Knowella

Barrier Health Check

Bowties are drawn once, signed off, then quietly stop describing reality. Barriers stay on the diagram while the interlock is bypassed, the permit becomes a signature exercise and the gas detector waits eleven months for a bump test. The recurring failure mode is not a missing barrier but a barrier everyone still believes in. This check walks each branch and asks whether the thing on paper is present, working and proven.

KnowSafeInspectionSAF-08034 fields across 3 sectionsFull researchSee the form

Reviewed by Siddarth SinghCSPLast reviewed 16 August 2026

Basis
Bowtie practice
Workspace
KnowSafe
Form type
Inspection
Review trigger
Twice a year per material unwanted event, and after any change to asset, process or crew
Completed by
The named risk owner, countersigned — never the person who maintains the barrier

The short version

  • Three questions decide barrier health, not one: present, functioning, verified recently. A barrier that is present and functioning but untested in eighteen months is an assumption, and is scored as one.
  • The decisive field is Any Threat Line With No Working Barrier. If it reads Yes the top event is prevented by circumstance, and no aggregate percentage should soften that.
  • Escalation factors belong to barriers, not events. A parts shortage defeats a mechanical trip and does nothing to a permit system; averaging them destroys the signal.
  • The check reports on the bowtie, it does not repair it. Where a barrier has vanished, Bowtie Needs Updating routes the work back to the analysis rather than papering over it here.

What this is

What is a barrier health check?

What is a barrier health check?

A structured walk through a completed bowtie that tests each named barrier against three questions: is it present, is it functioning, has it been verified recently. It gives a health rating per barrier and an overall position for the event. It is not a re-analysis: the bowtie supplies the list, the check reports its condition.

What is a barrier, as opposed to a control?

A barrier is a measure that, on its own, interrupts a specific threat line or limits a specific consequence. It must fail independently and be detectable when it does. Culture, supervision and awareness are usually not barriers, because their failure is invisible. Requiring a type and a side for every entry enforces the distinction.

What is an escalation factor?

A condition that defeats a barrier without touching the threat — a spare part on backorder, a shift running short-handed, a bypass that has become normal. It is how a barrier that passed last year fails this year, and it is asked separately from barrier condition because most degradation arrives this way rather than through breakage.

Scope

When is a barrier health check required?

This check sits downstream of a bowtie and upstream of the risk review, and assumes the barrier list exists and is agreed. Where the list itself is in question the work belongs in the analysis — the wrong template reports cleanly on a diagram nobody trusts.

Use this template when

  • A bowtie exists for a material unwanted event and its barriers are named, sided and typed
  • The periodic barrier review falls due, typically twice yearly per major hazard
  • A change to plant, process, staffing or contractor mix could have degraded barriers unnoticed
  • A serious potential incident has landed and you need to know whether the barriers that should have stopped it were there
  • An assessor or insurer asks for evidence that named barriers are maintained, not merely designed

Do not use it for

  • Bowtie Analysis, which builds the threat lines, top event and barrier set — this template consumes that output and cannot substitute for it.
  • Critical Control Verification, which tests one nominated control in depth against its performance standard rather than sweeping every barrier on a diagram.
  • Critical Control Performance Review, which aggregates verification results and failures over a period to judge whether the programme works.
  • Control Failure Report, which is raised when a barrier has failed in service and needs investigation, not periodic assessment.
  • Annual Risk Register Review, which revisits ratings and treatment plans at register level, too coarse to see barrier degradation.

Compliance mapping

Which Bowtie practice requirements does this satisfy?

Bowtie method is not a standard, so the obligations this check discharges come from the management-system and major-hazard instruments around it.

ClauseRequirementWhere it lands
ISO 45001:2018, 8.1.2Controls from the hierarchy of controls are implemented and maintained in operation, not merely specifiedBarriers
ISO 45001:2018, 6.1.2.2Assessment of health and safety risks is kept current, including effectiveness of existing controlsHeader
ISO 45001:2018, 9.1.1Monitoring and evaluation of operational control effectiveness at defined intervals, with results retainedResult
ISO 31000:2018, 6.6Monitoring and review is planned into the risk process, capturing whether treatments remain effectiveResult
Seveso III Directive 2012/18/EU, Annex IIIThe safety management system covers operational control and monitoring of measures limiting major-accident consequencesBarriers
ICMM Critical Control Management Good Practice Guide (2015)Controls carry defined performance requirements and are verified in the field against them on a stated frequencyBarriers

