Psychosocial Risk Assessment Template

What requires or shapes this record

None of the sources read for this page sets out a psychosocial risk assessment form, and no law we read fixes this layout. What the law asks differs by place. In Great Britain the general duty to assess risks in regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 covers work-related stress, HSE says, and where there are five or more employees the significant findings, and any group found to be especially at risk, must be written down. HSE's Management Standards organise the assessment around six areas of work design, and HSE says that following its approach correctly is considered suitable and sufficient. In Victoria the Occupational Health and Safety (Psychological Health) Regulations 2025 have been in effect since 1 December 2025: employers identify psychosocial hazards, eliminate the risks or reduce them by changing the work (information, instruction or training on its own is allowed only where no such change is reasonably practicable, and in a mix it must not be the predominant control), and review the controls in listed circumstances. WorkSafe Victoria's Compliance Code explains how, and following it is taken as compliance with the duties it covers. In the Commonwealth of Australia the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011 define a psychosocial hazard and list the matters to weigh when choosing controls (regulations 55A to 55D). ISO 45003:2021 gives guidelines, not requirements. The approaches we read assess the work and the groups who do it rather than individuals: HSE says to start with organisational issues that affect groups, and Victoria's Code advises against naming employees when recording how a hazard was found. The form therefore holds no names and no health information. It supplies no risk scale, minimum group size or review interval of its own. Filling it in does not show compliance with any law; this page is general information, not legal advice.

• HSE, What are the Management Standards? and Steps 1 to 5 of the Management Standards approach (Great Britain; hse.gov.uk pages read on 21 October 2026)

  HSE describes the Management Standards as six areas of work design that, poorly managed, go with poor health, lower productivity and more accidents and sickness absence: demands (workload, work patterns and the work environment), control (the say people have in how they work), support (from the organisation, managers and colleagues), relationships (positive working, conflict and unacceptable behaviour), role (understanding one's role, and no conflicting roles) and change (how change is managed and communicated). Step 1 says HSE does not expect every standard to be met, treats them as targets, and advises dealing first with organisational issues that affect groups. Step 2, who can be harmed and how, lists data many organisations already hold: sickness absence, productivity, staff turnover and exit interviews, disciplinary and complaint data, accidents and near misses, occupational health or EAP statistics and feedback from staff, team meetings, union contacts, walk-throughs and talk-throughs. It advises using more than one source and checking whether they agree, and says a survey is one source, not an essential step, and would not be proportionate for smaller organisations that can gather the same data in other ways; HSE's own Indicator Tool has 35 questions mapped to the six areas. Step 3 talks the findings through with employees (HSE says focus groups of 6 to 10 people work best), notes that each standard expects a system for individual concerns, and sorts interventions into primary (at the source), secondary (helping people cope) and tertiary (helping people already made ill). Step 4 asks for an action plan whose actions are prioritised, resourced, assigned and given a timescale, agreed with senior managers and employee representatives and shared with employees. Step 5 monitors the actions, evaluates whether they work and suggests repeating a survey after a period. The six areas on the form are described in our words.

• Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/3242), regulation 3, Risk assessment (revised text on legislation.gov.uk, which listed no outstanding effects when read on 21 October 2026), with HSE's 'Stress risk assessment' page (Great Britain, read the same day)

  Under regulation 3(1) every employer makes a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of its employees at work and of other people affected by its undertaking; HSE reads this duty as covering work-related stress. Under 3(3) the assessment is looked at again when it may have stopped being valid or the work it covers has changed significantly, and amended if that review shows a need. Under 3(6), once there are five or more employees, the significant findings are written down together with any group the assessment shows to be especially at risk, which is why the form names the group and has a 'who might be harmed' column. HSE's stress risk assessment page (https://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/risk-assessment.htm) puts the duty as protecting workers from stress by assessing the risk and acting on it, treats stress like any other work-related risk, says that below five workers nothing has to be written down although a record helps later reviews, and points to the Management Standards. It also suggests reviewing policies on bullying, harassment and discrimination. HSE regulates in Great Britain; Northern Ireland was not covered for this page.

