from last year, morecomments referred to issues of trees on campus. Although O’Donnell Hall, Breland Hall, and Zuhl Libraryhad requests for removal of dead trees, concerns were voiced regarding the removal of big trees aroundOffice of Institutional AnalysisPage 9

Fall 2013: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey Resultsthe Chemistry building. Breland Hall respondents suggested more effort be made to reduce invasiveweeds and maintain healthy trees. (Appendix A)."I was a bit concerned about the removal of large trees around the chemistry buildingcomplex. I felt they shaded the building which should have saved cooling costs.""Top of stairways always have many spider webs and spiders which I have been personallybitten time after time."Table 6: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Ground Services, Respondent PercentagesVerySatisfiedNeutralDissatisfiedVery# ofSatisfiedDissatisfied ResponsesMaintenance of grounds(mowing, weeding, trimming,edging, etc.)Quality of landscape design andmaintenance (trees,flowerbeds, etc.)Litter managementManagement of recycling andrecycling receptaclesQuality of pest control (indoorsand outdoors)Overall quality of GroundsservicesCourtesy of Grounds staffSustainabilityPlease grade the effectivenessof the water efficientlandscaping and our otherwater conservation .2%22.8%8.5%5.8%224Section 6: Office of Sustainability"Please rate your level of satisfaction with the following areas as they relate to sustainability at theuniversity."A section related to the Office of Sustainability was added to this year's survey. Approximately 90responses were received for the questions in this section, and many of those who responded answered“neutral,” perhaps implying that the Office of Sustainability is relatively unknown on campus. Most ofthose who did respond were satisfied (69%) with the overall quality of sustainability at NMSU. Nearlyhalf of respondents indicated they were very satisfied with the courtesy of sustainability staff, andanother third were satisfied. Among different programs, the Toner Recycling program had the highestOffice of Institutional AnalysisPage 10

Fall 2013: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey Resultslevel of satisfaction (68% were satisfied to very satisfied), while 46% of the 90 respondents were neutralon the Environmental Education Program (Table 8).Thirty (15%) comments referred to sustainability. The lack of recycling bins on campus was a majorconcern. Respondents suggested more recycling bins were needed and should be placed in betterlocations."NMDA could use more recycling bins, and bigger ones for common areas -- often after ameeting, the recycle bin is full of plastic water bottles, so people begin tossing theirs in thetrash!"Table 7: Satisfaction with the Office of Sustainability, Respondent PercentagesVerySatisfiedNeutralDissatisfiedVery# ofSatisfiedDissatisfied ResponsesEducational programs (tabling,one-on-one meetings, campuspresentations)WebsiteToner Recycling ProgramEnvironmental EducationCenterEnergy Reduction ProgramOverall quality of sustainabilityat NMSUCourtesy of sustainability .0%9249.5%36.3%13.2%1.1%0.0%91Section 7: Project Development"Facilities modifications and enhancements are provided on reimbursable basis when requested by theuser. Please evaluate Project Development and Engineering if you have used their services. In the lasttwelve months, have you/your office utilized any of these types of projects and engineering services?"Approximately 100 (22% of total) responses were received for the questions related to ProjectDevelopment. Of those who responded 35% were satisfied and an additional 24% were very satisfiedwith the knowledge and skill of project staff, and slightly more were with the finished product.Respondents were slightly less satisfied with preparedness of project workers; although 28% wereneutral, 18% were dissatisfied. However, approximately one in four respondents were dissatisfied tovery dissatisfied with the final project budget (23%), the communication throughout the project (26%),and the initial response time for estimating the cost of the project (30%). The timeliness of the projectcompletion was of concern to one out of every three respondents. Nearly one fourth of respondentssaid they were very dissatisfied with project timeliness (Table 9).Thirty-nine comments (20%) referred to project development. Comments implied the processing ofwork orders was too excessive. One comment read "Multiple requests often need to be submitted toOffice of Institutional AnalysisPage 11

Fall 2013: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey Resultsget a response." Ten comments suggested FS Project Development needs to improve theiradministration. Respondents felt project managers needed more training on management and customerservice. However, respondents did appreciate project managers' hard-work and professionalism. "I haveroutinely found the office and maintenance staff to be courteous, knowledgeable, efficient, and veryhelpful."Only 55 responses were received regarding the importance of sustainability to the project. The meanrating of 3.5 on a scale of 1 (not important at all) to 5 (very important) indicates that, on average,respondents believe sustainability is somewhat important."I like personal feedback when work orders are complete-please continue this. It helpsreduced further questions/problems.""Really non-responsive. Little or no contact via phone with project updates."Table 8: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Special Projects and Engineering Services, iedVery# ofSatisfiedDissatisfied ResponsesInitial response time for17.1%31.4%estimating costPreparedness of Project19.0%35.2%workersKnowledge and skill of Project24.0%35.6%staffPlease rate the satisfaction level with the finished project:Satisfaction with the finished24.5%35.3%projectThe timeliness of the project17.5%23.3%(on time)Final budget of project15.7%27.5%Communication from ProjectDevelopment and Engineering19.6%28.4%throughout the projectHow important is sustainability to your project?(5 stars very important, 1 star not at all important)Office of Institutional 7%9.8%10225.5%13.7%12.7%102ResponsesMean553.5Page 12

