What this is
What is an annual ergonomics review?
What is an annual ergonomics review?
An annual ergonomics review is a yearly roll-up of the whole ergonomics programme: screenings and assessments completed, controls implemented and at what hierarchy level, what happened to MSD injuries, lost time and discomfort, and whether the programme is judged effective. It is a governance instrument, not an assessment of any one task.
Who carries it out?
The ergonomics lead, working with management, since its conclusions, whether the programme is effective and what changes next year, are management decisions needing the authority to commit budget behind them. Written by the lead alone, it tends to record activity without the authority to act on gaps.
How is it different from reviewing one task or one control?
A task assessment and a control effectiveness review both look at a single intervention. This review looks at the whole system across a year: whether the programme has enough trained assessors, whether backlogs are under control, and whether outcomes are moving the right way in aggregate.
Scope
When is an annual ergonomics review required?
This review sits above the individual assessment, screening and control records it summarises. Using it to document a single redesign or a single control's effectiveness produces a record neither the redesign nor the programme review can use.
Use this template when
- The stated annual interval for the ergonomics programme has arrived
- The programme has changed materially, new site, new process, restructured team, and an out-of-cycle review is warranted
- Management review needs a consolidated ergonomics input rather than a set of individual assessment records
- The ergonomics lead needs a documented basis for next year's objectives and resource case
- A linked record needs this one to exist: assessments and MSD reports reporting up to a programme-level view
Do not use it for
- Ergonomic Control Effectiveness Review, which examines whether specific controls reduced risk scores and symptoms, not the whole programme
- Assessment Comparison Review, which compares individual before-and-after scores, not programme totals
- MSD Trend Review, which tracks injury and discomfort trend on its own cadence, feeding into rather than replacing this review
- Ergonomics Program Plan, which sets the coming year's objectives; this review is what the plan is measured against
- Any single task, screening or control record, each of which belongs in its own template
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45001 cl.9.3 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 45001 does not prescribe an annual ergonomics review by name; it requires management review inputs covering performance, incidents, corrective actions and adequacy of resources, and this review is how a programme supplies that input in one place.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45001 cl.9.3 | Management review must consider OH&S performance trends and adequacy of resources | Conclusion |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Monitoring and measurement of OH&S performance, including trend analysis | Outcomes |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.1 | Hazard identification proactive and ongoing, evidenced by assessment and screening activity | Activity |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Elimination and reduction of risk following the hierarchy of controls | Activity |
| ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Consultation and participation of workers in hazard identification and risk assessment | Programme health |
| ISO 45001 cl.7.2 | Competence of persons doing work affecting OH&S performance, evidenced by trained assessor numbers | Programme health |
| ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Nonconformity and corrective action arising from the review | Conclusion |
| ISO 45001 cl.10.3 | Continual improvement, evidenced by objectives set for next period | Conclusion |
What it does not cover
- Task Ergonomic Assessment, which evaluates one task, not the programme that commissions many of them.
- Assessment Comparison Review, which compares specific before-and-after scores for one intervention.
- Ergonomic Control Effectiveness Review, which tests whether particular controls worked, a narrower and more technical question than programme health.
- Ergonomics Committee Record, which minutes a meeting rather than reporting programme performance.
- Ergonomics Program Plan, which sets objectives forward rather than reporting what happened.
Global
Annual Ergonomics Review requirements by country
The duty behind this review is the management-system obligation to review OH&S performance, not a standalone ergonomics reporting law. What differs is how that obligation is framed and what injury data it must be checked against.
ISO 45001 cl.9.3, cl.9.1.1
Management review must consider OH&S performance, trends and adequacy of resources at planned intervals.
Audits ask for the review record and evidence it reached management, not just the ergonomics function.
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, reg.3, and HSE guidance
No named annual review duty, but assessments must stay suitable and sufficient, which a programme check supports.
HSE inspectors look for evidence assessment programmes are actively managed, not only that assessments exist.
OSH Act General Duty Clause; OSHA recordkeeping under 29 CFR 1904
No general ergonomics standard, but MSD case data on the OSHA log is the outcome this review consolidates.
