What this is
What is an MSD trend review?
What is an MSD trend review?
An MSD trend review is a periodic aggregate analysis of discomfort reports and musculoskeletal injuries across a site, over a stated period, broken down by area, task, shift and length of service. It is not an investigation of one case; it is a search for a pattern that no single case would reveal.
How is it different from an MSD injury report or a task assessment?
An MSD injury report covers one diagnosed case. A task assessment quantifies one job. A trend review sits above both, reading the volume of reports and injuries in aggregate to find where they concentrate, and whether the concentration points at a task, a shift pattern, a length-of-service group, or a recent change.
Who runs it, and how often?
The ergonomics lead runs it, on a stated period such as a quarter, and again whenever a cluster of reports or an injury spike suggests the interval should not wait. The period, not any single event, is what the review is built around.
Scope
When is a msd trend review required?
This review is one step in the ergonomics and MSD prevention programme, sitting above the individual reports and assessments it reads. Using it to document a single case, or to compare two specific assessments, produces a record the programme cannot use as intended.
Use this template when
- The stated review period, typically a quarter, has been reached
- Discomfort reports or MSD injuries have accumulated enough volume to look for a pattern
- A cluster of reports in one area, task or shift suggests the interval should not wait
- The annual ergonomics programme review needs an aggregate input rather than raw case data
- The ergonomics committee needs a periodic summary to decide where to focus
Do not use it for
- A single discomfort report, which belongs in the Discomfort Report and should not be summarised as if it were a trend on its own
- A single diagnosed MSD injury, which needs the MSD Injury Report and its own investigation
- Quantifying one task, which needs a Task Ergonomic Assessment or the relevant method-specific assessment
- Comparing two specific assessments, before and after a control or between two lines, which is the Assessment Comparison Review
- Recording an individual worker's early symptoms, which belongs in the Early Intervention Record, not the aggregate view
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45001 cl.9.1 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 45001 clause 9.1 requires monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation of OH&S performance, and a trend review is that requirement applied to musculoskeletal data specifically. What it does not prescribe is the concentration logic, which is where the review's actual value sits.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1 | Determine what needs to be monitored and measured, and the methods for analysis and evaluation, to assure valid results | Header |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Monitor and measure OH&S performance, including both reactive indicators such as injuries and proactive indicators such as reporting | Volume |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.1 | Hazard identification that is ongoing and proactive, and considers how work is organised, human factors and past incidents | By body region |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Evaluation of OH&S performance and determination of the effectiveness of actions, assessed over time rather than at a single point | Patterns |
| ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Determine and act on nonconformities, including taking action to control and correct, and evaluating the need for further action | Programme effectiveness |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.3 | Management review inputs to include trends in incidents, nonconformities, corrective actions and monitoring results | Programme effectiveness |
| ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Consultation and participation of workers, whose reports and experience are the raw material the review reads | Related records |
What it does not cover
- Discomfort Report, which lets a worker report aches or discomfort as a single, real-time event, not as an aggregate.
- MSD Injury Report, which investigates one diagnosed injury, its affected body part and its suspected task.
- Task Ergonomic Assessment, which quantifies one job using a named method, rather than reading reporting volume across many.
- Assessment Comparison Review, which compares two specific existing assessments against each other, not the whole workforce's data over time.
- Annual Ergonomics Review, the programme-level review this trend feeds, which draws on more than one quarter's trend output and is not replaced by it.
Global
MSD Trend Review requirements by country
No jurisdiction mandates a document called an MSD trend review by name. What they mandate is the ongoing monitoring and analysis this review is one practical way of doing.
OSHA recordkeeping, 29 CFR 1904; OSH Act General Duty Clause
Injury and illness logs create the underlying data; there is no standard requiring a periodic trend analysis of it.
An employer aware of a recognised MSD hazard from its own logs, and not acting on the pattern, is exposed under the General Duty Clause regardless of the absence of a naming requirement.
HSE guidance on musculoskeletal disorders; RIDDOR reporting
RIDDOR sets what must be reported; HSE guidance recommends monitoring MSD trends as part of managing the risk, without prescribing a method.
