Regular workplace health and safety inspections and audits are important components of an effective WHS management system.

While routine monitoring focuses on day-to-day workplace activities, inspections and audits provide a structured method of evaluating whether workplace systems remain effective, legislative and organisational requirements are being met and opportunities for improvement have been identified.

For Occupational Therapists working with assistance animals, inspections and audits support the ongoing evaluation of:

• physical environments;
• equipment;
• organisational procedures;
• accessibility;
• emergency arrangements;
• assistance animal work areas;
• risk controls; and
• assistance animal welfare.

They provide opportunities to identify hazards before incidents occur, verify that existing control measures remain effective and support continuous quality improvement.

Inspections and audits should be viewed as proactive tools that strengthen workplace safety rather than compliance exercises undertaken solely to satisfy regulatory requirements.

Workplace Inspections

A workplace inspection is a systematic examination of a workplace, environment or activity to identify hazards and verify that appropriate safety measures are in place.

Inspections are generally conducted regularly as part of routine WHS activities and often involve direct observation of the physical environment and work practices.

Inspections may examine:

• work areas;
• equipment;
• accessibility;
• emergency exits;
• housekeeping;
• infection-prevention practices;
• manual-task risks;
• storage of hazardous substances;
• assistance animal work areas;
• emergency equipment;
• environmental conditions; and
• implementation of relevant risk controls.

The frequency and scope of inspections should reflect:

• the nature of the workplace;
• level of risk;
• complexity of activities;
• frequency of change;
• incident history;
• applicable legal or organisational requirements; and
• needs of the people and animals using the environment.

Not every workplace requires the same inspection frequency or checklist.

A small sole-practitioner service may use a different inspection process from a hospital, large assistance animal organisation or multidisciplinary service.

Housekeeping and Environmental Safety

Housekeeping is an important component of workplace safety, but within AAOT practice it should be understood as risk management rather than judgement about appearance, lifestyle or cleanliness.

Relevant housekeeping and environmental considerations may include:

• obstructed walkways;
• blocked access or exits;
• trip hazards;
• slippery flooring;
• spills;
• inadequate lighting;
• unsafe storage;
• unstable objects;
• electrical cords;
• waste accumulation;
• animal waste;
• equipment placement;
• poorly positioned furniture;
• mobility devices;
• assistive technology;
• animal leads;
• harnesses;
• crates;
• animal beds;
• water bowls;
• training equipment;
• restricted turning space;
• inadequate space for safe person–animal movement;
• inaccessible emergency equipment; and
• other environmental conditions capable of contributing to harm.

Within assistance animal practice, environmental safety may be influenced by the interaction between:

person + animal + task + equipment + environment + other people

A condition that presents little risk in one context may create a significant hazard in another.

For example, an item stored against a wall may present no meaningful risk during routine use but may become hazardous if it obstructs the turning space required by a person using a mobility device and their assistance dog.

Housekeeping in Client Homes

Particular care is required when applying the concept of housekeeping to work undertaken in a person’s home.

A person’s home is both a private living environment and, while professional work is occurring, a workplace for the practitioner.

This does not mean that the home must meet the appearance, layout or housekeeping standards of a clinic or institutional workplace.

The relevant question is not:

Is this home tidy enough?

The relevant question is:

Does a specific condition create a foreseeable risk to the work being undertaken, and what proportionate control is appropriate?

The presence of:

• personal belongings;
• disability equipment;
• animal equipment;
• sensory items;
• adaptive arrangements;
• children’s items;
• furniture; or
• other ordinary household possessions

should not automatically be labelled as poor housekeeping or a WHS hazard.

For example, the presence of several mobility aids in a home is not itself a hazard.

However, if their positioning obstructs the only safe route required for a particular assessment, the actual hazard should be identified and addressed.

Similarly, animal equipment should not be considered problematic merely because it is visible or stored in the living environment.

Risk assessment should focus on:

• location;
• accessibility;
• foreseeable interaction with the task;
• likelihood of harm; and
• available controls.

This approach helps ensure that WHS processes do not become a mechanism for judging:

• disability;
• poverty;
• housing circumstances;
• lifestyle;
• family composition; or
• personal preferences.

Environmental assessment should remain:

• objective;
• respectful;
• proportionate;
• disability-inclusive;
• trauma-informed; and
• focused on actual hazards.

Assistance Animal Equipment and Movement Spaces

AAOT environments may contain equipment that is not ordinarily present in a conventional workplace.

This may include:

• assistance animal harnesses;
• mobility harnesses;
• leads;
• crates;
• ramps;
• animal beds;
• water bowls;
• feeding equipment;
• enrichment items;
• training equipment;
• animal-care supplies;
• cooling equipment;
• protective equipment;
• transport equipment; and
• mobility or assistive technology used by the person.