Rising MSD cases with no documented review response is the pattern General Duty Clause enforcement targets.
How to complete it
How to complete an annual ergonomics review, step by step
The template prompts for counts. What makes the review defensible is the reasoning connecting those counts to a judgement about the programme.
MSD injuries and lost time falling because headcount or activity fell is not the same result as falling while exposure held steady. Note what changed in the denominator before crediting the programme.
Controls implemented should be broken down by hierarchy level in the narrative even though the form counts them as one figure. A year of administrative controls and PPE reads differently from one that included engineering change and elimination, and the difference belongs in the main achievement and gap fields.
Screening and assessment backlog predicts next year's outcomes better than this year's outcomes do. A backlog that grew while trained assessor numbers held flat is a capacity finding, and belongs in the objectives for next year, not just the numbers.
Marking the record reported to management review is not the same as the finding having been acted on. Where action is required, the CAPA reference should trace back to this review specifically, not to a general safety action list.
What auditors find
Most common annual ergonomics review findings
The review record itself is usually complete. What the findings concern is whether its conclusion follows from its own numbers.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Programme rated effective on activity counts alone, without reference to MSD outcome trend. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Require outcome and prevalence trend fields to support the effectiveness conclusion, not just activity counts. |
| Screening or assessment backlog rising year on year with no capacity finding recorded. | ISO 45001 cl.7.2 | Compare backlog against trained assessor numbers and record a capacity gap as a finding, not a footnote. |
| Controls implemented reported as a single count with no indication of hierarchy level. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Break down controls by level in the main achievement narrative before concluding the programme is effective. |
| Worker participation recorded as high with no evidence of how it was assessed. | ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Base the rating on committee attendance, suggestion records or workshop counts, and reference them. |
| Review marked reported to management review with no linked action or acknowledgement. | ISO 45001 cl.9.3 | Confirm the review reached a management review meeting with a minute or action reference. |
| Objectives for next year restate this year's activity rather than responding to the main gap identified. | ISO 45001 cl.10.3 | Derive next year's objectives directly from the main gap field, with an owner and success measure. |
Case in point
Case in point: a healthy-looking review that missed a capacity collapse
A processing site's annual review reported screenings, assessments and controls implemented all up on the previous year, and marked the programme effective. MSD injuries had also fallen slightly, and the review went to management review without further comment.
The following year's review showed assessment backlog had more than doubled. The site had lost one of its two trained assessors mid-year, and the earlier rise in activity counts had come from a screening backlog finally being worked through, not new capacity. The apparent MSD improvement was a one-year lag before the backlog caught up with outcomes. The fix was reading trained assessor numbers against backlog every year, not activity counts alone.
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.
5 sections
- Reference
- ERG-034
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- AER-2026-000
- Scoring
- Programme health percent
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 45001 cl.9.3
- Links
- Links Assessments, MSD reports
- Tags
- Ergonomics, Governance
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 52
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 4
Header
11 fieldsReview ID*
Auto sequence. Format AER-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*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Area
The area within the site.
Exact Location
Drop a pin for anything hard to find.
Year Reviewed*
Reviewed By*
Plan ID
Links to ERG-032 Plan ID
Activity
9 fieldsScreenings Completed*
Assessments Completed*
Video Assessments Completed
Discomfort Reports Received*
Early Interventions Made*
Average Days To Intervention*
Controls Implemented*
Design Reviews Attended*
New Equipment Assessed Before Purchase
Outcomes
9 fieldsMSD Injuries This Year*
Previous Year
Change Percent*
Lost Time MSD Cases*
Days Lost*
Cost Of MSD Cases
Survey Prevalence
Prevalence Trend*
- Improving3 pts
- Stable2 pts
- Worsening0 pts
Reports Per Injury Ratio
Programme health
9 fieldsTrained Assessors*
Assessor Consistency Verified*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Comparison Review ID
Links to ERG-013 Review ID
Screening Backlog*
Assessment Backlog*
Open Controls Overdue*
Budget Used
Worker Participation Level*
- High3 pts
- Moderate2 pts
- Low0 pts
Committee Meeting Compliance
Conclusion
14 fieldsProgramme Effective*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Main Achievement
Main Gap
Objectives For Next Year*
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
Reported To Management Review*
Next Review Due*
Ergonomics*
Signature*
Site Manager*
Second Signature*
ERG-034 · record IDs look like AER-2026-000 · Links Assessments, MSD reports
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The review itself is short. What is hard to sustain by hand is the backlog-versus-capacity comparison and making sure a finding here reaches next year's plan.
