What this is
What is an illness exclusion record?
What is an illness exclusion record?
It is the record of one decision to exclude a named worker from food handling on health grounds, covering the symptoms reported, the product risk assessment, and the criteria applied to clear them to return. It is raised per worker, per event, unlike the standing plan that sets the rules it applies.
Why is this a singleton template?
Singleton here means one exclusion criteria and clearance framework is set up per workspace and referenced by every individual case, rather than each case reinventing its own criteria. The record itself is still raised once per worker per illness event.
What is the difference between exclusion and a positive product hold?
Exclusion is a decision about the person: can they continue in a food handling role. A product hold is a separate decision about anything they may have contaminated while symptomatic. The record links the two, but clearing the person does not automatically clear the product.
Scope
When is an illness exclusion record required?
This record documents one worker's exclusion and return. It is not the site's standing exclusion policy, and it is not the investigation into a cluster — those live in separate templates.
Use this template when
- A worker reports symptoms that meet, or may meet, the site's exclusion criteria
- A food-handling role is directly involved, so product risk needs assessing alongside the personnel decision
- Clearance to return is being assessed against symptom-free period or sample clearance criteria
- A linked health declaration or return-to-work record needs this one to exist
- A CAPA is being raised because exclusion or clearance criteria were not applied correctly
Do not use it for
- Infectious Disease Response Plan, which sets the site-wide exclusion criteria and cluster triggers this record applies, rather than one worker's case.
- Outbreak Investigation Record, which investigates a cluster once two or more related cases exist, covering case definition and shared exposures.
- Fitness for Duty Assessment, which covers impairment and safety-sensitive fitness, not infectious illness.
- Health Screening Event Record, which covers scheduled screening events, not a symptomatic worker being excluded on the day.
- Anything outside KnowHealth, such as a general HR sickness-absence record with no food-handling or product-risk dimension.
Compliance mapping
Which BRCGS cl.7.2 requirements does this satisfy?
BRCGS cl.7.2 covers personal hygiene, including illness reporting and exclusion for food handlers; the fields below map its intent across the decision, product risk and return sections rather than to sub-clauses BRCGS does not break out this finely.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| BRCGS cl.7.2 — Personal hygiene | Apply defined exclusion criteria correctly, made by a trained person | Decision |
| BRCGS cl.7.2 — Personal hygiene | Consider alternative non-food duties before defaulting to full exclusion | Decision |
| BRCGS cl.7.2 — Personal hygiene | Assess product handled while symptomatic, identify batches, apply a hold where needed | Product risk |
| BRCGS cl.7.2 — Personal hygiene | Apply symptom-free period and clearance criteria before return, with sample clearance where required | Return |
| BRCGS cl.7.2 — Personal hygiene | Reinforce hand hygiene at return and keep the record confidential | Return |
| BRCGS cl.2.7 — Corrective action | Raise and track a CAPA when exclusion or clearance criteria were not applied correctly | Outcome |
| BRCGS cl.7.2 — Personal hygiene | Escalate to a cluster review where more than one related case is suspected | Outcome |
What it does not cover
- Decision made by trained person, which without it exclusion becomes whichever supervisor happens to be on shift making a judgement call they were never trained to make.
- Product risk assessed, which if skipped means product handled while symptomatic ships without anyone having considered whether it needs a hold.
- Alternative non food duties considered, which unmet turns every exclusion into full pay loss by default, which is exactly the incentive that discourages reporting.
- Symptom free period met, which if waved through under rota pressure returns a still-infectious worker to food handling.
- Record kept confidentially, which if breached exposes a worker's health information in a context that has nothing to do with why the exclusion was necessary.
Global
Illness Exclusion Record requirements by country
The exclusion decision itself sits inside a food-safety certification framework, but the underlying legal duty and its symptom list vary by where the site operates.
BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety cl.7.2, alongside Food Standards Agency guidance
BRCGS certification requires documented procedures for reporting and managing illness in food handlers, referencing the FSA's symptom list for diarrhoea, vomiting and jaundice.
A UK site's record should show the BRCGS-required documentation trail, not just a verbal exclusion decision, to survive audit.
FDA Food Code, Chapter 2-201 (Employee Health), applied alongside GFSI-benchmarked schemes
The person-in-charge is responsible for restricting or excluding food employees who report specified symptoms or diagnoses, with defined conditions for reinstatement.
