What this is
What is a 30 day check-in?
What is a 30 day check-in?
A 30 day check-in is a structured review, carried out roughly one month into a new worker's employment, of how they are settling in: whether they feel safe, know who to ask, have been given enough training, and would actually stop a job or report a mistake. It closes with a decision on whether additional training or a follow-up action is needed.
Why 30 days specifically?
It is early enough to catch a gap before it becomes routine practice, and late enough that the new worker has done the job for real rather than only watched it. Injury data consistently shows new starters are hurt at several times the rate of established workers in the first weeks, which is the window this check-in sits inside.
Who should carry out the check-in?
The direct supervisor, in a one-to-one conversation rather than a form handed over to complete alone. The questions concern whether the worker feels safe raising a concern, which most people answer differently depending on who is asking and how.
Scope
When is a 30 day check in required?
The 30 day check-in is one review point in the onboarding programme, positioned after induction and the buddy period and before the 90 day competency sign-off. Used in isolation, without those records either side of it, it cannot show whether an identified gap traces back to a specific induction or training step.
Use this template when
- A new worker reaches roughly 30 days of employment and the scheduled review falls due
- A worker has moved role, department or site recently enough that an equivalent settling-in check is warranted
- An earlier concern or near miss involving a new starter suggests an earlier check is needed, ahead of the standard 30 day point
- The buddy assignment for this worker is due to close, and its effectiveness needs an independent check alongside it
- A pattern across several new starters needs a data point, and this check-in is the scheduled place to capture it
Do not use it for
- New Hire Orientation, which introduces the company and site, and is a one-off event rather than a review of how settling in is going
- Site Safety Induction, which covers site-specific hazards and rules at the point of joining, not retention and confidence weeks later
- Buddy Assignment Record, the pairing itself; this check-in is one of the places a failing buddy arrangement should surface, not where it is set up
- 90 Day Competency Sign Off, an independent, later verification of demonstrated competence, distinct from this welfare and confidence check
- A manual handling or ergonomic assessment, which needs a quantified method against the actual task; the physical demands question here is a self-report screen, not a substitute
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45001 cl.7.4 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 45001 requires two-way communication and worker participation to be genuinely functioning, not merely offered, and a check-in this early in employment is one of the more direct pieces of evidence that either is real.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45001 cl.7.4.1 | Determination of internal communications relevant to the OH&S management system, including what, when and with whom | How it is going |
| ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Consultation and participation of non-managerial workers in matters affecting their health and safety | How it is going |
| ISO 45001 cl.5.3 | Authority to stop work and report hazards communicated and understood at worker level | How it is going |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.1 | Hazard identification proactive and ongoing, including human factors such as physical demand and fatigue | Practical checks |
| ISO 45001 cl.7.2 | Competence determined and gaps identified, with action taken where training is insufficient | Outcome |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Elimination of hazards and reduction of risk, with corrective action raised where a gap is confirmed | Outcome |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Monitoring and measurement of the effectiveness of controls and arrangements | Outcome |
What it does not cover
- A workplace risk assessment, the general instrument covering the task and area; this check-in tells you whether a worker understood it, not whether the assessment itself is adequate.
- A manual handling or ergonomic assessment, which needs a quantified method such as the NIOSH equation or MAC against the actual task, not the self-reported physical demands question here.
- 90 Day Competency Sign Off, an independent, later verification that the worker can perform the task, distinct from this welfare and confidence check.
- A grievance or whistleblowing investigation, which a disclosed concern needs if serious; the text field here captures that something was said, not that it was properly investigated.
- The corrective action itself, which belongs in the CAPA or action record once raised, not inside this check-in's outcome fields.
Global
30 Day Check In requirements by country
No jurisdiction mandates a check-in at exactly 30 days by name. The duty this record supports is the broader one to communicate with and consult new and inexperienced workers, and to act on what they raise.
OSH Act Section 5(a)(1), General Duty Clause; whistleblower protections under Section 11(c)
No federal mandate for a fixed-interval new-hire check-in. BLS injury data showing elevated new-worker injury rates is cited widely in OSHA outreach material.
A documented check-in that surfaces and acts on a concern evidences addressing a recognised hazard; Section 11(c) means the worker's answers here are never a basis for reprisal.
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, reg.3; HSE guidance on new and young workers
Risk assessment must account for inexperience, and HSE guidance recommends monitoring new starters closely in the early weeks.
A recorded 30 day check-in that finds and closes a gap answers an inspector asking how inexperience was accounted for in practice, not just on paper.
