In this article 6 sections
The PRisMA report has arrived. The presentation is finished, and everyone agrees that employee wellbeing matters. Then an operations manager asks: “What exactly are we changing on Monday?”
That question deserves a practical answer. A useful action plan connects a workplace concern to a change someone has the authority to deliver. It also explains how employees will know whether that change has helped.
This article builds on our PRisMA 2024 and EAP overview and focuses on implementation after findings have been interpreted with the assessment lead.
1. Keep the finding separate from the explanation
DOSH’s PRisMA 2024 guidance connects risk assessment with management and reassessment. Its PRiMA action-planning tool supports that process. The examples here are editorial planning aids; they do not reproduce or replace the official forms, risk classifications or scoring rules.
Begin by writing down what the assessment actually found. Then record what still needs checking. A finding related to work demand does not, by itself, tell you whether the main problem is staffing, unpredictable deadlines, duplicated work or conflicting instructions.
Consider an illustrative service team that reports difficulty finishing work within scheduled hours. Before buying another wellbeing workshop, examine when the backlog builds and ask employees to describe a recent difficult shift. Is the pressure constant, concentrated at month-end or created by last-minute changes?
Keep those conversations focused on work conditions. Do not ask the team to identify who gave a particular response or require anyone to disclose a diagnosis.
2. Write an action that changes the working day
“Improve wellbeing” is an aim, but it does not tell a team what will be different. A more usable action names a specific change, the person responsible and the decision needed to make it happen.
The following examples are starting points for discussion, not prescribed controls for every organisation:
- Competing priorities: agree on one route for resolving conflicts when two managers assign urgent work. Name who decides which task is deferred.
- Unpredictable changes: test a daily cut-off for routine requests, with a separate escalation route for genuine exceptions.
- Limited decision-making room: clarify which decisions employees can make without repeated approval, within necessary safety and service boundaries.
- Gaps in support: assign cover for difficult shifts and specify how staff can reach someone authorised to resolve an operational problem.
Ask employees whether the proposal would address the difficulty they described. A new approval form can look reassuring to management while adding another task to an already overloaded team.
3. Give each action an owner, resources and a review date
Use a short action record that can be read during a normal management meeting. For each item, capture:
- The workplace issue and the evidence supporting it.
- The proposed change and the employees affected.
- An accountable owner with authority to implement it.
- The budget, time, staffing or approval required.
- A start date and a date for checking implementation.
- The evidence that will help judge whether it is useful.
For the service-team example, an operations lead might own a trial of revised task allocation. HR can coordinate employee feedback, but HR cannot resolve a staffing or scheduling problem alone if those decisions sit elsewhere.
If a change needs senior approval, record that dependency. “Awaiting budget decision from the operations director” gives a clearer account of progress than repeatedly marking the action “ongoing”. For significant risks, agree appropriate interim measures while a longer-term response is arranged.
4. Check for improvement and unintended consequences
Separate evidence that an activity happened from evidence that it helped. A briefing attendance list shows delivery. It does not show that employees now receive clearer priorities or that their workload has become manageable.
For a task-allocation trial, useful questions might include: Are urgent requests reaching the agreed decision-maker? Are staff still finishing late? Has the backlog simply moved to another shift? What do affected employees say has changed?
Choose indicators that fit the specific issue and compare like periods where possible. A quiet trading week and a peak sales week are not equivalent. Changes in staffing, seasonality and reporting confidence can affect the numbers.
Set review arrangements with the assessment lead and use the formal PRisMA reassessment process where applicable. A short feedback conversation can help monitor implementation, but it should not be presented as a replacement for a formal reassessment or proof of compliance.
5. Explain what will happen next
Employees need more than a message that management has “noted the findings”. A short update can state the concern heard, the change agreed, the owner, the review date and what remains unresolved. Report themes in a way that protects people from being identified.
If a proposed action is not feasible, explain the constraint and the alternative being considered. Invite feedback on how the change works in practice. Avoid declaring success simply because complaints have stopped; silence can have several explanations.
WHO guidance places organisational interventions within a wider approach that also includes manager training and individual support. Worker participation matters when choosing and reviewing changes. This supports treating the action plan as an ongoing discussion with the people doing the work.
Where EAP support belongs in the plan
An employee can benefit from individual support while an operational problem is being addressed. Keep that support available through a separate, clearly explained route. Do not close a workload-related action merely because counselling sessions or a resilience talk have been offered.
For help planning the employee-support component, explore MY Psychology’s Employee Assistance Program or contact the corporate team through that page. Further guidance is available in the EAP Resource Library.
References and further reading
- DOSH: Guidelines on Psychosocial Risk Assessment and Management at the Workplace (PRisMA) 2024, especially section 10 and Appendix 4.
- WHO: Guidelines on mental health at work (2022).
This article provides general workplace information, not a compliance certification or advice for a specific occupational safety or clinical case. All workplace examples are illustrative and should be adapted with appropriate professional input.