• Occupational Health and Safety (Psychological Health) Regulations 2025 (Victoria), regulations 4, 8, 9, 14, 15 and 16, as set out in WorkSafe Victoria's Compliance Code: Psychological health (both in effect from 1 December 2025; Parts 1 and 3 read on worksafe.vic.gov.au on 21 October 2026)

  The Code's preface says the Regulations and the Code are in effect from 1 December 2025, that the Code is not mandatory, and that an employer who complies with it is taken to have complied with the duties it deals with. Regulation 4 defines a psychosocial hazard as any factor in work design, systems of work, management of work, the carrying out of work, or personal or work-related interactions that may arise in the working environment and cause an employee a negative psychological response that creates a risk to health or safety. The Code gives sixteen examples, which the form's section 3 uses (six of them matched by us to the HSE areas), and says the list is not exhaustive. Regulation 14 requires employers to identify psychosocial hazards so far as is reasonably practicable. The Code's step 2 asks about the likelihood, duration, frequency and severity of exposure, how hazards interact, which employees are most at risk and whether risks are organisation-wide or local, and says assessments should collect data (focus groups, interviews, de-identified validated surveys) and cite the evidence used. Regulation 15 requires the risk to be eliminated or, if that is not reasonably practicable, reduced by altering the management of work, plant, systems of work, work design or the workplace environment, or by information, instruction or training, or a combination; information, instruction or training may be used alone only where none of the other changes is reasonably practicable, and in a combination it must not be the predominant control. Regulation 8 requires controls to be properly maintained, and regulation 16 requires them to be reviewed before a change likely to affect the risk, on new information, on a report of a psychological injury or psychosocial hazard, after a notifiable incident involving such a hazard, when controls do not adequately control the risk, and at an HSR's request, and revised where the review finds them inadequate. Regulation 9 sets how HSRs take part in consultation. On records, the Code suggests noting each hazard (when and how it was identified, without identifying individual employees), the assessment (who is affected, severity, likelihood, frequency and duration), the controls (who implements them and by when), the review and the consultation (who, how and when), and mentions WorkSafe's own prevention plan template.

• Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011 (Commonwealth of Australia), regulations 34 to 38 (Part 3.1) and 55A to 55D (Part 3.2, Division 11, Psychosocial risks), compilation of 25 March 2025 (Federal Register of Legislation, shown as the latest version when read on 21 October 2026)

  Regulation 55A defines a psychosocial hazard as one that arises from or relates to the design or management of work, a work environment, plant at a workplace, or workplace interactions or behaviours, and may cause psychological harm, whether or not it may also cause physical harm; regulation 55B defines psychosocial risk. Regulation 55C requires a person conducting a business or undertaking to manage psychosocial risks under Part 3.1 and to implement control measures under regulation 55D, which lists matters to have regard to in choosing them: the duration, frequency and severity of exposure; how the hazards may interact or combine; the design of work, including job demands and tasks; the systems of work, including how work is managed, organised and supported; the design, layout and environmental conditions of the workplace and of workers' accommodation; plant, substances and structures; workplace interactions or behaviours; and the information, training, instruction and supervision provided. Part 3.1 requires reasonably foreseeable hazards to be identified (regulation 34), risks eliminated so far as is reasonably practicable or else minimised (35) using the hierarchy of control measures (36), controls maintained (37), and controls reviewed in listed circumstances, among them before a change at the workplace, when a new hazard or risk is identified, when consultation shows a need and at an HSR's request (38). Safe Work Australia's pages for the model WHS Regulations and the model Code 'Managing psychosocial hazards at work' returned an error (503) in a browser and timed out when fetched on 21 October 2026, so the model text and the model Code's hazard list were not read or compared with this Commonwealth text. Safe Work Australia's home page, which did open, says the Commonwealth, states and territories regulate and enforce WHS laws: check the regulations that apply where you work.

• ISO 45003:2021, Occupational health and safety management: Psychological health and safety at work: Guidelines for managing psychosocial risks, catalogue page (ISO, edition 1, opened 21 October 2026)

  ISO's abstract presents the document as guidance for handling psychosocial risk inside an OH&S management system built on ISO 45001, usable by organisations of any size and sector. The page lists the first edition, published in June 2021, as the current one, at stage 90.60 (close of review), 23 pages long. It is guidance, not a set of requirements, and it does not prescribe a form. Its text is paid and was not reproduced here, and no clause of it is used on the form; our psychosocial risk guide sets out how it relates to ISO 45001.

Each source checked on 21 October 2026. Not legal advice; check the text in force for your site.

Field by field

One form covers one work area or group. Fill in section 2 before the hazard table, so that every finding in section 3 points to evidence; mark every hazard row, including those you find absent; and give each hazard marked Y or ? a line in section 4. Write figures and themes for the group, never details about a person. The hazard numbering, the evidence numbers, the control type letters and the example lines are ours; the risk scale, the smallest group for which figures are shown and the review date come from your own procedure.

