What this is
What is an ergonomic control effectiveness review?
What is an ergonomic control effectiveness review?
A periodic check of whether controls put in place over a period, of any type, mechanical aids, job redesign, tool changes, training, actually reduced risk scores and symptoms. It uses paired before and after assessments as its evidence, not a description of what was installed.
Who should carry it out?
Ergonomics, drawing on the before and after assessment pairs produced by the site's other ergonomic assessments. It is a review of evidence already collected, not a fresh assessment, though it will flag where evidence is missing.
How is this different from reviewing a single control right after it's fitted?
A single post-implementation reassessment answers whether a control worked on the day it was checked. This review looks across a period, at every control due for review, and asks whether the improvement held, whether the control is still in place, and whether it is still used.
Scope
When is an ergonomic control effectiveness review required?
This review sits above individual control checks. It looks across a period at every control due for review and asks whether the programme, not just one fix, is working.
Use this template when
- The stated review interval has arrived, typically twice a year
- A batch of controls implemented earlier now has enough paired before and after evidence to evaluate
- Cost of implemented controls needs justifying against measured risk and symptom reduction
- A pattern of controls being abandoned or reverted needs surfacing before it repeats
- Successful solutions need identifying so they can be applied to other sites or tasks
Do not use it for
- Post Control Reassessment, the single-task reassessment that produces one of the before and after pairs this review draws on
- Tool and Equipment Ergonomic Review, which evaluates a specific hand tool's design before or shortly after adoption, not a period's worth of controls
- Annual Ergonomics Review, which covers the whole programme's assessments, controls and MSD outcomes over a year, a wider scope than this control-level check
- Rotation Effectiveness Review, where the control being evaluated is a job rotation scheme specifically, not controls generally
- A one-off effectiveness claim made at the point a control is fitted, which belongs in the individual reassessment record, not in this periodic roll-up
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45001 cl.9.1 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 45001 requires evidence that risk treatment worked, not just that it was actioned, and this review is where that evidence gets assembled and interrogated.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Monitoring and measurement of the effectiveness of controls, with results analysed and evaluated | Controls reviewed |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.2 | Risk assessed with a defined methodology and criteria, applied and maintained consistently | Controls reviewed |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Elimination of hazards and reduction of risk following the hierarchy of controls | Analysis |
| ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Nonconformity and corrective action, applied where a control is found abandoned, reverted or not working as intended | Analysis |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.3 | Management review to consider the effectiveness of actions taken to address risks and opportunities | Conclusion |
| ISO 45001 cl.7.4 | Communication of information relevant to the OH&S management system, including controls that worked and could transfer elsewhere | Conclusion |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.1 | Hazard identification proactive and ongoing, including reassessment once controls have been implemented | Header |
What it does not cover
- Post Control Reassessment, which produces the single before and after pair for one control, the raw material this review consolidates rather than replaces.
- Task Ergonomic Assessment or its specific variants, needed where a task has changed and requires assessing again from first principles.
- Ergonomics Program Plan, which sets out what controls are planned and resourced, a forward-looking document this review's findings should feed into.
- Ergonomic Cost Benefit Record, the dedicated instrument for a full financial business case, distinct from the cost-per-point figure this review calculates in passing.
- Ergonomics Committee Record, which minutes the governance discussion of these findings rather than the analysis itself.
Global
Ergonomic Control Effectiveness Review requirements by country
Few regimes name control effectiveness review directly, but the underlying duty, to know whether a risk treatment actually worked, sits inside management system and general risk assessment law almost everywhere.
OSH Act General Duty Clause; ANSI/AIHA Z10 occupational health and safety management systems (voluntary)
No mandatory duty to formally re-verify that an implemented control worked, though voluntary management system standards and VPP-style programmes expect it.
The absence of a mandated review does not protect an employer if a control is later shown never to have worked and harm results from relying on it.
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, reg.3(3)
A risk assessment must be reviewed if there is reason to suspect it is no longer valid, which includes evidence that a control it relied on is not working.