A site holding RIDDOR and near-miss data but never reading it in aggregate has the raw material for this review without the review itself.
ISO 45001
Clause 9.1 requires monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation of OH&S performance as a management system obligation.
Certification auditors look for evidence that performance data is actually analysed over time, not only collected, and a trend review is the artefact that demonstrates it.
How to complete it
How to complete a msd trend review, step by step
Most trend reviews get the volume section filled in correctly and stop there. The parts that make the review worth running are the ones that require deliberately looking for a pattern.
Reports-per-injury is a leading measure: a high ratio means people are reporting discomfort early, before it becomes a diagnosed case, and a falling ratio is a warning worth acting on before the injury count moves. Reading only the injury count treats the lagging half of the data as the whole picture.
By area, by task, by shift, by length of service, and against any recent change, each answers a different question. New starters injured early points at training or pacing; long-service workers injured points at cumulative exposure; a shift concentration points at staffing or pace rather than the task itself.
When a dominant task shows up in the body-region breakdown, check whether an assessment exists for it. A dominant task with no assessment on file is the review's most actionable single finding, and it should trigger new assessment work directly rather than being logged and left for the next quarter.
The top three priorities and the action decision are what make the review usable by the annual programme review and management review. A review that reports totals with no ranked priority has produced data; one that names what to act on first has produced a decision.
What auditors find
Most common msd trend review findings
The review almost always contains the volume numbers. The findings concern whether the concentration analysis was actually done, and whether it went anywhere.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Volume reported as raw counts with no normalising context, such as headcount or hours worked in the area. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Read counts against exposure, not in isolation, so a small area is not judged against a large one on raw numbers alone. |
| Concentration checks by area, task, shift or length of service left blank or answered by default. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Require a reasoned answer against the underlying data for each concentration field, not a habitual 'No'. |
| A dominant task is named but whether an assessment exists for it is not verified before the review closes. | ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.1 | Check the task register at the point the dominant task is named, and raise the assessment as an action if none exists. |
| A pattern is identified but not checked against a recent layout, staffing or process change. | ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.1 | Cross-reference the period against management-of-change records before concluding the pattern is unexplained. |
| Findings are recorded but never reach the annual programme review or management review. | ISO 45001 cl.9.3 | Attach the trend review as a standing input to the next scheduled programme and management review, not as an optional attachment. |
| An action is raised with no owner or date, or closed without checking that a reassessment showed improvement. | ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Assign owner and date when the action is raised, and close it against a reassessment result, not a completion date. |
Case in point
Case in point: the quarter that looked fine overall
A meat processing site ran its quarterly trend review as it always did: discomfort reports were up slightly, MSD injuries were flat against the prior quarter, and lost time days were within the usual range. The review recorded the totals, ticked no concentration by area or by task, and closed with no action required.
Read at the body-region level the picture was different. Wrist and hand reports had climbed for two consecutive quarters, almost entirely from one packing line, almost entirely from workers in their first six months. Nobody had checked concentration by task and tenure together, because the top-line injury count gave no reason to look further, and the dominant task on that line had never had an ergonomic assessment raised against 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.
6 sections
- Reference
- ERG-005
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- MTR2-2026-000
- Scoring
- Trend direction
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 45001 cl.9.1
- Links
- Links MSD reports, Job
- Tags
- MSD, Analysis
- Sections
- 6
- Fields
- 48
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 3
Header
11 fieldsReview ID*
Auto sequence. Format MTR-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 From*
Period To*
Reviewed By*
Volume
6 fieldsDiscomfort Reports*
MSD Injuries*
Reports Per Injury
A high ratio is good. It means people report early and injuries are being prevented.
Lost Time MSD Cases*
Days Lost To MSD*
Restricted Duty Days
By body region
Repeats6 fieldsBody Region*
Reports*
Injuries
Trend Direction*
- Improving3 pts
- Stable2 pts
- Worsening0 pts
Dominant Task
Assessment Exists For That Task*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Patterns
6 fieldsConcentration By Area*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Concentration By Task*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Concentration By Shift*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Concentration By Length Of Service*
New starters injured early means training or pacing. Long service injured means cumulative exposure.