Work area and group assessed

Why: Victoria's Code notes that hazards differ between groups and that separate assessments may suit particular teams, locations or work groups, and HSE advises dealing first with organisational issues that affect groups. Naming one team, role, shift or site keeps the findings specific enough to act on.

Common mistake: One assessment for the whole organisation, so a problem in one team disappears into the average.

About how many people are in the group

Why: Tells a reader whether group figures can be shown without anyone being identifiable. The smallest group for which survey or absence results are reported is set in your own procedure; the form supplies no number.

Common mistake: Reporting survey results for a group of three, so everyone can tell who answered what.

Others exposed

Why: Contractors, agency workers and volunteers often share the same rota, queue or customers. The Commonwealth definition of psychosocial risk covers workers and other persons, and Victoria's Code extends consultation and information duties to independent contractors in matters the employer controls.

Common mistake: Leaving out the agency staff who cover the same late shifts.

Why this assessment now

Why: The choices follow the review circumstances in Victoria's regulation 16 and the Commonwealth's regulation 38 (a planned change, new information, a report of a hazard or injury, an incident, a representative's request) and the review duty in regulation 3(3) of the GB regulations. A stated trigger shows what the assessment has to answer.

Common mistake: Treating a complaint as a reason to assess the person who raised it rather than the work.

Evidence used (E1 to E11)

Why: HSE lists data most organisations already hold, from sickness absence and turnover to complaints, accidents and occupational health statistics, and advises using more than one source. Victoria's Code says an assessment should collect data and cite the evidence it used. Each finding in section 3 points back to an E number.

Common mistake: Reading an absence of reports as proof that there is no problem: Victoria's Code warns that it may instead show a reluctance to report.

Survey (E1)

Why: HSE's Indicator Tool is a 35-question survey mapped to the six areas, and HSE calls a survey a broad indicator and one source among several: not an essential step, and not proportionate for a smaller organisation that can gather the same data in other ways. Write the tool, the date, the response rate and the results by area.

Common mistake: Copying individual free-text comments into the record, or showing scores without the response rate.

Hazards A1 to A6 (Management Standards areas)

Why: HSE's six areas of work design: demands, control, support, relationships, role and change, described on the form in our words. Each row also carries the name Victoria's Code uses for the matching hazard; that matching is ours.

Common mistake: Marking an area N because nobody has complained about it.

Hazards B1 to B10 and C1 to C2

Why: The further example hazards in Victoria's Code: aggression or violence, bullying, exposure to traumatic events or content, gendered violence, low job demands, low recognition and reward, poor environmental conditions, poor organisational justice, remote or isolated work and sexual harassment. The Code says its list is not exhaustive, so C1 and C2 hold any other hazard found.

Common mistake: Skipping the B rows outside Victoria, although the same hazards turn up in any workplace.

Who might be harmed, and how

Why: Step 2 of HSE's approach is 'who can be harmed and how'. Victoria's Code lists people who may be at greater risk, such as new and young employees, people in insecure work and people facing language barriers. Regulation 3(6) of the GB regulations records any group found to be especially at risk.

Common mistake: Naming a person who is known to be struggling instead of describing the group.

Exposure: how often, how long, how severe

Why: Victoria's Code asks how likely exposure is, whether it is a single episode or builds up over time, how often and how long it lasts, and how serious the harm could be. Regulation 55D(2)(a) of the Commonwealth regulations names duration, frequency and severity.

Common mistake: Rating a rare but severe exposure, such as a traumatic event, as low because it happens seldom.

Interacts with

Why: Victoria's Code says hazards combine, giving high demands with low control and poor support as an example that raises both likelihood and severity, and regulation 55D(2)(b) asks how hazards may interact. Writing the numbers shows which rows to solve together.

Common mistake: Treating each row on its own, so a fix for one hazard makes another worse.

Existing controls, and are they working?

Why: Victoria's Code asks employers to review the controls already in place and how well they work, and regulation 8 requires controls to be maintained. Each control needs evidence that it works, such as a figure that has fallen or a focus group finding.

Common mistake: Listing an EAP leaflet as the control for an unmanageable workload.

Further controls and type

Why: Victoria's regulation 15 asks first for elimination, then for changes to the management of work, plant, systems of work, work design or the environment; information, instruction or training on its own is allowed only where none of those is reasonably practicable, and in a mix it must not be the predominant control. HSE calls changes at the source primary interventions. The type letters show at a glance whether the plan relies on training or individual support.