A US site running BRCGS certification still needs the record to satisfy Chapter 2-201's named responsibility and reinstatement conditions, not just the certification's paperwork.
GFSI benchmarking requirements underlying BRCGS and equivalent schemes
GFSI-recognised schemes require a documented illness-management procedure as a condition of certification, independent of local law.
For a multi-site operator, this record is what an auditor pulls to test whether the certified procedure is actually followed case by case, not just written.
How to complete it
How to complete an illness exclusion record, step by step
Four judgement calls decide whether this record is defensible evidence or a box-ticking exercise completed after the fact.
A decision made after the fact by whoever is filling in the form later is not the same as a trained person applying criteria at the point of reporting. Backdated decisions should be treated as a finding, not accepted as normal practice.
If the worker's role touched product before symptoms were reported, the default assumption should be that product needs assessing, not that it is fine unless proven otherwise. Silence on this field is a gap, not a pass.
Compare the exclusion start and return dates against the stated symptom-free period criteria. A pattern of returns exactly at the minimum, or shorter, on short-staffed days is worth investigating on its own.
Health information tied to a named worker needs restricted access. If the same record is visible to whoever schedules shifts, that is a confidentiality failure independent of whether the clinical decision was correct.
What auditors find
Most common illness exclusion record findings
Reviewers repeatedly find the same gaps between the exclusion decision on paper and what actually happened on the floor.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Exclusion applied but no product risk assessment recorded despite a food-handling role | BRCGS cl.7.2 | Make product risk assessment a required field whenever role involves food handling is yes, rather than an optional follow-on. |
| Decision made by trained person marked yes with no named individual or role recorded | BRCGS cl.7.2 | Require the deciding person's name or role alongside the yes/no answer so the decision can be traced and, if needed, retrained. |
| Alternative non-food duties never considered because none exist at a small site | BRCGS cl.7.2 | Record the absence of alternative duties explicitly as a site limitation, and flag it to the standing plan rather than leaving the field silently unmet each time. |
| Return date recorded but symptom-free period met left blank | BRCGS cl.7.2 | Block the return date field until symptom-free period met is answered, so a return can't be logged without the underlying justification. |
| Cluster suspected marked no without checking other recent records for the same symptom category | BRCGS cl.7.2 | Cross-check open and recent exclusion records for the same symptom category and site before answering cluster suspected, rather than judging the case in isolation. |
| Record accessible to the same shift-planning group that has no health-information need to see it | BRCGS cl.7.2 | Restrict record visibility to occupational health and the site lead, and give shift planning only an exclusion status flag, not the underlying detail. |
Case in point
Case in point: cleared to return, product never checked
A worker on a ready-to-eat line reported gastrointestinal symptoms and was correctly excluded within the hour. The exclusion record scored well: trained person, correct criteria, symptom-free period respected before return. Nobody, however, asked what batches the worker had handled in the two shifts before symptoms started, because the product risk field was left blank and nothing forced it.
Three days later a customer complaint linked back to a batch from that window. The corrective action added a rule: product risk assessment becomes a required field the moment role involves food handling is yes, closing the exact gap that had let a correct personnel decision coexist with an unassessed product risk.
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
- HLT-052
- Archetype
- Record
- Record ID
- IER-2026-000
- Scoring
- Exclusions applied
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- BRCGS cl.7.2
- Links
- Links Health declaration, Return to work
- Tags
- Infection control
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 47
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 4
Header
15 fieldsRecord ID*
Auto sequence. Format IER-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
Worker*
Person ID*
Format PER-0000.
Links to FDN-003 Person ID
Symptom Category*
Symptoms Reported*
Reported By Worker Voluntarily*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Role Involves Food Handling*
Exclusion Applied*
- Yes3 pts
- Not required3 pts
- No0 pts
Exclusion Start
A Legal Duty People Will Dodge If It Costs Them
Exclusion for gastrointestinal symptoms is a legal requirement on a food site. Where sick pay is poor, people come to work anyway, and that is a system failure rather than an individual one.