What it does not cover

  • An aggregate health percentage, which averages a healthy permit system with a dead gas detector and reports comfort for a threat line with nothing on it.
  • A maintenance completion report, which proves work orders were closed and says nothing about whether the barrier performs to its requirement.
  • The bowtie diagram itself, which records design intent at the moment it was drawn and carries no evidence of present condition.
  • A workplace inspection, which walks an area against a generic checklist and misses a mitigating barrier quietly removed two years ago.
  • A self-assessment by the barrier owner, which asks the person accountable for a barrier's condition to grade it, and reliably returns Adequate.

Global

Barrier Health Check requirements by country

Barrier management is written into law mainly where major-hazard regimes apply, and the wording differs enough to matter. These three shape most programmes.

Norway

Petroleum Safety Authority Management Regulations, section 5 (Barriers)

Barriers must have known performance requirements, and the operator must know at all times which are impaired and what compensating measures apply

The strictest formulation anywhere. Barrier Verified Recently and Escalation Control In Place are not good practice but the operative test, and an impaired barrier with no compensating measure is a finding on its own.

United Kingdom

Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015, regulation 5 and Schedule 2

Requires a major accident prevention policy implemented through a safety management system covering operational control and performance monitoring

Regulators reading a COMAH safety report expect the measures claimed in it to be traceable to live evidence. A barrier health record naming the same barriers closes that loop cheaply.

European Union

Seveso III Directive 2012/18/EU, Article 8 and Annex III

Upper-tier establishments must operate a safety management system identifying major-accident scenarios and monitoring the performance of preventive and mitigating measures

The preventive and mitigating language maps straight onto Barrier Side. Sites recording only preventive barriers fail on the mitigating half — containment, fire water, escape routes — which is why this template forces both sides.

How to complete it

How to complete a barrier health check, step by step

Filling this in is mechanical. What makes the record defensible, or worthless, is four judgements the person holding the pen has to make.

Whether the thing you are grading is actually a barrier

Barrier Type separates physical, detection, procedural, human action and emergency response because the last two degrade fastest and are hardest to verify. A threat line held only by human action barriers is weakly defended even when every entry scores Pass. Record that rather than reclassifying a briefing as procedural.

What Recently means for this specific barrier

Barrier Verified Recently is meaningless without an interval, and the interval belongs to the barrier, not this check. A relief valve on a five-year proof test and a detector on a monthly bump test cannot share one. Fix it from the performance requirement first; where none exists, score No and raise that absence as the finding.

Whether an escalation factor has a real control or a hope

Escalation Control In Place only appears once a factor is declared, so it is easy to declare none and skip it. The useful test is whether you can name what would defeat this barrier next quarter — time pressure at shift change, one trained operator, a twelve-week part. A control is concrete, not an intention to monitor.

Whether any threat line is now undefended

Any Threat Line With No Working Barrier overrides everything else in Result. It is a per-branch question, not an average, and survives a high Overall Barrier Health rating. Where it reads Yes, Priority is High and the record should not close on a promise: the branch gets an interim barrier or the activity stops.

What auditors find

Most common barrier health check findings

The same findings recur across sites and industries. Each has a clause behind it and a fix cheaper than the argument about whether it matters.

FindingClauseWhat fixes it
Barriers marked present and functioning with no verification evidence attachedISO 45001:2018, 9.1.1Make the Evidence upload mandatory for any barrier scoring Pass on Barrier Functioning, so a Pass always rests on a test record or certificate.
Only preventive barriers walked; the mitigating side of the bowtie left unassessedSeveso III Directive 2012/18/EU, Annex IIIReconcile Barriers Checked against the bowtie's count per side, and refuse completion where the mitigating count is nil.
Escalation Factor Present answered No on every barrier, on every checkICMM Critical Control Management Good Practice Guide (2015)Seed the check with escalation factors already on the bowtie so the question starts from a list, and treat a wholesale No as a data-quality flag.
Overall Barrier Health recorded as Adequate while individual barriers carry PoorISO 31000:2018, 6.6Cap Overall Barrier Health at Degraded whenever any Barrier Health entry reads Poor, or the threat-line question reads Yes.
Bowtie Needs Updating set to Yes and never actioned, so the drift is rediscovered next cycleISO 45001:2018, 6.1.2.2Route a Yes to the bowtie owner as a dated task, and surface unactioned flags on the next check's header.
The check completed and countersigned by the same person, or by the barrier's maintainerISO 45001:2018, 8.1.2Enforce that Checked By and Risk Owner resolve to different users, and exclude a barrier's maintenance owner from being its sole assessor.