Holds the assessment, screening and control registers this review draws its counts from, and flags a count that does not match its own records.
Tracks trained assessor numbers and certification expiry against the consistency and capacity fields, so a capacity finding is based on current data, not memory.
Carries the conclusion and any action raised into the management review agenda, so reported-to-management-review is followed by an actual item on record.
Compares this year's activity and backlog fields against last year's, surfaces the capacity-versus-activity pattern before sign-off, and holds every write for approval.
This template lives in KnowErgo — ergonomics. Task assessment, video posture analysis, rotation and workstation redesign.
Meet KnowErgo→Glossary
Annual Ergonomics Review definitions and key terms
- Programme health score
- The scored roll-up of activity, outcomes and governance fields in this review, used to communicate overall status rather than replace the underlying findings.
- Screening backlog
- Screenings raised but not completed at the point of review, the leading indicator of whether assessment capacity matches demand.
- MSD
- Musculoskeletal disorder: injury or condition affecting muscles, joints, tendons or nerves, typically from cumulative load rather than one event.
- Hierarchy of controls
- The ranked sequence of control types, elimination, substitution, engineering, administrative, then PPE, used here to judge the quality of controls implemented, not just their count.
- Management review
- The periodic top-management review required by ISO 45001 cl.9.3, which this annual review is built to feed.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about annual ergonomics review
How is the annual ergonomics review different from a management review?+
It is an input to one. This review consolidates ergonomics-specific activity and outcomes into a single record; the ISO 45001 management review is the broader top-management meeting that considers this alongside audit results, incidents and other OH&S performance.
What counts as a trigger for an out-of-cycle review?+
A material change to the programme itself, a new site coming under it, a restructure of the ergonomics team, or a step change in MSD outcomes, rather than the change to any single task, which belongs in its own assessment or redesign record.
Should the programme health score be a single number?+
It can be reported as one, but it should be traceable back to the activity, outcome and governance fields that produced it. A single percentage with no visible components cannot be checked or argued with later.
Who signs the annual review?+
The ergonomics lead and the site manager, reflecting that its conclusions commit management to resource and priority decisions, not only to a technical judgement.
What happens if the programme is rated not effective?+
Action required is marked yes, a CAPA record raised, and an owner and priority assigned, so the finding becomes a tracked action rather than a comment read once a year.
How does this review connect to individual assessments and redesigns?+
It links to assessment and MSD report records rather than duplicating them. Its job is to say what the aggregate means for the programme, not to re-describe any one record.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Ergonomics and MSD Prevention
Discomfort Report
Lets a worker report aches, pain or discomfort early, before it becomes an injury
Body Part Symptom Survey
Maps where in the body workers are experiencing discomfort, across a team or area
MSD Injury Report
Records a diagnosed musculoskeletal injury, including affected body part and suspected task
Early Intervention Record
Records the actions taken when discomfort is reported, before it becomes an injury
MSD Trend Review
Reviews discomfort reports and MSD injuries across areas and tasks
Task Ergonomic Assessment
Assesses a work task using video, applying the methods you configure such as RULA, REBA or WISHA
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 9.1.1, 9.3, 8.1.2 and 5.4
- OSH Act Section 5(a)(1), General Duty Clause, and OSHA recordkeeping 29 CFR 1904 (US)
- Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, regulation 3 (GB), and HSE guidance on managing risk
- ISO 45001:2018 clause 10 — nonconformity, corrective action and continual improvement
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.