ISO 45001:2018 cl.7.4 and cl.5.4
Communication processes and worker consultation and participation must be determined, implemented and shown to function.
Auditors treat genuine, individually varied check-in answers as stronger evidence of functioning consultation than a uniform record repeating the same safe answer.
How to complete it
How to complete a 30 day check in, step by step
The questions are simple to ask. What determines whether the check-in was worth having is whether the supervisor pushed past the first answer and whether a flag raised here actually went anywhere.
A new worker completing this alone will tend toward the answer that ends the exercise quickest. The value of the check-in is a supervisor asking a follow-up when something is hedged, which only happens if it is run as a conversation.
New starters rarely volunteer that they do not understand something, out of not wanting to seem behind this early. 'Anything Still Unclear' left blank is unasked, not confirmed clarity, unless the supervisor actually raised it.
The field's own guidance says it plainly: anything but a clear yes on stopping an unsafe job means the message has not landed. 'Probably' is not a passing answer to file away; it is the gap this question exists to catch.
Additional training needed or an action required should each produce a traceable reference, not a closed tick with nothing behind it. A flag closed with no CAPA or owner attached has recorded the problem and dropped it.
What auditors find
Most common 30 day check in findings
The check-in is usually run on schedule. The findings concern whether it was a real conversation and whether anything it surfaced was actually followed up.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Check-in run well past the 30 day point, after exposure has already occurred. | ISO 45001 cl.7.4.1 | Schedule the check-in against the start date automatically and flag it overdue rather than waiting to be remembered. |
| Every answer on record is the safe default, with no variation across workers. | ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Run the check-in as a face-to-face conversation and require the supervisor to probe any 'partly' or 'mostly'. |
| A concern about being asked to do something unsafe is flagged Yes with the detail field blank. | ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Make the detail field mandatory whenever the flag is Yes, routed to a named owner immediately. |
| Stop-work confidence recorded as 'Probably' with no follow-up action raised. | ISO 45001 cl.5.3 | Treat anything short of a clear yes as a training gap needing a follow-up conversation and a recorded action. |
| Additional training marked as needed with no CAPA or action reference attached. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Require an action reference before the check-in can close whenever a training gap is flagged. |
| Discomfort or physical demand concern reported with no referral to an ergonomic assessment. | ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.1 | Route any discomfort flag to a proper ergonomic assessment rather than resolving it in this check-in. |
Case in point
Case in point: the check-in that recorded the gap and closed anyway
A new picker's 30 day check-in was carried out on schedule. She reported physical demands as 'Tiring' and some discomfort, and answered 'Mostly' on feeling safe, with no further detail recorded against either. Additional training was marked as not needed, the check-in was signed off, and no action was raised.
Six weeks later she was diagnosed with a lower back strain and the case was reviewed as a reportable injury. The 30 day check-in was the first record showing discomfort had already been present, unaddressed, at the one-month mark. The 'Mostly' answer on feeling safe had never been followed up either.
The check-in had done exactly what it was designed to do: it surfaced a physical demand and a hedge on feeling safe, both early enough to act on. The failure was closing the record once the safe-enough boxes were ticked, without the discomfort flag reaching anyone who could refer it onward.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
4 sections
- Reference
- TRN-006
- Archetype
- Record
- Record ID
- CHK30-2026-000
- Scoring
- Not scored
- Direction
- n/a
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 45001 cl.7.4
- Links
- Links Worker
- Tags
- Training, Onboarding
- Sections
- 4
- Fields
- 37
- Follow up fields
- 6
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 3
Header
11 fieldsCheck ID*
Auto sequence. Format CHK30-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Delivered By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Worker*
Person ID*
Format PER-0000.
Links to FDN-003 Person ID
Days Since Start*
Supervisor*
Most Injuries Happen Early
New starters are injured at several times the rate of established workers. This conversation is where you find out what they still do not understand.
How it is going
8 fieldsFeels Safe At Work*
- Yes3 pts
- Mostly1 pt
- No0 pts
Knows Who To Ask*
- Yes3 pts
- Unsure1 pt
- No0 pts
Has Been Given Enough Training*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Anything Still Unclear
Ask directly. New starters rarely volunteer that they do not understand something.
Has Been Asked To Do Anything They Felt Unsafe About*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Detail
Would They Stop A Job If Worried*
If the answer is anything but a clear yes, the stop work message has not landed.
