What this is
What is an occupational hygiene programme review?
What is an occupational hygiene programme review?
An occupational hygiene programme review evaluates whether the whole monitoring and control programme is adequate: whether similar exposure groups are correctly defined, monitoring is completed against plan, results are compared against limits and trends analysed, and controls are reviewed and verified in response.
How is this different from a health surveillance compliance review?
This review judges whether the programme design is scientifically sound: sampling strategy, exposure limits used, and whether control decisions respond to results. It does not track which workers attended checks; that narrower count assumes the programme behind it is already adequate.
Who carries out the programme review?
An occupational or industrial hygienist, since the questions concern sampling adequacy, control effectiveness and limit comparison. Involving the hygienist is a scored field; a review without one is judged incomplete regardless of other answers.
Scope
When is an occupational hygiene programme review required?
This review is one step in a larger programme. Using it for work belonging to a neighbouring template produces records that are hard to report on later.
Use this template when
- The annual interval for this review has arrived
- A material change to the exposure profile, process, or substance list needs the whole programme re-checked
- Monitoring results have shown a sustained trend and the review needs to confirm the control response actually happened
- A linked exposure monitoring or surveillance record needs this review to exist as the programme-level check behind it
- Certification or a customer audit needs evidence that monitoring, controls and surveillance are managed as one system
Do not use it for
- Local Exhaust Ventilation Examination, which records the statutory examination of one extraction system, not the programme's overall control adequacy.
- Ventilation Performance Check, a routine indicator check on one hood, feeding into this review as evidence rather than replacing it.
- Health Surveillance Compliance Review, which tracks whether workers attended scheduled assessments, not whether the schedule behind it is adequate.
- Exposure Result Review, which examines one set of sampling results against limits, feeding this broader review rather than standing in for it.
- Similar Exposure Group Register, where the groups this review checks for coverage are actually defined and maintained.
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45001 cl.9.1 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 45001 does not prescribe a hygiene monitoring method, but requires OH&S performance to be monitored and evaluated as a connected activity, with the hierarchy of controls governing the response.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation of OH&S performance, with results compared against criteria | Results and controls |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Elimination of hazards and reduction of risk through the hierarchy of controls, PPE as a last resort | Results and controls |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.1 | Hazard identification proactive and ongoing, capturing new substances, processes and contractor groups | Coverage |
| ISO 45001 cl.7.4 | Internal communication relevant to the OH&S system, including to affected workers | Integration |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.3 | Management review at planned intervals, informed by monitoring and measurement results | Outcome |
| ISO 45001 cl.7.2 | Determination of necessary competence and evidence competent advice is available where required | Integration |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.2 | Assessment methodology and criteria defined, applied and maintained across the exposure groups covered | Coverage |
What it does not cover
- Local Exhaust Ventilation Examination, the statutory thorough examination and test of one extraction system, with its own airflow measurements against design.
- Ventilation Performance Check, the routine gauge, damper and capture check between statutory examinations, feeding this review as evidence rather than replacing it.
- Health Surveillance Compliance Review, which tracks individual worker attendance against a schedule, not whether the schedule itself is scientifically adequate.
- Exposure Result Review, where one set of sampling results is examined against limits in detail, ahead of being summarised into this review.
- Exposure Control Plan, where the control response to a specific exposure group is actually designed and documented, rather than merely confirmed here.
Global
Occupational Hygiene Programme Review requirements by country
ISO 45001 treats hygiene monitoring as one strand of a system reviewed as a whole. National regimes regulate the individual pieces, limits, examinations, surveillance, more tightly than the programme as a system.
ISO 45001 cl.9.1 and cl.8.1.2
Requires OH&S performance to be monitored and evaluated, and hazards addressed through the hierarchy of controls, as part of a certifiable system.
Certification auditors probe whether monitoring results changed a control decision, treating an unconnected programme as a nonconformity even where each component looks compliant alone.
COSHH Regulations 2002, regs.6, 9 and 10
Requires exposure to be adequately controlled, control measures maintained and examined, monitoring carried out where health effects could occur.
HSE inspectors expect monitoring and examination records linked to the controls they justify, not held as separate paperwork trails.
OSHA substance-specific PELs under 29 CFR 1910.1000 and related standards
Sets permissible exposure limits per substance, with monitoring and control obligations tied to each standard individually.
