What this is
What is a screening follow up log?
What is a screening follow up log?
A screening follow up log is a running record that lists every task or area flagged by an ergonomic screening, what type of follow-up action it needs, who owns it, and whether it has actually been closed. It exists to answer one question the screening itself cannot: did anything happen after the flag was raised.
How is this different from the screening itself?
The screening identifies which tasks warrant attention and gives a rough banding. The follow up log tracks what that banding turned into afterwards, whether the task went on to a full assessment, got a quick fix, needed equipment or training, or is simply being monitored. Without it, a screening's output has nowhere to go once the screening session ends.
Who maintains it?
The ergonomics lead, as a continuous record rather than a one-off document. Entries are added as screenings are completed and updated as each item's status changes, which makes it closer to a queue than a periodic report.
Scope
When is a screening follow up log required?
This log tracks the outcome of screenings that have already happened. It is not itself a screening method and it is not the assessment the flagged items convert into.
Use this template when
- A screening has just been completed and its flagged tasks need to enter a tracked queue
- An existing entry's status needs updating as a quick fix, equipment change or full assessment progresses
- The ergonomics programme review needs conversion, ageing and blocker data for the period
- An item has stalled and needs a Main Blocker recorded so the pattern can be escalated
- A linked screening or assessment record needs this log to exist so its outcome can be traced: links screenings, assessments
Do not use it for
- Area Ergonomic Screening and Manual Handling Screening, which are instruments that generate the flagged items this log then tracks, not something this log performs itself
- New Task Ergonomic Screening, which screens a new or changed task before it goes live rather than tracking what happens to it afterwards
- Task Ergonomic Assessment, which is the full assessment a 'Full assessment' follow-up action converts into; this log records that the conversion happened, not the assessment's findings
- Ergonomics Program Plan or Annual Ergonomics Review, which set programme-level targets and resourcing that this log reports against rather than defines
- The corrective action record itself, referenced here by CAPA ID, which carries the detail of what was actually done
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45001 cl.9.1 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 45001 does not name a screening follow-up register directly, but the obligation to monitor whether identified risks are actually being addressed, and to correct where they are not, runs through several clauses this log serves.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1 | Monitoring, measurement, analysis and performance evaluation of the OH&S management system, including whether identified risks are being reduced | Summary |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.1 | Hazard identification proactive and ongoing, of which screening is an early-stage method that must feed forward rather than end in itself | Follow up items |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Elimination of hazards and reduction of risk following the hierarchy of controls, reflected in the type of follow-up action chosen | Follow up items |
| ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Nonconformity and corrective action, including verifying that action taken was effective rather than merely recorded as complete | Follow up items |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.3 | Management review must consider the results of monitoring and the status of actions from previous reviews | Summary |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.1 | Planning to address risks and opportunities, including resourcing the actions that hazard identification generates | Header |
What it does not cover
- Area Ergonomic Screening, which is the first-pass screening this log tracks the outcome of, not a substitute for actually screening a task or area.
- Manual Handling Screening or New Task Ergonomic Screening, which are the specific screening instruments generating the entries this log follows up on.
- Task Ergonomic Assessment, which is the full assessment a 'Full assessment' follow-up action converts into, carrying the actual posture and load findings this log does not hold.
- Ergonomics Program Plan or Annual Ergonomics Review, which set the programme's targets and resourcing rather than reporting against them.
- The corrective action record itself, referenced by CAPA ID, which documents what was actually done rather than that it was logged as done.
Global
Screening Follow Up Log requirements by country
Ergonomic screening and follow-up sit inside general duty and management-system obligations almost everywhere; few regimes name a screening register directly, which puts the weight on demonstrating that flagged risks were actually addressed.
OSH Act General Duty Clause; no dedicated federal ergonomics standard since the 2001 standard's repeal
There is no specific requirement to screen or to log follow-up, but recognised musculoskeletal hazards left unaddressed can still be cited under the General Duty Clause.
A log showing screenings raised and never converted is itself evidence that a recognised hazard was identified and not acted on, which is the exact gap the General Duty Clause targets.
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (as amended); HSE guidance L23
Employers must assess manual handling risk and take steps to reduce it so far as reasonably practicable, with an expectation of follow-through once a risk is identified.
A screening flag with no subsequent action is difficult to defend as reasonably practicable risk reduction, regardless of how thorough the original screening was.