These items should be positioned and stored in a way that supports both:

• safe access; and
• their intended functional use.

For example, repeatedly storing an assistance dog’s harness across an accessible pathway may create a trip or mobility hazard.

An appropriate response may involve redesigning storage rather than removing or restricting access to equipment the person or animal requires.

Environmental safety should support occupation rather than unnecessarily interfere with it.

Responding to Environmental and Housekeeping Hazards

Where a genuine environmental hazard is identified, possible controls may include:

• relocating an item;
• creating a clear movement pathway;
• changing storage;
• cleaning or isolating a spill;
• improving lighting;
• repairing damaged flooring;
• securing loose cables;
• repositioning furniture;
• modifying equipment placement;
• providing appropriate storage;
• using another work area;
• modifying the task;
• scheduling maintenance;
• using signage or temporary barriers;
• implementing a reasonable adjustment; or
• applying another proportionate control.

The response should address the identified hazard, not impose broader requirements unrelated to safety.

For example, if a single object obstructs safe access, it may only be necessary to move that object rather than requiring the person to reorganise their entire home.

Workplace Audits

A workplace health and safety audit is a more comprehensive evaluation of an organisation’s WHS management system.

Unlike inspections, which often focus on direct observation of workplace hazards, audits assess whether organisational systems are appropriately designed, implemented and functioning as intended.

Audits may review:

• WHS policies;
• risk-management procedures;
• incident-reporting systems;
• consultation processes;
• training and competency records;
• emergency planning;
• legislative and regulatory compliance;
• document control;
• risk assessments;
• corrective-action systems;
• equipment-maintenance systems;
• psychosocial risk management;
• accessibility;
• assistance animal welfare systems;
• monitoring processes; and
• continuous-improvement activities.

Audits help organisations determine whether WHS systems are operating as intended rather than merely whether required documents exist.

Inspections Versus Audits

Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, inspections and audits serve different purposes.

Workplace Inspection	Workplace Audit
Focuses primarily on workplace conditions, activities and hazards	Evaluates the effectiveness of the broader WHS management system
Usually involves direct observation	Reviews documentation, systems, processes and practice
Often undertaken more frequently	Usually undertaken periodically
Identifies immediate or emerging safety issues	Identifies broader organisational strengths, weaknesses and systemic gaps
Supports day-to-day risk management	Supports governance, compliance and continuous improvement
May focus on a particular environment or activity	May examine multiple areas of the WHS system together

Both processes complement each other and contribute to a comprehensive WHS management system.

Preparing for an Inspection or Audit

Preparation helps ensure that inspections and audits are systematic, relevant and effective.

Preparation may include:

• defining the scope;
• identifying the purpose;
• determining who should participate;
• reviewing previous inspection reports;
• reviewing previous audit findings;
• examining incident and near-miss information;
• reviewing current risk assessments;
• reviewing corrective actions;
• examining complaints or feedback;
• gathering relevant documentation;
• reviewing applicable legal or organisational requirements;
• consulting workers and stakeholders;
• identifying recent workplace changes;
• reviewing assistance animal welfare concerns; and
• identifying areas requiring particular attention.

Preparation should be proportionate to the purpose of the review.

For example, an inspection of a small home-based work activity should not require the same preparation as a whole-of-organisation WHS audit.

Conducting Workplace Inspections

During inspections, Occupational Therapists should adopt a systematic approach to evaluating the environment and activity.

Relevant areas may include the following.

Physical Environment

Examples include:

• flooring;
• lighting;
• ventilation;
• temperature;
• noise;
• accessibility;
• space for movement;
• trip hazards;
• stairs;
• doorways;
• ramps;
• pathways;
• emergency exits;
• storage;
• environmental contaminants; and
• weather exposure.

Equipment

Examples include:

• assistance animal equipment;
• mobility aids;
• assistive technology;
• lifting equipment;
• seating;
• ramps;
• crates;
• transport equipment;
• first aid equipment;
• emergency equipment;
• personal protective equipment; and
• other tools or devices used during work.

Inspectors may consider whether equipment is:

• appropriate for its intended purpose;
• functional;
• maintained;
• safely stored;
• accessible;
• correctly fitted where relevant; and
• free from obvious damage.

Infection Prevention

Examples include:

• hand-hygiene facilities;
• cleaning procedures;
• equipment cleaning;
• waste disposal;
• management of animal waste;
• storage of cleaning products;
• management of contaminated materials;
• availability of PPE where required; and
• separation or isolation arrangements where relevant.

