Form Approved
OMB No. 0920-1154
Exp. Date 03/31/2026
Interview Guide: Occupational Safety and Health Professionals’ IVMS Use in the Permian Basin
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is partnering with community leaders in the Permian Basin to better understand what safety professionals need to know about motor vehicle safety to better protect oil and gas extraction workers.
During this interview I will be asking you questions about your experience working to improve motor vehicle safety among oil and gas extraction workers at your company. If we need to go “off script,” and discuss an issue I don’t ask you about or we need to go into greater depth on a point, that is totally fine.
I will be recording this conversation. After we are done, I will transcribe the interview into a Microsoft Word document and delete the recording. The information you share today will be kept confidential. I do not intend to record your name or company name. If your name or any identifying information surfaces during our conversation, I will remove it from the transcribed document. Your participation is completely voluntary and you are free to end the interview at any point.
What is your role with respect to fleet safety?
If you oversaw motor vehicle safety for the entire Permian Basin and you could make one change throughout the Basin to improve motor vehicle safety, what would it be and why?
I am interested in understanding the types of information and technologies your company currently uses to address motor vehicle safety, as well as how you use the information. To start with, I’ve listed a few types of information and technology. We’ll go through this list just to see whether you use a given type of information or technology specifically for you fleet safety activities. You’ll have an opportunity to add to this list if there’s anything missing.
Information and/or Technology |
We use this for MVS |
We do not use this for MVS |
Unsure |
I prefer not to say |
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) |
|
|
|
|
Artificial intelligence (AI) |
|
|
|
|
Contractor management software (e.g., ISN, Veriforce) |
|
|
|
|
Cost information |
|
|
|
|
Information from the state transportation department |
|
|
|
|
Information from the state public health department |
|
|
|
|
Environmental, health, and safety (EHS) management software |
|
|
|
|
FMCSA Drug & Alcohol Clearinghouse |
|
|
|
|
Health information exchanges |
|
|
|
|
In-vehicle monitoring systems (IVMS) |
|
|
|
|
Insurance claims |
|
|
|
|
Job hazard analyses |
|
|
|
|
Law enforcement investigations |
|
|
|
|
Lone worker technologies |
|
|
|
|
Privacy-enhancing technologies |
|
|
|
|
Social media |
|
|
|
|
[PROBE 1: Examples of types might include job hazard analyses, in-vehicle monitoring systems, workers’ first-hand descriptions of incidents, near miss videos, cost data, etc.]
Now let’s go through each one. I’d like you to tell me how your company uses that resource, and what you see as its strengths and limitations. If it’s feasible, please feel free to share your screen if that would help you describe how information is used or strengths and limitations of the system.
[PROBE 2: Is there anything related to motor vehicle safety that you wish your company could track but does not track currently?]
Stories of incidents and near misses in the field can be powerful tools for understanding motor vehicle risks. On the other hand, statistics and key performance indicators can help prioritize issues and track patterns over time. If you had to choose between stories and statistics to improve motor vehicle safety in the Permian Basin, which would you choose and why?
Oil and gas workers are clearly not the only road users in the Permian Basin. And companies are not the only organizations working on motor vehicle safety. Are there other trends in the Permian Basin that impact your motor vehicle safety efforts – for better or worse?
[PROBE 3: such as investments in roadways or driving behaviors of people not affiliated with the industry?}
Public reporting burden of this collection of information is estimated to average 60 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to - CDC/ATSDR Reports Clearance Officer; 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30333 ATTN: PRA (0920-1154).
File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
Author | Kenneth Scott, (Ken) (CDC/NIOSH/WSD) |
File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
File Created | 2025-07-04 |