Decision
6 fieldsExclusion Criteria Applied Correctly*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Decision Made By Trained Person*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Worker Told The Reason*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Alternative Non Food Duties Considered*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Pay Arrangements Explained*
- Yes, clearly3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Household Contacts Considered*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Product risk
6 fieldsProduct Handled While Symptomatic*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Product Risk Assessed*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Batches Identified*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Testing Considered*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Hold Applied Where Needed*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Cleaning Escalated Where Needed*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Return
6 fieldsSymptom Free Period Met*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Clearance Criteria Applied*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Sample Clearance Where Required*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Return Approved By Occupational Health*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Hand Hygiene Reinforced*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Record Kept Confidentially*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Outcome
14 fieldsExclusion Duration Days*
Cleared To Return*
- Yes3 pts
- Not yet1 pt
Return Date
Cluster Suspected*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Outbreak Record ID
Links to HLT-053 Record ID
Notification Required*
- No3 pts
- Yes1 pt
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
Occupational Health*
Signature*
Quality Manager*
Second Signature*
HLT-052 · record IDs look like IER-2026-000 · Links Health declaration, Return to work
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The exclusion decision itself is usually made correctly. What slips is everything downstream of it: the product it touched, the confidentiality of the record, and whether it should have escalated to a cluster.
Holds the exclusion record against the standing plan's criteria, flags when a decision or clearance field is left unanswered, and keeps the return date gated on symptom-free confirmation.
Picks up the product risk assessment and batch identification the moment a food-handling role is involved, so a personnel decision never travels alone without its product-side counterpart.
Tracks the record against the jurisdiction-specific exclusion duty and certification scheme in force at the site, and raises the gap when local symptom criteria diverge from what is recorded.
Cross-checks recent exclusion records for the same symptom category before a cluster answer is finalised, and holds every write for your approval before it touches the record.
This template lives in KnowHealth — employee wellbeing. Exposure monitoring, health surveillance, case management and return to work.
Meet KnowHealth→Glossary
Illness Exclusion Record definitions and key terms
- Exclusion
- Temporarily removing a worker from food handling duties on health grounds until they meet defined clearance criteria to return.
- Product hold
- A separate control that quarantines product potentially contaminated by a symptomatic worker, independent of the decision to exclude the person.
- Symptom-free period
- The minimum time after symptoms resolve, set by policy or regulation, before a worker can be cleared to return to food handling.
- Sample clearance
- A laboratory test confirming a worker is no longer shedding an infectious agent, required for certain symptom categories before return, not for all of them.
- Cluster
- Two or more related illness cases that shift this record's outcome from an isolated exclusion into an outbreak investigation.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about illness exclusion record
What is the illness exclusion record template based on?+
It is built against BRCGS cl.7.2, which covers personal hygiene, including illness reporting and exclusion for food handlers. The clause sets the requirement; this record is the evidence it was applied.
What sections does the record contain?+
Five sections: Header, Decision, Product risk, Return, and Outcome, covering 47 fields, 40 of which are required.
Why is this template marked as a singleton?+
The exclusion criteria and clearance framework are set up once per workspace and referenced by every case, rather than reinvented each time. Individual records are still raised per worker per event.
Does clearing a worker to return also clear the product they handled?+
No. Product handled while symptomatic needs its own risk assessment, batch identification and, where needed, a hold — a separate decision from whether the worker can return.
What happens if this record is one of several similar cases?+
If a cluster is suspected, it escalates to the linked Outbreak Investigation Record, which handles case definition, timeline and shared exposures across multiple workers.
Can the illness exclusion record template be changed?+
Yes. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and its links to the plan and investigation records travel with it. Most sites install it as-is, run it for a cycle, then adjust.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Wellbeing and Mental Health
Wellbeing Survey
Asks workers about workload, support, stress and how they are coping
Psychosocial Risk Assessment
Assesses workplace factors that affect mental health, including demand, control, support and change
Workload Review
Reviews whether workload, hours and staffing are sustainable for a team
Wellbeing Program Plan
Sets out what wellbeing support is available and how people access it
Support Referral Record
Records that a worker was pointed towards support services, without recording why
Fitness for Duty Assessment
Assesses whether a worker is currently able to perform their role safely
More in Infection Control
Infectious Disease Response Plan
Sets out how the site responds to an outbreak affecting the workforce, covering reporting, exclusion, cleaning and continuity
Outbreak Investigation Record
Investigates a cluster of illness among workers, covering case definition, timeline, common exposures and control measures
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:
- BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety, Issue 9, cl.7.2 — Personal Hygiene
- BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety, cl.2.7 — Corrective and Preventive Action
- FDA Food Code, Chapter 2-201 — Employee Health
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.