ISO 45001
Certification requires evidence that hazard identification feeds into risk reduction and that the effectiveness of actions is monitored, not just recorded.
Auditors will ask to see the conversion from screening to action, and a log with a healthy screening count but a stalled follow-up backlog reads as a monitoring gap under clause 9.1.
How to complete it
How to complete a screening follow up log, step by step
The log is easy to keep current at the level of ticking status boxes. The judgement calls are about what those boxes are allowed to mean.
Not every screened task needs a full assessment, and treating every screening as a failed conversion if it doesn't reach one misrepresents the programme. The log needs a clear rule for which action types count as a genuine conversion versus which are legitimately closed at monitoring, or the percent measures nothing consistent period to period.
A quick fix or equipment change logged as Complete has been actioned; it has not been confirmed to work. The log should distinguish an item closed from one where someone checked the original concern is actually resolved, because those are different claims and only one supports a safety conclusion.
A high closure percent built on easy quick fixes can coexist with a single flagged full assessment sitting open for a year. Oldest open item days and overdue items say more about whether the programme is working than the percentage does, and should be read together rather than alone.
Main Blocker exists to explain stalled items, but a log where 'unclear ownership' or 'resource' repeats period after period with no change has identified a structural problem and then filed it again. The field is only doing its job if it changes something in the programme plan, not just this log's own summary.
What auditors find
Most common screening follow up log findings
The log is simple to maintain, which is exactly why it is easy to keep current without it meaning anything. The findings are about what the entries actually demonstrate.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Follow-up action type set to 'Full assessment' but no Assessment ID ever populated against the entry. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Treat a 'Full assessment' entry as open until a linked Assessment ID exists, regardless of what Status shows. |
| Items marked Complete with no CAPA ID or verification note showing what was done. | ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Require a closure note or CAPA reference before Status can move to Complete for equipment or full-assessment items. |
| Oldest Open Item Days climbing period over period with no escalation recorded. | ISO 45001 cl.9.3 | Set a threshold past which an open item is escalated to the ergonomics committee automatically, rather than re-reported. |
| Screening ID entered as free text with no check that it matches an actual screening record. | ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.1 | Validate the Screening ID against the source register before the entry is accepted into the log. |
| Main Blocker repeatedly recorded as 'Resource' or 'Unclear ownership' across periods with no change to the programme. | ISO 45001 cl.9.3 | Feed a recurring blocker into the programme plan or committee agenda instead of restating it each period. |
| Conversion percent reported high while several individual items are overdue past their due date. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1 | Report items overdue and average days to close alongside conversion percent, not as a separate figure nobody reviews. |
Case in point
Case in point: the flag that stayed a flag
A meat processing site ran an area ergonomic screening across its boning hall and flagged eleven tasks, four recommended for full assessment based on repetitive knife work and sustained awkward posture. The follow up log recorded all eleven, and within a month the site had closed seven as quick fixes, mostly stool height and knife sharpening frequency changes. The four full-assessment items sat 'Planned' because the one person qualified to run a task assessment was covering two sites.
Nine months later, one of the four unassessed tasks produced a reported MSD case. The log still showed the entry 'Planned', with Days Open past 270. Conversion percent for the period looked reasonable because the seven quick fixes had closed fast and diluted the average, and Main Blocker for the stalled items read 'Resource' every reporting period without ever prompting a change in how assessment capacity was allocated.
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.
3 sections
- Reference
- ERG-025
- Archetype
- Log
- Record ID
- SFL-2026-000
- Scoring
- Conversion percent
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 45001 cl.9.1
- Links
- Links Screenings, Assessments
- Tags
- Ergonomics, Governance
- Sections
- 3
- Fields
- 38
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 4
Header
12 fieldsLog ID*
Auto sequence. Format SFL-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*
Maintained By*
Screenings In Period*
Screening Without Follow Up Is Just Looking
The value is in what gets fixed. A backlog of screenings with no closed actions means the programme is generating paperwork.
Follow up items
Repeats9 fieldsScreening ID*
Links to ERG-021 Screening ID
Task Or Area*
Follow Up Action Type*
Full assessment, quick fix, equipment, training or monitoring.