Fall 2013: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey ResultsSection 8: Facilities and Services Administrative Services"In the last twelve months, have you had contact with Facilities and Services business office staffregarding the administrative side of any maintenance project or Special Projects or Engineering Work?"Approximately a quarter (n 124) of all survey respondents completed the questions on FSadministrative services. More than half of respondents were very satisfied with the courtesy of FS staff,and 47% were very satisfied with the professional attitude of FS employees. The knowledge and skill ofFS staff and the accuracy of information were also seen as strengths. The only areas that might needimprovement were with timeliness of response. While a quarter of respondents were neutral regardingthe timeliness of responses to billing inquiries, nearly 15% were dissatisfied to very dissatisfied on thetimeliness of response to inquiries about work status (Table 10).Table 9: Satisfaction with Facilities and Services Administrative Service Areas, iedVery# ofSatisfiedDissatisfied ResponsesTimeliness of response toinquiries about work statusTimeliness of responses toinquiries about billingCourtesy of Facilities andServices staff towards customerAccuracy of informationprovided by Facilities andServices employeesProfessional attitude ofFacilities and ServicesemployeesKnowledge and skill of Facilitiesand Services .4%3.3%123Section 9: Environmental Health and Safety"Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements pertaining to Environmental Health &Safety Services.”Over 130 responses were received regarding Environmental Health and Safety. As noted in past surveys,respondents say EHS staff are knowledgeable, helpful and friendly as more than 80% of respondentssaid they were satisfied to very satisfied with these attributes. Slightly fewer respondents were verysatisfied with the effectiveness of the EHS training, EHS understanding, and EHS accessibility. Althoughone-fourth of respondents were neutral on the topic, the EHS website was not seen as user friendly orhelpful by 13% of respondents. EHS was singled out by respondents' comments for excellent service.The comments also provided suggestions to improve the EHS website.Office of Institutional AnalysisPage 13

Fall 2013: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey ResultsTable 10: Satisfaction with Environmental Health and Safety (EHS), Respondent SatisfiedDissatisfied ResponsesEHS understands my needs and therequirements of my department.26.3%50.4%17.3%5.3%0.8%133EHS is accessible to its customers(phone, voice mail, email, etc.).29.3%51.9%14.3%3.0%1.5%133When contacted, an EHSconsultation helped facilitateresolution of my problem or issue.28.8%44.7%21.2%3.0%2.3%132The EHS website is user friendlyand helpful in providing access toinformation, forms, manuals, et

Fall 2013: Facilities & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey Results Office of Institutional Analysis Page 5 Table 3: Number of Responses by Building Affiliation Number of Responses by Building Affiliation Building Response Academic Research A, B, C 19 Agricultural Science Center at Alcalde 1 Alumni & Visitors Center 2

Related Documents:

45678 CS-101 1 Fall 2009 F 54321 CS-101 1 Fall 2009 A-76543 CS-101 1 Fall 2009 A CS-347 1 Fall 2009 Taylor 3128 C 00128 CS-347 1 Fall 2009 A-12345 CS-347 1 Fall 2009 A 23856 CS-347 1 Fall 2009 A 54321 CS-347 1 Fall 2009 A 76543 CS-347 1 Fall 2009 A 10.7 Answer: a. Everytime a record is

Fall Protection Categories All fall protection products fit into four functional categories. 1. Fall Arrest; 2. Positioning; 3. Suspension; 4. Retrieval. Fall Arrest: A fall arrest system is required if any risk exists that a worker may fall from an elevated position, as a general rule, the fall

Volume 29, Issue 21 Virginia Register of Regulations June 17, 2013 2526 PUBLICATION SCHEDULE AND DEADLINES June 2013 through June 2014 Volume: Issue Material Submitted By Noon* Will Be Published On 29:21 May 29, 2013 June 17, 2013 29:22 June 12, 2013 July 1, 2013 29:23 June 26, 2013 July 15, 2013 29:24 July 10, 2013 July 29, 2013

fall protection systems/equipment and the recognition of fall hazards related to their use, including: - a. The nature of fall hazards in the work area; - b. The correct procedures for erecting, using , dismantling, maintaining, and storing fall protection equipment; - c. The application limits, free fall distance, total fall distance and .

Parag B. Deotare University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 2 /7 Teaching, Education and Outreach [Winter 2017, Fall 2017, 2018, 2019] University of Michigan: EECS 334, Principles of Optics [Fall 2017, Fall 2018, Fall 2019 2020] University of Michigan: EECS 438, Advanced Laser Lab [Fall 2016, Fall 2017, Fall 2018

Holy spirit, Fall fresh on me. Lord, anoint us; We yield our all to thee. For we know that yokes are broken, And the captives are set free. So, let it fall down, Fall down, Fall down on me. We need the power of the Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit. Send your anointing, Let it fall down, Fall down, Fall down on me. Holy

Fall TIPS “Super User” Training (this presentation) – Review the types of patient falls – Review the components of an evidence-based fall prevention program Universal fall precautions (all patients) 3-Step Fall Prevention Process 1. Fall risk assessment 2. Personalized fall prevention planning 3.File Size: 1MBPage Count: 38

fall by easing the patient’s descent to the floor or in some manner attempting to break the patient’s fall. “Assisting” the patient back into a bed or chair after a fall is not an assisted fall. A fall that is reported to have been assisted by a family member or visitor counts as a fall, but does not count as an assisted fall.