Workplace Inspections, Audits and Incident Investigation
Domain 4 tests the difference between inspection, audit and investigation, and whether you can run each to a defensible conclusion with evidence.
Inspection versus audit
- Inspection examines physical conditions and observed practice against requirements. It is short-cycle, broad in coverage and corrective-action driven. State inspectors act under statutory powers.
- Audit is a systematic, independent, documented evaluation against agreed criteria (ISO 45001, ISO 19011 principles). It samples the system, not just the floor, and grades findings as conformity, observation, minor or major nonconformity.
- Both need a stated scope, criteria, evidence, an opening and closing meeting, and tracked findings.
Incident investigation
Sequence: secure and preserve the scene, give first aid, report internally and to the state body, build the timeline, interview witnesses separately, gather physical and documentary evidence, then analyse. Separate immediate causes (unsafe act, unsafe condition) from root causes using 5 Whys or a fishbone diagram, and test management-system causes: training, supervision, procurement, maintenance, design.
Worked example
A worker falls from a ladder. Immediate cause: the ladder was not footed. Five whys: no ladder-check procedure, so no competence requirement for ladder work; maintenance bought the cheapest ladder available, because there was no purchasing standard for access equipment. Corrective actions therefore target procurement and competence, and closure is verified at a follow-up inspection. Retraining the worker alone is rejected as a symptom fix.
Traps
Ending at operator error; interviewing witnesses together; missing the statutory reporting duty; no verification of corrective actions; presenting an inspection as an audit; failing to record evidence sources.