No general programme-review requirement exists; connecting monitoring, control and surveillance is an ISO 45001 expectation, not an OSHA mandate.
How to complete it
How to complete an occupational hygiene programme review, step by step
The template checks whether each component exists. The judgement calls are whether the programme behaves like one system, not three unconnected records.
Confirming that monitoring and surveillance each run says nothing about whether either changed the other. The two integration answers are the real evidence the programme is connected, and a reviewer should point to a specific instance, not answer from habit.
A yes against 'contractors included where exposed' is easy to give and easy to be wrong about, since contractor exposure often runs a different schedule to the site's own groups. Name which contractor group was checked, not just confirm the box exists.
A score from a partially completed record describes confidence in the questions that were easy to answer. Completeness percent exists to stop a high score being read as a full picture when large parts, most often integration, were left blank.
Where PPE is used ahead of engineering or administrative controls across the programme, that is evidence the hierarchy is not governing decisions, and should drive the outcome rather than being absorbed into an otherwise positive review.
What auditors find
Most common occupational hygiene programme review findings
These reviews are usually completed on schedule and confirm each component is present. The findings concern whether the components were ever shown to affect one another.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Surveillance findings recorded but never traced to a monitoring plan change. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Require a specific example of a surveillance finding that changed a plan before marking the feedback loop working. |
| Similar exposure groups undefined or out of date, so coverage is measured against the wrong population. | ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.2 | Re-derive similar exposure groups from the current process and workforce before assessing coverage. |
| PPE used as the primary control with no record of why higher controls were rejected. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Record the reasoning against each higher control level before accepting PPE as the response. |
| Contractor or agency exposure groups excluded from the monitoring and surveillance count. | ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.1 | Name contractor and agency groups checked and confirm their schedule, rather than assuming parity with permanent staff. |
| Review completed with the integration section left blank or marked partly with no explanation. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Treat low completeness as grounds to reject the programme-effective score until gaps close. |
| Local exhaust ventilation examinations lapsed but not surfaced as a control-verification failure. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Cross-check LEV examination status against the related record before confirming controls verified. |
Case in point
Case in point: three programmes that never met
A metal finishing site ran a hygiene programme review annually. Solvent air sampling was on schedule, hearing surveillance ran to plan, and LEV examinations were current. Each component scored well, signed off as effective for three years running.
A new hygienist, before signing the fourth review, asked for one example of a finding changing the monitoring plan, or a trend changing a control. Nobody could produce one. The solvent trend had worsened for eighteen months, visible if anyone had plotted the results together, but monitoring and occupational health reported to different managers and never compared notes. Three well-run components had never spoken to each other.
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
- HLT-056
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- OHR-2026-000
- Scoring
- Programme effective
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 45001 cl.9.1
- Links
- Links Exposure monitoring, Surveillance
- Tags
- Hygiene, Review
- Sections
- 6
- Fields
- 48
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 3
Header
10 fieldsReview ID*
Auto sequence. Format OHR-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
Period Reviewed*
Reviewed By*
Hygienist Involved*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Monitoring, Controls And Surveillance Should Inform Each Other
Most sites run all three and connect none of them. A rising exposure result should change the control, and a surveillance finding should change the monitoring plan.
Coverage
6 fieldsSimilar Exposure Groups Defined*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
All Groups Have A Monitoring Plan*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Monitoring Completed As Planned*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
New Substances Or Processes Captured*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Contractors Included Where Exposed*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Agency Workers Included*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Results and controls
6 fieldsResults Compared With Limits*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Trends Analysed Over Time*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Controls Reviewed After Results*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Control Effectiveness Verified*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Local Exhaust Ventilation Examinations Current*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
PPE Used Only As Last Resort*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Integration
6 fieldsSurveillance Findings Fed Back To Monitoring*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Monitoring Results Fed To Surveillance*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Exposure Records Retained For Required Period*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Workers Told Their Own Results*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Programme Reported To Management Review*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Competent Advice Available*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Related records
1 fieldLEV Examination ID
Examinations reviewed in this programme review.
