What this is
What is a return to work progress review?
What is a return to work progress review?
A return to work progress review is a check on a specific graduated or modified return plan, taken at each review point the plan sets, to confirm whether the plan is being followed, whether the worker is coping, and whether it should continue as planned, be adjusted, or move toward closure.
How is this different from a Case Progress Review?
This review is narrow and plan-specific: it only exists once a worker is back in some capacity, checking how that particular plan is tracking against its own milestones. A Case Progress Review is broader and covers the whole occupational health case, medical status, claim status, employer actions and timeline, whether or not a return plan is currently active.
Who carries out a return to work progress review?
The manager, together with the worker. The manager can confirm whether duties, hours and adjustments are being delivered as planned; only the worker can say whether the plan is manageable day to day, and the template takes the worker's account before the paperwork check.
Scope
When is a return to work progress review required?
This review is the plan-tracking step within a larger Return to Work programme, and it presumes a plan already exists and is under way. Using it before a plan exists, or for the case as a whole, produces a record that reports on the wrong thing.
Use this template when
- A graduated or modified return plan is active and has reached its scheduled review point
- A trigger event has occurred that could affect the plan: symptoms have changed, duties were not available as planned, or the worker raised a concern
- You are running the Return to Work programme and this is one of its steps
- A linked record needs this one to exist: links graduated return, restrictions, case closure
- The plan's target hours, duties or restrictions may need adjusting and a formal decision point is needed
Do not use it for
- Case Progress Review, which is the broad, whole-case check covering medical status, claim status and timeline, and which runs whether or not a return plan is currently active
- Work Restriction Record, which records what a worker can and cannot do while recovering, and is a source this review checks against rather than restates
- Modified Duty Plan, which sets out the temporary duties themselves, rather than reviewing how a plan built around them is tracking
- Return to Work Interview, which records the return-from-absence conversation at the point of return, not the ongoing tracking of a plan already under way
- Anything outside KnowHealth, which belongs in the workspace that owns that process
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45001 cl.9.1 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 45001 clause 9.1 governs monitoring, measurement, analysis and performance evaluation, and a return plan is, functionally, a control whose effectiveness needs monitoring like any other. The clause does not name return-to-work review specifically, so the mapping below is to the general monitoring and participation requirements it does specify.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Monitoring and measurement of whether the plan is being followed on schedule | Header |
| ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Consultation and participation of the worker in evaluating the arrangement that affects their own health and work | The worker's view |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Monitoring the effectiveness of the specific controls the plan relies on: restrictions, duties, equipment and supervisor support | How the plan is working |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Maintaining the control as designed rather than allowing informal pressure to exceed agreed restrictions | How the plan is working |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.2 | Evaluating whether agreed restrictions and duties continue to be respected in practice | Decision |
| ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Identifying a stalling or worsening plan as a signal requiring corrective action rather than repetition of the same review | Decision |
| ISO 45001 cl.7.4 | Communicating the review's decision and confirming the worker's agreement with it | Decision |
What it does not cover
- Case Progress Review, which is the broad periodic check on the whole occupational health case, not on a single plan's milestones.
- Work Restriction Record, which sets out what a worker can and cannot do, and is a reference input to this review rather than something this review establishes.
- Modified Duty Plan, which designs the temporary duties; this review only checks whether that design is holding up.
- Return to Work Interview, which is a one-off conversation at the point of return, not an ongoing review through a plan's life.
- Sustained Return Check, which confirms a return has held after the plan itself has concluded, rather than while it is still under way.
Global
Return to Work Progress Review requirements by country
ISO 45001 is the international standard behind this template, and the underlying obligation to monitor a modified working arrangement rather than set it and leave it appears across most OH&S and disability legislation, expressed through different instruments.
Americans with Disabilities Act interactive process; OSH Act General Duty Clause
No prescribed review cadence, but the interactive process around a reasonable accommodation is understood as ongoing rather than a one-time decision.
An accommodation agreed once and never revisited can become the basis of a later claim if it stops working and nobody checked.
Equality Act 2010 reasonable adjustments; Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
Adjustments must remain effective, and an employer is expected to keep them under review rather than treat the original assessment as final.
A phased return that has quietly stopped working is, in effect, an adjustment that has become insufficient, the employer's problem to catch, not only the worker's to raise.
ISO 45001 clause 9.1
Monitoring and measurement of the effectiveness of OH&S arrangements, with participation of workers in the evaluation.
Certification auditors look for evidence that a control such as a return plan is actually checked against its intended effect, not just documented at the outset.
How to complete it
How to complete a return to work progress review, step by step
The form structure already pushes toward good practice by asking the worker first. What separates a review that catches a drifting plan from one that only confirms the paperwork is in how the later sections are used.