Case in point

Case in point: the interlock that passed for four years

A packaging line at a food plant carried a bowtie for entanglement during jam clearing. The preventive side named an interlocked guard, a lockout procedure and operator training. Every six-monthly check for four years recorded all three present and functioning, health above ninety per cent. Nobody recorded that the interlock had been strapped out in a commissioning trial and never reinstated — the check was done by walking the line with the shift lead who had strapped it out.

A near miss finally forced a physical test. What would have caught it earlier was not a better checklist but three fields kept apart. Barrier Present was legitimately Pass; the guard was there. Barrier Functioning was Fail the moment anyone opened it and watched the line run on. Barrier Verified Recently had no answer at all, because the interlock had no proof-test interval. The correction was small: a defined interval, a test record as Evidence, and an assessor who is not the barrier's owner.

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.

34fields
3 sections
Reference
SAF-080
Archetype
Inspection
Record ID
BHC-2026-000
Scoring
Barrier health percent
Direction
High is good
Singleton
No
Basis
Bowtie practice
Links
Links Bowtie Analysis
Tags
Critical risk
Sections
3
Fields
34
Follow up fields
4
Repeating sections
1
Links out
3
Field typesOwn ID, generated on saveCase thread and parentPick list from a registryLinked to another templateFollow up, dashed outlineScored

Header

9 fields
Text

Check ID*

Generated on save

Auto sequence. Format BHC-2026-0000.

The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.

Single Choice

Status*

Scored

Drives who this goes to next.

  • Planned2 pts
  • In progress2 pts
  • Complete3 pts
  • Deferred0 pts
  • Open0 pts
  • Closed3 pts
  • Overdue0 pts
Date & Time

Date and Time*

Users

Completed By*

Pick List

Site*

From FDN-001 Site NameFilter: Status is Active
Text

Site ID*

Linked

Format SITE-000.

Links to FDN-001 Site ID

Text

Bowtie ID*

Linked

Links to SAF-062 Bowtie ID

Users

Risk Owner*

Text

Material Unwanted Event*

Barriers

Repeats10 fields
Text

Barrier*

Single Choice

Barrier Side*

Preventive or mitigating.

PreventiveMitigating
Single Choice

Barrier Type*

Physical or engineeredDetection or alarmProceduralHuman actionEmergency response
Single Choice

Barrier Present*

Scored
  • Pass2 pts
  • Partial1 pt
  • Fail0 pts
  • N/Aexcluded from denominator
Single Choice

Barrier Functioning*

Scored
  • Pass2 pts
  • Partial1 pt
  • Fail0 pts
  • N/Aexcluded from denominator
Single Choice

Barrier Verified Recently*

Scored
  • Yes2 pts
  • No0 pts
  • N/Aexcluded from denominator
Single Choice

Escalation Factor Present*

Scored

Something that could defeat this barrier, such as time pressure or a missing part.

  • No3 pts
  • Yes0 pts
Single Choice

Escalation Control In Place

OptionalScoredShows if Escalation Factor Present equals Yes
  • Yes2 pts
  • No0 pts
  • N/Aexcluded from denominator
Single Choice

Barrier Health*

Scored
  • Strong4 pts
  • Adequate3 pts
  • Weakening1 pt
  • Poor0 pts
File Upload

Evidence

Optional

Result

15 fields
Numeric Answer

Barriers Checked*

Numeric Answer

Barriers Degraded*

Scored
Numeric Answer

Barriers Absent*

Scored
Single Choice

Any Threat Line With No Working Barrier*

Scored

A threat with no functioning barrier means the event is only prevented by luck.

  • No3 pts
  • Yes0 pts
Single Choice

Overall Barrier Health*

Scored
  • Strong4 pts
  • Adequate2 pts
  • Degraded0 pts
Single Choice

Action Required*

Scored

Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.

  • No2 pts
  • Yes0 pts
Single Choice

Priority

OptionalScoredShows if Action Required equals Yes
  • High0 pts
  • Medium1 pt
  • Low3 pts
Text

CAPA ID

OptionalLinkedShows if Action Required equals Yes

Format CAPA-2026-00000.

Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID

Users

Action Owner

OptionalShows if Action Required equals Yes
Single Choice

Bowtie Needs Updating*

NoYes
Date & Time

Next Check Due*

Users

Checked By*

Signature

Signature*

Users

Risk Owner*

Signature

Second Signature*

SAF-080 · record IDs look like BHC-2026-000 · Links Bowtie Analysis

Open in Knowella

Run it with agents

From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself

The barrier list changes between checks, and that is where the effort goes: keeping the diagram, the maintenance regime, the contractor scope and the schedule on the same barriers.

KnowSafe

Holds the bowtie and the check together, so each opens with the current barrier list rather than last cycle's copy, and unactioned Bowtie Needs Updating flags surface before the walk.

KnowMaintain

Supplies the proof-test and calibration history behind engineered and detection barriers, so Barrier Verified Recently is answered from asset records and overdue tests appear as barrier findings, not breakdowns.

KnowContractor

Tracks which barriers depend on contractor scope — isolation, guarding, standby crews — so a change of contractor is flagged as a barrier event and triggers a check.

Ella
Ella

Pulls degraded barriers across every bowtie into one view, spots the same escalation factor recurring at different sites, and drafts follow-up actions for approval.

This template lives in KnowSafe — safety and compliance. Incidents, hazards, permits, inspections and the critical controls behind them.

Meet KnowSafe→

Glossary

Barrier Health Check definitions and key terms

Material unwanted event
The top event at the centre of a bowtie — the loss of control preventive barriers stop and mitigating barriers limit. An event, not a consequence: loss of containment, not fatality.
Threat line
One path on the left of a bowtie, running from a specific threat to the top event with its own preventive barriers. Barrier health is meaningful per line; averaged across lines it is not.
Barrier degradation
Gradual loss of a barrier's ability to perform, through bypass, deferred maintenance or drift rather than outright failure. It is what periodic checks exist to detect.
Performance requirement
The specification a barrier must meet — availability, response time, test interval, competence — against which verification is judged. Without it, Pass and Fail are opinion.
Compensating measure
A temporary substitute while a barrier is impaired, with its own end date. Under barrier-management regimes an impaired barrier without one is reportable.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions about barrier health check

How often should a barrier health check be run?+

Twice a year per material unwanted event is the default. Raise it where the barrier set leans on human action or procedural barriers, and run off-cycle after any change to plant, staffing or contractors — change is the main source of silent degradation.

Who should carry out the check?+

The named risk owner leads it, with a second signature from someone able to challenge the answers. Independence matters more than title: whoever maintains an interlock should not grade it. Checked By and Risk Owner are recorded separately for this.

How does this differ from critical control verification?+

Verification tests one nominated control in depth against its performance standard, often unannounced. This check sweeps every barrier on one bowtie to find which branches have weakened. One gives confidence in a control; the other gives the shape of the diagram.

Should barriers be scored if they are not applicable at this site?+

Mark them N/A rather than Pass. N/A carries an exclusion marker and leaves the denominator, so it cannot inflate the percentage. Recording an absent barrier as Pass is the fastest way to make the score meaningless, and the pattern most often found on audit.

What happens when a threat line has no working barrier?+

Treat it as a stop-and-decide point, not a scoring input. Either an interim barrier goes in immediately, or the activity that opens the line pauses. The record carries a High priority action with an owner and a CAPA reference; closing it on a maintenance date months away is not defensible.

Can the template be used with a critical control register instead of a bowtie?+

Yes, but the fit is looser. Barrier Side and the threat-line question assume a bowtie and lose meaning against a flat register. From a register, the direct route is critical control verification against each control's standard.

Keep going

Related templates and programmes

Siddarth Singh

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
Verify with BCSP →

Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:

  • ISO 45001:2018, clauses 6.1.2.2, 8.1.2, 9.1.1 and 10.2 — Occupational health and safety management systems
  • ISO 31000:2018, clause 6.6 — Risk management: monitoring and review
  • Directive 2012/18/EU (Seveso III), Article 8 and Annex III
  • ICMM Critical Control Management Good Practice Guide (2015)

This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.

Start in Minutes, Not Weeks

Launch a Ready-Made Template and Customize It Your Way

Every template is fully editable. Adjust fields, workflows, and branding to match your processes, then deploy to your team instantly.