- No pattern3 pts
- New starters0 pts
- Long service0 pts
Seasonal Pattern
- None3 pts
- Yes1 pt
Linked To A Recent Change*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Related records
1 fieldAnnual Review ID
The programme review this trend feeds.
Links to ERG-034 Review ID
Programme effectiveness
18 fieldsAssessments Completed*
Controls Implemented*
Reassessments Showing Improvement*
Early Interventions Made*
Interventions Preventing Progression*
Average Days To Intervention*
Survey Prevalence Versus Reported Cases*
- Close3 pts
- Some gap1 pt
- Large gap0 pts
Top Three Priorities*
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-005 · record IDs look like MTR2-2026-000 · Links MSD reports, Job
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The review depends on data already living in several other records. What fails is not the analysis itself but the connections: the assessment that was never triggered, and the finding that never reached the review it was meant to feed.
Holds discomfort reports, injuries and the task register together, and can flag a dominant task in the trend data against whether an assessment already exists for it.
Watches for a review period being reached or a cluster forming, and prompts the trend review before the calendar date rather than waiting for it.
Carries the trend review's findings and priorities forward into the annual programme review and management review inputs, so they are not left as a standalone document.
This template lives in KnowErgo — ergonomics. Task assessment, video posture analysis, rotation and workstation redesign.
Meet KnowErgo→Glossary
MSD Trend Review definitions and key terms
- MSD
- Musculoskeletal disorder: an injury or condition affecting muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves or joints, typically developing from repeated or sustained exposure rather than a single event.
- Reports-per-injury ratio
- The number of discomfort reports divided by the number of diagnosed injuries; a leading indicator where a higher ratio means earlier reporting and better prevention.
- Concentration analysis
- Checking whether reports or injuries cluster by area, task, shift or length of service, which is what points to a cause rather than a coincidence.
- Lost time case
- An MSD injury resulting in time away from work, tracked separately from restricted-duty cases and from reports that never became injuries.
- Trend direction
- Whether a metric is improving, stable or worsening across the review period, scored so that improving outranks stable and worsening scores lowest.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about msd trend review
How is an MSD trend review different from an MSD injury report?+
The injury report investigates one diagnosed case: what happened, to whom, on what task. The trend review reads discomfort reports and injuries in aggregate across a period, looking for where they concentrate. One case can appear in both, but the trend review is never about that one case on its own.
How often should a trend review run?+
Quarterly is the usual interval, run by the ergonomics lead. A cluster of reports or an injury spike is a trigger to run one sooner, in the same way a fixed review date should never be the only thing standing between a real pattern and a response.
What does the reports-per-injury ratio actually tell you?+
It tells you whether people are reporting discomfort before it becomes a diagnosed injury. A high ratio is good: it means early intervention is catching problems before they progress. A ratio that falls, even while the injury count looks stable, is a sign that reporting or early intervention is breaking down.
What counts as a pattern worth acting on?+
A concentration by area, task, shift, or length of service, especially one that lines up with a recent change to layout, staffing, volume or method. A scattering of unrelated cases across the workforce is not a pattern in the sense this review is looking for.
Can the overall injury count be flat while there is still a real problem?+
Yes, and this is the review's most common failure mode. A flat total can hide one line or one task carrying almost all of the increase, which only shows up once the data is broken down rather than read as a single headline figure.
What happens when the review finds a dominant task with no assessment on file?+
That is the review's most actionable single output. It should route directly into raising a task assessment, rather than being recorded as an observation and carried forward unactioned to the next quarter.
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
Task Ergonomic Assessment
Assesses a work task using video, applying the methods you configure such as RULA, REBA or WISHA
Lifting Task Assessment
Assesses a lifting task from video, running the NIOSH lifting equation alongside a whole body posture method
More in MSD Reports
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
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, 9.1.1 and 6.1.2.1
- ISO 45001:2018 clauses 10.2 and 9.3, corrective action and management review
- HSE guidance on musculoskeletal disorders and workplace injury monitoring
- OSHA recordkeeping requirements, 29 CFR 1904
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.