Assistance Animal Welfare

Examples include:

• access to drinking water;
• rest opportunities;
• temperature management;
• workload;
• environmental stressors;
• behavioural indicators;
• equipment fit;
• opportunities for toileting;
• safe surfaces;
• exposure to other animals;
• access to appropriate shelter; and
• ability to disengage or rest where required.

The purpose is not to inspect the animal as though it were a piece of workplace equipment.

Animal welfare should be considered as an independent ethical and professional concern as well as part of sustainable and safe practice.

Dynamic and Context-Specific Inspection

Not every environment requires a lengthy formal inspection.

Depending on the context, inspection may involve:

• a formal scheduled workplace inspection;
• a pre-visit check;
• a site walk-through;
• review of a particular activity;
• a brief environmental check before work begins;
• a dynamic assessment during community work; or
• review following a change or incident.

The formality should be proportionate to:

• risk;
• complexity;
• novelty;
• uncertainty;
• frequency of work;
• environmental change; and
• applicable workplace requirements.

A formal checklist can improve consistency, but professional judgement remains necessary.

A checklist should not become a substitute for observing what is actually happening.

Conducting Workplace Audits

Audits typically involve examining evidence to determine whether WHS systems are:

• appropriately designed;
• implemented;
• maintained;
• understood;
• followed;
• documented;
• reviewed; and
• effective.

Evidence may include:

• policies and procedures;
• risk assessments;
• incident reports;
• near-miss reports;
• training and competency records;
• induction records;
• maintenance records;
• consultation documentation;
• emergency plans;
• corrective-action registers;
• quality-improvement records;
• workplace inspection reports;
• hazard registers;
• audit records;
• complaints;
• worker feedback;
• client feedback;
• animal-welfare records; and
• evidence of document review.

Interviews with workers and stakeholders and direct observation of workplace practices may also form part of an audit.

This is important because written procedures may not accurately reflect actual practice.

Auditing Actual Practice

A strong audit should ask not only:

Does a procedure exist?

but also:

Is it accessible, understood, implemented and effective?

For example, an organisation may have a detailed incident-reporting procedure.

An audit might identify that:

• workers cannot locate the form;
• workers are uncertain about what constitutes a near miss;
• reports are submitted but never reviewed;
• corrective actions are not monitored; or
• staff are reluctant to report concerns because of organisational culture.

The existence of the procedure therefore does not demonstrate that the incident-management system is functioning effectively.

Audits should consider both:

documented systems

and

actual work practices

where this is relevant to the audit scope.

Identifying Non-Conformances and Deficiencies

A non-conformance generally occurs where a requirement is not being met.

Depending on the context, this may involve failure to meet:

• applicable legislation;
• regulation;
• organisational requirements;
• established procedures;
• contractual requirements;
• relevant professional obligations; or
• another defined requirement.

Examples may include:

• incomplete required risk assessments;
• outdated emergency procedures;
• missing inspection records;
• required training that has not been completed;
• damaged equipment remaining in use;
• failure to undertake required maintenance;
• failure to report hazards;
• expired emergency supplies;
• absence of required consultation; or
• inadequate documentation.

Not every weakness identified during an audit is necessarily a legal non-conformance.

It may instead represent:

• an improvement opportunity;
• a documentation gap;
• emerging risk;
• inconsistent implementation;
• unclear responsibility; or
• recommended good-practice improvement.

The terminology used should accurately reflect the status of the requirement being assessed.

Understanding Why Requirements Are Not Being Met

Where a procedure or requirement is not being followed, the response should not automatically assume individual carelessness.

The auditor or reviewer should consider whether contributing factors include:

• unclear procedures;
• inaccessible documentation;
• lack of training;
• inadequate supervision;
• lack of resources;
• unavailable equipment;
• unrealistic work design;
• workload;
• time pressure;
• competing priorities;
• role confusion;
• poor communication;
• outdated procedures;
• environmental constraints;
• ineffective controls; or
• organisational culture.

This helps ensure that corrective action addresses the underlying system rather than simply instructing individuals to “be more careful”.

Developing Recommendations

Following an inspection or audit, recommendations should address identified hazards, deficiencies, non-conformances or improvement opportunities.

Recommendations should be:

• evidence-informed;
• directly related to the finding;
• practical;
• proportionate to risk;
• achievable;
• clearly documented;
• assigned to an appropriate responsible person;
• supported by realistic timeframes; and
• capable of being reviewed for effectiveness.

Where appropriate, recommendations should also identify:

• priority;
• required resources;
• consultation needs;
• interim controls;
• training needs;
• documentation changes;
• person responsible;
• completion date; and
• method for verifying effectiveness.