Owner*
Due Date*
Status*
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Days Open
Assessment ID
Links to ERG-006 Assessment ID
CAPA ID
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Summary
17 fieldsItems Raised*
Items Closed*
Closure Percent*
Items Overdue*
Average Days To Close*
Oldest Open Item Days*
Assessments Completed From Screening*
Quick Fixes Completed*
Main Blocker
- None3 pts
- Resource1 pt
- Budget1 pt
- Conflicting priority1 pt
- Unclear ownership0 pts
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
Ergonomics*
Signature*
Site Manager*
Second Signature*
ERG-025 · record IDs look like SFL-2026-000 · Links Screenings, Assessments
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The log itself takes seconds to update. What fails is the stalled item nobody escalates, the quick fix nobody verifies, and the blocker pattern repeating every quarter without changing anything.
Holds the follow-up log against the screening and assessment registers, and flags entries where a full-assessment action type has no linked Assessment ID.
Surfaces stalled follow-up items alongside incident data, so a task that was screened and never assessed is visible when something happens on it.
Links training-type follow-up actions to the competency record they are meant to produce, rather than leaving 'Training' as a closed status with no evidence.
Watches Days Open and Main Blocker across the log, and escalates items ageing past threshold to the ergonomics committee rather than waiting for the periodic review.
This template lives in KnowErgo — ergonomics. Task assessment, video posture analysis, rotation and workstation redesign.
Meet KnowErgo→Glossary
Screening Follow Up Log definitions and key terms
- Screening
- A quick first-pass check used to identify which tasks or areas need a full ergonomic assessment, banding risk rather than quantifying it.
- Full assessment
- A detailed task ergonomic assessment following on from a screening flag, producing quantified findings rather than a rough band.
- Conversion percent
- The proportion of flagged screening items that have actually progressed to their required follow-up action, as distinct from simply being logged.
- MSD
- Musculoskeletal disorder: injury or condition affecting muscles, joints, tendons or nerves, typically arising from repetitive, forceful or sustained awkward work.
- Main blocker
- The recorded reason a follow-up item has not progressed, such as resource, budget, conflicting priority or unclear ownership.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about screening follow up log
Does every screened task need a full assessment?+
No. A screening bands risk roughly, and many flagged tasks are appropriately closed with a quick fix, an equipment change or ongoing monitoring rather than a full assessment. The log needs to record which action type was chosen and why, so a downgrade from full assessment to monitoring is a documented decision, not an item quietly disappearing.
What is the difference between closing an item and it being effective?+
Closing an item means the log's status was updated to Complete. Effectiveness means someone confirmed the action addressed the original screening concern. A quick fix logged as closed without that confirmation has been administered, not verified, and the log should be able to show which of the two has actually happened.
Which metric matters more, conversion percent or days open?+
Both, read together. Conversion percent alone can be inflated by easy quick fixes, and days open alone doesn't show overall throughput. A programme reporting high conversion with a growing oldest-open-item figure is closing easy work and leaving hard work to age, which conversion percent alone will not reveal.
Who should own a stalled full-assessment item?+
A named individual with capacity to run the assessment, not the ergonomics lead by default because nobody else was assigned. Main Blocker recording 'unclear ownership' or 'resource' repeatedly against the same item is the log doing its job; the programme's job is to act on that signal rather than let the item keep ageing.
Should items from different screening instruments share one log?+
Yes. Area screenings, manual handling screenings and new task screenings all produce items that need the same follow-through, and tracking them in one log makes conversion, ageing and blocker patterns visible across the whole programme rather than fragmented by which instrument raised the flag.
What should trigger escalation to the ergonomics committee?+
An item ageing past a defined threshold, or a blocker repeating across reporting periods without change. Waiting for the annual programme review to notice a stalled full assessment means a flagged high-risk task can sit unaddressed for most of a year before anyone with authority to reallocate resource sees it.
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
More in Screening
Area Ergonomic Screening
A quick first pass across a whole area to find which tasks need a full assessment
Manual Handling Screening
A rapid check of manual handling tasks to band them by risk
New Task Ergonomic Screening
Screens a new or changed task before it goes live
Shift Fatigue Screening
Screens work patterns for fatigue risk, covering shift length, rotation, breaks and consecutive days
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, 10.2 and 9.3
- Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (as amended), and HSE guidance L23 (UK)
- OSH Act Section 5(a)(1), General Duty Clause (US)
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.