An effectiveness review, run on a cycle, is one of the practical ways an employer demonstrates this duty was discharged rather than assumed.
ISO 45001 cl.9.1
The management system requires monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation of OH&S performance, feeding results into management review.
Certification auditors will ask for evidence that a specific control was checked and found to work, not only that it was implemented.
How to complete it
How to complete an ergonomic control effectiveness review, step by step
The template totals scores and percentages automatically. Whether the total means anything depends on a few calls the form doesn't force.
A control with no after-assessment has no effectiveness figure, whatever it looked like when it went in. Controls without reassessment should be counted and reported as a gap, not folded into the average score reduction as if they were known to have worked.
A mechanical aid can be present, dusty, and unused. Being used consistently and symptoms reduced are the fields that actually test effectiveness at review time; still in place on its own only confirms the equipment wasn't removed.
A score reduction measured with RULA and one measured with NIOSH are not the same unit. Comparing most and least effective control type across a mixed set of methods needs that caveat stated, not a single clean percentage that implies more precision than exists.
A control abandoned mid-period because it slowed the job or was never trained on is more informative than its original score. The reason for reversion is what future control selection should learn from, and it belongs in the conclusion, not buried in a numeric field.
What auditors find
Most common ergonomic control effectiveness review findings
Findings on this review concern whether the effectiveness claim is actually supported by paired evidence, not whether the totals were calculated correctly.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Score improvement reported for a control with no after-assessment or reassessment on record. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Exclude unpaired controls from the average and report them separately as controls without reassessment. |
| Before and after scores taken with different assessment methods, making the reduction percentage meaningless. | ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.2 | Record the method used for both scores and flag mismatches rather than computing a reduction across them. |
| Control marked still in place with no check of whether it is actually used consistently. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Interview the users at review time; presence of equipment is not evidence of use. |
| Controls abandoned or reverted during the period were not investigated for a reason. | ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Record the main reason for reversion against each abandoned control and route it to the next design decision. |
| Engineering controls underperforming administrative ones, with no explanation offered. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Investigate whether the engineering control was correctly specified or poorly implemented before concluding the hierarchy failed. |
| A strong review with successful solutions identified, but nothing shared or applied to other sites. | ISO 45001 cl.7.4 | Route successful solutions to the sites or tasks with comparable risk before the next review interval closes. |
Case in point
Case in point: the lift-assist device that was still there and no longer used
A packing line introduced a mechanical lift-assist for a task with a history of shoulder complaints. The post-implementation reassessment, done a fortnight after fitting, showed a strong score reduction and a clear drop in reported discomfort. The record was closed as effective and the device was left running.
At the next control effectiveness review, six months later, the device was confirmed still in place, so the field was marked yes without further question. It was only when a symptom recurred and someone asked the operators directly that it emerged the device had been bypassed for weeks because it slowed the line during a period of high order volume, and nobody had reassessed being used consistently since the original fortnight check. The lesson was not that the device was a bad choice; it was that still in place had been treated as proof of effectiveness when only being used consistently and symptoms reduced actually test it.
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
- ERG-035
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- ECE-2026-000
- Scoring
- Score improvement
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 45001 cl.9.1
- Links
- Links Post Control Reassessments
- Tags
- Ergonomics, Verification
- Sections
- 4
- Fields
- 48
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 4
Header
12 fieldsReview ID*
Auto sequence. Format ECE-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.
Period Covered*
Reviewed By*
Controls In Scope*
Paired Evidence Only
This review uses before and after assessment pairs. A control with no reassessment cannot be counted as effective, however good it looked when it was fitted.
Controls reviewed
Repeats14 fieldsTask*
Job ID*
Format JOB-000.