Links to HLT-054 Examination ID
Outcome
19 fieldsProgramme Effective*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Main Gap
Groups Without Current Data*
Plan Revised*
- Yes3 pts
- Not needed3 pts
- No0 pts
Feeds Management Review*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Next Review Due*
Items Assessed*
Excludes anything marked N/A.
Items Failed*
Score Percent*
Calculated on submission. High is good. N/A items leave the denominator.
Result Band*
- Pass3 pts
- Caution1 pt
- Fail0 pts
Completeness Percent*
How much of the template was actually answered. A high score on a half completed form is not a high score.
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
Hygienist*
Signature*
Site Manager*
Second Signature*
HLT-056 · record IDs look like OHR-2026-000 · Links Exposure monitoring, Surveillance
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The review asks whether three activities talk to each other. What fails is the organisational seam between them: different owners, different reporting lines, a finding with nowhere to travel to.
Holds surveillance findings and monitoring results against the same exposure groups, so a trend on one side is visible against the other.
Tracks control decisions and the hierarchy-of-controls reasoning behind them, and flags where PPE has become the default response.
Cross-checks LEV examination status against this review so a lapsed statutory test surfaces as a control-verification failure, not an unconnected maintenance backlog.
Coordinates the crew across occupational health, hygiene and maintenance, and holds every write for approval before it touches a shared record.
This template lives in KnowHealth — employee wellbeing. Exposure monitoring, health surveillance, case management and return to work.
Meet KnowHealth→Glossary
Occupational Hygiene Programme Review definitions and key terms
- Similar exposure group
- A group of workers expected to share an exposure profile to a given hazard, the unit a monitoring plan is actually built against.
- Occupational hygienist
- The competent person evaluating sampling strategy, control effectiveness and limit comparison, distinct from occupational health, who runs surveillance.
- Hierarchy of controls
- The ranked sequence of control types, elimination, substitution, engineering, administrative, then PPE, against which control decisions are judged.
- Local exhaust ventilation (LEV)
- An engineering control capturing a contaminant at source; its statutory examination is evidence this review draws on rather than replaces.
- Exposure limit
- The limit a substance's monitoring results are compared against, a comparison this review checks is actually made rather than assumed.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about occupational hygiene programme review
What does it mean for monitoring, controls and surveillance to inform each other?+
A specific instance can be pointed to: a result that changed a control, or a finding that changed a plan. Confirming all three run on schedule is not the same claim, and this review tests the stronger one.
Why does the review ask whether a hygienist was involved?+
Because sampling adequacy, control effectiveness and limit comparison are hygiene judgements, not administrative ones. A review without a hygienist can confirm paperwork exists without saying whether the programme is protective.
How is contractor coverage checked, rather than just confirmed?+
By naming the contractor or agency group and its schedule, rather than accepting a general yes. Contractor exposure commonly runs a different cadence to permanent staff and is most likely to be assumed covered without checking.
Does a high programme-effective score mean the programme is adequate?+
Only if completeness is also high. A score from a partially answered review, particularly with integration left blank, reflects confidence in the easy parts rather than the programme.
Where does PPE usage get judged in this review?+
As a programme-level finding, not an incidental detail. PPE as the primary response, rather than the last resort after elimination, substitution and engineering controls, is evidence the hierarchy is not governing decisions.
How does this review relate to a lapsed LEV examination?+
The lapse is control-verification evidence this review is supposed to catch. A review confirming control effectiveness while a linked LEV examination is overdue has repeated an assumption, not verified anything.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Occupational Health Surveillance
Similar Exposure Group Register
Groups workers who share the same tasks, agents and exposure patterns
Qualitative Exposure Assessment
Rates likely exposure using professional judgement, task knowledge and existing data, before any sampling
Personal Air Sampling Record
Records a sample taken from a worker's breathing zone over a shift
Area Monitoring Record
Records fixed point sampling in a work area rather than on a person
Noise Dosimetry Record
Records a worker's noise exposure over a full shift using a personal dosimeter
Chemical Exposure Assessment
Assesses exposure to a specific chemical across the tasks where it is used
More in Occupational Hygiene
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, 8.1.2, 6.1.2 and 7.4
- COSHH Regulations 2002 (as amended), regs.6, 9 and 10 (GB)
- OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1000 — Air contaminants, permissible exposure limits
- HSE guidance on control of substances hazardous to health
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.