Common mistake: A plan made only of resilience training and EAP reminders, with no change to the work.

Interim step until then

Why: Victoria's Code suggests interim measures where a control takes time, for example while recruitment runs: temporary staff or secondments, reprioritised work or renegotiated commitments.

Common mistake: Leaving the group exposed for months while a vacancy is filled.

Owner (role) and due date

Why: HSE's step 4 asks that each action be prioritised, resourced, assigned to a person or function and given a realistic timescale, and that the plan be agreed with senior managers and employee representatives and shared with employees.

Common mistake: "HR" as the owner of every action, with no date.

Consultation record

Why: Victoria's Code says assessments involve consultation with employees and any HSRs so far as is reasonably practicable and that their views are taken into account, and its record-keeping list asks who was consulted, how and when. HSE talks findings through with employees, often in focus groups.

Common mistake: Recording "staff informed" after the decisions were already made.

Individual concerns: route only

Why: HSE notes that each Management Standard expects a system for dealing with individual concerns. The form records the route and who holds it, so that personal and health details stay on that restricted route and off the assessment.

Common mistake: Writing a person's complaint, absence reason or diagnosis on the assessment.

Review

Why: Victoria's regulation 16 and the Commonwealth's regulation 38 list when controls are reviewed, the GB regulations require review when an assessment may no longer be valid, and HSE's step 5 monitors actions and evaluates whether they work. The form supplies no interval: your procedure sets the date.

Common mistake: Reviewing only on the anniversary, after a restructure has already changed the work.

Worked example

IllustrativeFive lines from an invented assessment of the late-shift team (41 advisers) in a customer contact centre in Great Britain, November 2026 (invented organisation, figures and actions)

The contact centre, its figures and its actions are made up for illustration; they are not benchmarks. The ratings use the site's own matrix; the form supplies no scale. No line names a person or holds health information: absence, exit and survey results are for the group, and the abuse reports are counted, not described. A2 is marked No on two sources that agree, and B6 stays Not known until there is enough evidence. Every further control changes the work or how it is organised; the briefing in line 3 supports a change of rule rather than replacing one.

When a spreadsheet stops being enough

A printed form or a spreadsheet works for one team assessed once a year by a small group that knows the evidence. It stops working when several sites and groups are assessed on the same hazard list, when survey, absence, incident and grievance figures have to be gathered for each group without exposing anyone, when actions from one assessment must be followed to completion, and when a reported hazard or a planned restructure has to reopen the right assessment.

A software record holds each group's assessment against a shared hazard list, links it to the incident and hazard reports behind it, tracks the actions and their owners, and prompts a review when a linked report or change arrives. Ask how small a group can be before its results are hidden and who can change that setting, which data about individuals the product keeps and who sees it, and whether a finding becomes a risk entry with an action or stays a score. The products listed below are those that meet the rule of the psychosocial risk software guide; meeting it does not show that a product holds an assessment like this one or satisfies any law. Try one of your own groups on it before deciding.

Same rule for every product: tagged “Incident Management”, “Risk Assessment”, “Risk Management”, “Safety Management”, “EHS Management”, “Occupational Health”, “Compliance Management”, “Quality Management” or “Audits & Inspections”, with a sourced psychosocial risk or mental health and wellbeing capability in its record, or one the vendor stated to us, labelled as vendor-stated. Documented and conditional capabilities qualify; check the linked scope before treating a module as included.

Ordered by how closely our sources document this process, not by quality. Sponsored placements are labelled. How lists are ordered

• Evotix · Psychosocial event and hazard management · Documented

  Product scope and boundaries

  Vendor source · Profile checked 14 October 2026

• HSI Donesafe · First aid, CPR and mental health first aid certification management · Documented

  Product scope and boundaries

  Vendor source · Profile checked 14 October 2026

• myosh · Psychosocial risk module using Skodel assessment tools · Conditional

  Product scope and boundaries

  Vendor source · Profile checked 10 October 2026

• Quartex InControl · Confidential and psychosocial reporting · Conditional

  Product scope and boundaries

  Vendor source · Profile checked 14 October 2026

• Ideagen EHS · ISO 45003-oriented psychosocial hazard tools · Conditional

  Product scope and boundaries

  Vendor source · Profile checked 11 October 2026

• iProtectU · Psychosocial surveys, pulse checks and consultation · Documented

  Product scope and boundaries

  Vendor source · Profile checked 12 October 2026

All 6 matching profiles are shown. Documentation review, not hands-on testing or a claim of compliance.