Start with symptoms, fatigue, coping with current hours and duties, and how included the worker feels, before moving to whether the plan is being followed. A plan that looks compliant on the supervisor's account and unsustainable on the worker's is the pattern this ordering surfaces.
This rarely happens through deliberate disregard. It happens because a busy shift needs an extra pair of hands and a recovering worker is willing to help. Asking plainly, rather than inferring it from whether an incident has occurred, catches it before it causes one.
A plan needing to hold or step back twice in a row is telling you the duties, hours or restrictions as designed do not match what the worker can currently sustain. Running the same review again is unlikely to produce a different result the third time.
A plan with no clearly set next review point drifts into being checked only when something goes wrong. Setting the date as part of this review keeps the cadence itself from becoming the thing that lapses.
What auditors find
Most common return to work progress review findings
The plan itself is usually well designed at the outset. The findings concern whether the review that is meant to keep it honest is actually doing that.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Plan adherence checked with the supervisor only; the worker's own account is not recorded or is a formality. | ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Require the worker's view fields completed in the worker's own words before the plan-adherence section. |
| Worker asked to exceed restrictions informally, and the review does not surface it. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Keep the direct question on informal pressure, and treat any answer other than 'no' as requiring supervisor follow-up. |
| Two consecutive holds or a step back logged without the plan itself being reconsidered. | ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Trigger a mandatory plan redesign, rather than a further identical review, after a second non-advance. |
| Restrictions marked as still respected without checking whether they were updated after a change in condition. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.2 | Cross-check the current restriction record at each review rather than relying on the previous status. |
| Next review date not set, or set beyond the interval the plan itself specifies. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Require a next review date at completion, and flag any date exceeding the plan's stated interval. |
| Action required marked without an owner, or the CAPA reference is never populated. | ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Assign owner and date when raised, and block closure until the CAPA reference is entered where required. |
Case in point
Case in point: the plan that looked fine to everyone except the worker
A warehouse worker returning after a back injury was on a six-week graduated plan, building from four to full hours. At each fortnightly review, the supervisor confirmed duties matched the plan, hours were on schedule, restrictions were being respected, and equipment was in place. The reviews recorded steady progress and the plan was left to run as designed.
In the worker's own words, recorded at the same reviews but read less closely, fatigue at the end of each shift was moderate and rising, and recovery between shifts was marginal by the fourth review. Nobody connected this to the plan's pace, because the plan-adherence fields were all green. In week five the worker went absent again, and the case was reopened with a longer schedule built around the fatigue pattern reported throughout.
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
- HLT-063
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- RTWV-2026-000
- Scoring
- Reviews on time
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- ISO 45001 cl.9.1
- Links
- Links Graduated return, Restrictions, Case closure
- Tags
- Return to work, Review
- Sections
- 4
- Fields
- 46
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 5
Header
16 fieldsReview ID*
Auto sequence. Format RTWV-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
Case ID
The absence, injury or health case this belongs to.
Thread key. Every record in this chain carries this value
Parent Type
What kind of record this follows.
Parent ID
The reference of that record.
Immediate predecessor record
Raised Date*
Ask The Worker First
Plans drift silently and the person living it is usually the last to be asked. Start the review with how it is actually going for them, before looking at whether the paperwork was followed.
Review Number*
Plan ID
Links to HLT-062 Plan ID
Review On Time*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
The worker's view
7 fieldsHow It Is Going In Their Words*
Symptoms Improving*
- Yes3 pts
- Static1 pt
- Worse0 pts
Coping With Current Hours*
- Yes3 pts
- Struggling1 pt
- No0 pts
Coping With Current Duties*
- Yes3 pts
- Struggling1 pt
- No0 pts
Fatigue At End Of Shift*
- None or mild3 pts
- Moderate1 pt
- Severe0 pts
Recovery Between Shifts Adequate*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Feels Part Of The Team*
Isolation on modified duties is a common reason people give up and go back off.
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- Isolated0 pts
How the plan is working
6 fieldsPlan Being Followed*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Restrictions Being Respected*
- Yes3 pts
- Mostly1 pt
- No0 pts
Asked To Exceed Restrictions*
Usually informal and well meant, and it is how a recovering worker gets reinjured.
- No3 pts
- Occasionally1 pt
- Routinely0 pts
Duties Available As Planned*
- Yes3 pts
- Sometimes1 pt
- No0 pts
Supervisor Supportive*
- Yes3 pts
- Neutral1 pt
- Unsupportive0 pts
Equipment Or Adjustment In Place*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Decision
17 fieldsDecision*
Advance to the next phase, hold at this level, step back, or complete.
Reason
Worker Agrees With The Decision*
- Yes3 pts
- With reservations1 pt
- No0 pts
Restrictions Updated*
- Yes3 pts
- Not needed3 pts
- No0 pts
Occupational Health Reinvolved*
- Yes3 pts
- Not needed3 pts
- No0 pts
Case At Risk Of Stalling*
Two holds in a row, or a step back, means the plan or the duties need rethinking rather than repeating.