- Yes, definitely3 pts
- Probably1 pt
- No0 pts
Would They Report A Mistake*
- Yes3 pts
- Unsure1 pt
- No0 pts
Practical checks
8 fieldsPPE Fits Correctly*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Knows Emergency Arrangements*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Knows Their Muster Point*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Physical Demands Manageable*
- Yes3 pts
- Tiring1 pt
- No0 pts
Any Discomfort Reported*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Ergo Concern Raised
Thread key
Buddy Arrangement Working
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Shift Pattern Manageable*
- Yes3 pts
- Difficult1 pt
- No0 pts
Outcome
10 fieldsAdditional Training Needed*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Training Detail
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Supervisor*
Signature*
Worker*
Second Signature*
TRN-006 · record IDs look like CHK30-2026-000 · Links Worker
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The conversation itself has to happen in person. What the surrounding system can do is make sure a flag raised in it does not just sit on the record.
Schedules the check-in against each worker's start date and flags it overdue before the gap it exists to catch has already been lived through.
Links a stop-work or safety concern flagged in the check-in straight to the incident and near-miss register rather than letting it sit as an isolated text field.
Picks up a discomfort or physical demand flag and routes it to a proper ergonomic assessment instead of leaving it as an unresolved self-report.
Watches for a training or action flag with no linked CAPA reference and raises it, rather than letting the check-in close with the finding unaddressed.
This template lives in KnowTrain — training and credentials. Induction, competency, toolbox talks, refreshers and expiry tracking.
Meet KnowTrain→Glossary
30 Day Check In definitions and key terms
- Stop-work authority
- A worker's confirmed ability and confidence to halt a job they consider unsafe, which this check-in tests directly rather than assuming from policy.
- Consultation and participation
- The requirement that non-managerial workers have a genuine voice in matters affecting their health and safety, of which this check-in is one instance.
- Human factors
- Aspects of work organisation, including fatigue, physical demand and shift pattern, that ISO 45001 requires be considered alongside physical hazards.
- Corrective action (CAPA)
- The record that tracks a raised finding through to a verified fix, which any flag from this check-in should be linked to rather than closed against.
- Onboarding
- The full sequence from hire to independent, competent working, of which this check-in tests whether the earlier steps actually landed.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about 30 day check in
Should the new worker fill this in themselves?+
No. Run it as a conversation with the supervisor. A form completed alone tends to record whichever answer ends the exercise fastest, and the follow-up questions that catch a real gap only happen live.
What does a 'probably' on the stop-work question actually mean?+
That the message has not landed, per the field's own guidance. It is not a near-pass; it is the specific finding this question exists to catch, and should produce a follow-up conversation, not a filed answer.
What happens if a worker discloses something serious?+
The detail field captures that it was raised. Anything serious needs the proper channel, a grievance route, an investigation, from there; this check-in is where it surfaces, not where it gets resolved.
Does 'Additional Training Needed: Yes' have to result in an action?+
It should. A flag closed with nothing behind it has recorded the problem and dropped it. The check-in is not closed until a CAPA reference or an owner is attached.
Is the physical demands question a manual handling assessment?+
No. It is a self-reported screen at one point in time. A struggling answer should be referred to a proper ergonomic assessment using a quantified method, not resolved by this question alone.
Why 30 days rather than some other interval?+
Early enough to catch a gap before it becomes routine, late enough that the worker has done the job for real. New-starter injury rates run well above the established workforce in exactly this window.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Worker Onboarding and Induction
Contractor Site Induction
Introduces a contractor to your site rules, hazards, emergency arrangements and permit requirements
Worker Profile
Holds a record for each worker, including role, department, site and start date
Temporary and Agency Worker Review
Reviews whether agency and short term workers receive the same induction, training and supervision as permanent staff
New Hire Orientation
Introduces a new worker to the company, the site and how things are done here
Site Safety Induction
Covers the hazards and rules specific to this site, with photographs of the real areas
Department Orientation
Introduces the specific department, its work, its people and its risks
More in New Hire Training
New Hire Orientation
Introduces a new worker to the company, the site and how things are done here
Site Safety Induction
Covers the hazards and rules specific to this site, with photographs of the real areas
Department Orientation
Introduces the specific department, its work, its people and its risks
Job Specific Training Record
Records the hands on training for the actual job the person will do
Buddy Assignment Record
Pairs a new worker with an experienced colleague for their first weeks
90 Day Competency Sign Off
Confirms a new worker is competent to work unsupervised in their role
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 45001:2018 clauses 7.4, 5.4, 5.3 and 9.1.1
- Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, regulation 3 (GB)
- HSE guidance on new and young workers
- OSH Act Sections 5(a)(1) and 11(c) (US)
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.