Links to FDN-004 Job Task ID
Control Implemented*
Control Level*
- Eliminated4 pts
- Engineering3 pts
- Aid provided3 pts
- Administrative1 pt
- Training only0 pts
Cost
Before Score*
After Score*
Method Used*
Score Reduction Percent*
Risk Band Improved*
- Yes3 pts
- No change1 pt
- Worse0 pts
Reassessment ID
Links to ERG-014 Assessment ID
Still In Place*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Being Used Consistently*
- Yes3 pts
- Sometimes1 pt
- No0 pts
Symptoms Reduced*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Analysis
9 fieldsControls With Paired Assessments*
Controls Without Reassessment*
Average Score Reduction Percent*
Most Effective Control Type*
Least Effective Control Type*
Cost Per Point Of Risk Reduction
Useful when arguing for engineering solutions against cheaper administrative ones.
Engineering Controls Outperforming Administrative*
- Yes3 pts
- Similar1 pt
- No0 pts
Controls Abandoned Or Reverted*
Main Reason For Reversion
Conclusion
13 fieldsOverall Effectiveness*
- Strong4 pts
- Adequate3 pts
- Limited1 pt
- Poor0 pts
Lessons For Future Controls*
Successful Solutions Shared*
- Yes3 pts
- No1 pt
Applied To Other Sites
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
Next Review Due*
Ergonomics*
Signature*
Site Manager*
Second Signature*
ERG-035 · record IDs look like ECE-2026-000 · Links Post Control Reassessments
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The review depends on evidence that was supposed to be collected months earlier. What fails is the reassessment that never happened and the reversion that nobody flagged until symptoms came back.
Tracks which implemented controls are due a paired reassessment and flags controls with no after-assessment before this review is due.
Connects symptom trend data back to specific controls, so a device marked still in place can be checked against whether complaints actually stopped.
Flags a control abandoned because it broke and was never replaced, closing the gap between this review and the asset it depends on.
Watches for controls approaching their review point with no paired evidence, and raises the gap before the average score reduction quietly absorbs it.
This template lives in KnowErgo — ergonomics. Task assessment, video posture analysis, rotation and workstation redesign.
Meet KnowErgo→Glossary
Ergonomic Control Effectiveness Review definitions and key terms
- Score improvement
- This template's output score, where a higher value indicates a greater and better-evidenced reduction in risk across the controls reviewed.
- Paired assessment
- A before and after score pair for the same task and control, produced by the same or comparable assessment method, without which effectiveness cannot be claimed.
- Control level
- Where a control sits in the hierarchy, elimination, engineering, mechanical aid, administrative or training, used to compare which level actually delivered results.
- Reversion
- A control that was implemented and then abandoned or bypassed during the review period, whatever score it achieved before that point.
- Cost per point of risk reduction
- The cost of a control divided by the risk score reduction it achieved, used to compare interventions and argue for engineering solutions against cheaper administrative ones.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about ergonomic control effectiveness review
What counts as a control for this review?+
Anything implemented to reduce ergonomic risk: a mechanical aid, an engineering change, a tool change, job redesign, an administrative measure such as rotation, or training. The review does not distinguish by type when deciding what to include, only by whether paired evidence exists.
Can we count a control as effective without a reassessment?+
No. The review's stated rule is that a control with no reassessment cannot be counted as effective, however good it looked when fitted. Untested controls should be reported as controls without reassessment, not folded into the average.
Why track controls that were abandoned or reverted?+
Because the reason matters more than the original score. A control dropped for slowing the job points at a design problem; one dropped because it broke and was never replaced points at a maintenance gap. Both need a different fix, and only the reversion record surfaces which.
How do we compare a RULA-based reduction to a NIOSH-based one?+
Cautiously, and with the method recorded against each score. A percentage reduction is not a common unit across methods, so an average across a mixed set should be read as a general direction, not a precise figure.
What happens to a control found no longer effective?+
It should raise an action, not just a lower average score. The action required and priority fields exist for this, and the fix usually needs to go back to the original control decision rather than simply repeating the reassessment.
How often should this review run?+
Twice a year in most programmes, though a large batch of controls reaching their reassessment point, or a run of reversions, is reason to bring it forward rather than waiting for the calendar date.
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, 9.3, 8.1.2 and 10.2
- Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, regulation 3(3) (GB)
- HSE guidance on reviewing risk assessments and the controls they rely on
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.