- No3 pts
- Possibly1 pt
- Yes0 pts
Case Closure Considered*
- Yes3 pts
- Too early2 pts
- No1 pt
Closure Record ID
Links to HLT-020 Case ID
Next Review Due*
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
Manager*
Signature*
Worker*
Second Signature*
HLT-063 · record IDs look like RTWV-2026-000 · Links Graduated return, Restrictions, Case closure
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The plan is designed carefully at the outset. What slips afterward is noticing informal drift, restrictions quietly exceeded, fatigue building, before it produces another absence.
Holds the review against the graduated plan and its restriction record, and flags when plan-adherence answers and worker-view answers point in different directions.
Tracks the fatigue and coping trend across consecutive reviews for the same plan, and raises it before a second hold or a step back is reached rather than only reporting the pattern afterward.
Connects supervisor support and equipment adjustment findings to the training or resourcing they depend on, so a 'partly' answer has somewhere concrete to go.
This template lives in KnowHealth — employee wellbeing. Exposure monitoring, health surveillance, case management and return to work.
Meet KnowHealth→Glossary
Return to Work Progress Review definitions and key terms
- Graduated return
- A plan that builds hours or duties incrementally toward a full return, structured around milestones checked at set review points.
- Restriction
- A defined limit on what a recovering worker can do, set by occupational health, which the plan is designed to respect and this review checks is being respected.
- Reviews on time
- The scoring metric behind this template: whether plan reviews are occurring on schedule, where a higher rate is the desired outcome.
- Step back
- A decision to reduce hours, duties or pace below the plan's current level, used when the plan as it stands is not being sustained.
- Sustained return
- A return that has held after the plan has concluded, checked separately once graduated review is no longer needed.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about return to work progress review
When does a return to work progress review apply, rather than a case progress review?+
Once a specific graduated or modified plan exists and the worker is back in some capacity. This review only tracks that plan against its own milestones. Before a plan exists, or when looking at the case as a whole including claim and medical status, the Case Progress Review is the right instrument.
Why does the template ask the worker before checking plan adherence?+
Because plans drift silently, and a supervisor confirming that hours and duties match the plan on paper does not reveal whether the worker is coping, whether informal pressure has crept in, or whether fatigue is building. The worker's own account is the earliest, most reliable signal a plan is starting to fail.
What does it mean if the worker is asked to exceed restrictions?+
It is usually informal and well meant, a busy shift needing an extra pair of hands from someone willing to help, and it is a common way a recovering worker gets reinjured. The review asks about it directly because supervisor sign-off on paper does not reliably capture what happens on the floor.
What happens after two holds or a step back in a row?+
The template treats this as a signal that the plan itself, not just the worker's progress, needs rethinking. Running the same review again against an unchanged plan is unlikely to produce a different outcome, so the response is to redesign the duties, hours or pace rather than repeat the cycle.
How is this template scored?+
Against reviews on time, where a higher rate is the desired outcome. The metric tracks whether the review cadence is being maintained, since a plan that stops being reviewed on schedule loses the mechanism that would otherwise catch it drifting.
Is this a one-off record or does it repeat through the plan?+
It repeats. A new review is raised at each scheduled review point in the plan, and after any trigger event, each carrying its own review number and date. It is not a single record maintained once; the plan's whole point is to be checked repeatedly as it runs.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Return to Work
Occupational Health Case Record
Records and tracks a health case from first report through to closure
Work Restriction Record
Records what a worker can and cannot do while recovering, and for how long
Modified Duty Plan
Sets out the temporary duties a recovering worker will perform
Case Progress Review
Reviews how a health case is progressing against its expected timeline
Case Closure Record
Closes a health case, recording the outcome and any lasting restrictions
Claim Support Record
Records the information provided to support a workers compensation claim
More in Return to Work
Work Restriction Record
Records what a worker can and cannot do while recovering, and for how long
Modified Duty Plan
Sets out the temporary duties a recovering worker will perform
Return to Work Interview
Records the conversation on return from any absence, covering fitness, adjustments and whether work contributed
Return to Work Programme Plan
Sets out how the site brings people back to work after injury or illness, covering triggers, roles, timescales and the duties that are actually available
Stay at Work Record
Keeps somebody at work on adjusted duties instead of signing them off
Return to Work Referral
Opens a return to work case and gathers what is known so far about the absence, the person and their job
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 clause 9.1, monitoring, measurement, analysis and performance evaluation
- ISO 45001:2018 clause 5.4, consultation and participation of workers
- Equality Act 2010, reasonable adjustments duty (UK)
- Americans with Disabilities Act, interactive process guidance (US)
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.