Recommendations should prioritise actions likely to produce the greatest meaningful improvement in workplace health and safety.

They should not create unnecessary administrative burden without a corresponding safety benefit.

Prioritising Findings

Not all inspection or audit findings require the same response.

Priority may be influenced by:

• likelihood of harm;
• potential severity;
• number of people affected;
• animal-welfare implications;
• legal significance;
• frequency of exposure;
• existing controls;
• immediacy of the hazard;
• repeated occurrence;
• uncertainty; and
• consequences if the matter is not addressed.

An immediate serious hazard may require action before the inspection or audit is complete.

Lower-risk improvement opportunities may appropriately be incorporated into planned quality-improvement processes.

Following Up Inspection and Audit Findings

An inspection or audit has limited value unless identified issues are addressed.

Follow-up activities may include:

• implementing corrective actions;
• updating workplace procedures;
• revising risk assessments;
• providing additional education;
• modifying supervision;
• replacing or repairing equipment;
• redesigning the environment;
• obtaining additional resources;
• consulting relevant stakeholders;
• monitoring implementation;
• reviewing completion;
• evaluating outcomes; and
• closing actions only when there is sufficient evidence that the issue has been addressed.

Corrective action should not be considered complete merely because an action has been entered into a register.

Where appropriate, organisations should verify:

Was the action implemented?

and:

Did it actually address the problem?

Regular follow-up demonstrates organisational commitment to continuous improvement.

The Occupational Therapist’s Role

Occupational Therapists may participate in workplace inspections and audits in different ways depending on their role, competence and practice setting.

Responsibilities may include:

• identifying environmental hazards;
• evaluating accessibility;
• assessing person–environment interaction;
• assessing functional risks;
• identifying occupational barriers;
• recommending environmental modifications;
• contributing to risk assessments;
• participating in multidisciplinary inspections or audits;
• reviewing equipment;
• monitoring assistance animal welfare;
• identifying consequences of restrictive controls;
• considering reasonable adjustments; and
• supporting implementation of recommendations.

Occupational Therapists bring particular expertise in understanding how:

person + occupation + environment

interact.

Within AAOT practice, this expands to include:

person + assistance animal + occupation + task + environment + equipment + other people + organisational systems

This perspective may identify risks that are not apparent through a purely environmental or compliance-focused inspection.

For example, an emergency exit may technically be unobstructed but still be unusable by a particular person, mobility device and assistance animal team.

A conventional inspection may record:

exit clear

while an occupationally informed inspection identifies:

exit route not functionally accessible to the person–animal team

Both physical safety and functional accessibility therefore require consideration.

Inspections and Dignity of Risk

Inspection findings should not automatically lead to the most restrictive possible response.

Where a hazard is identified, practitioners should consider:

• the actual risk;
• existing controls;
• higher-order controls;
• reasonable adjustments;
• the person’s goals;
• occupational participation;
• animal welfare;
• practical alternatives; and
• the consequences of restricting the activity.

For example, identifying a trip hazard associated with assistance animal equipment should not automatically lead to prohibiting the equipment or excluding the animal.

A more appropriate control may involve:

• repositioning equipment;
• modifying storage;
• changing the route;
• improving organisation of the space; or
• another less restrictive effective control.

Inspection should support safe participation, not risk avoidance at any cost.

Inspection and Audit Findings in Client Homes

When Occupational Therapists undertake work in private homes, findings should be documented carefully and objectively.

Language should describe the actual condition rather than make subjective judgements.

For example, instead of:

“Home is cluttered and unsafe.”

a more useful record might state:

“Multiple unsecured items currently obstruct the pathway between the lounge and external doorway, reducing available clearance for the client’s mobility device and assistance dog during the planned mobility task.”

This description identifies:

• the actual condition;
• interaction with the task;
• people and animal affected; and
• reason the issue is relevant.

Objective language supports respectful, defensible and non-discriminatory practice.

Using Inspection and Audit Findings to Improve Practice

Inspection and audit findings should contribute to organisational learning.

Findings may inform:

• policy development;
• procedure revision;
• workplace redesign;
• environmental modification;
• education and training;
• competency development;
• procurement decisions;
• equipment replacement;
• emergency planning;
• resource allocation;
• assistance animal welfare initiatives;
• accessibility improvements;
• psychosocial risk management;
• quality-improvement projects; and
• strategic planning.

Findings should also be considered collectively where appropriate.

For example, repeated inspection findings involving:

• blocked access routes;
• damaged equipment;
• missed maintenance;
• poor animal rest arrangements; or
• inadequate emergency resources

may indicate a broader systems issue rather than a series of unrelated isolated events.

Using findings proactively strengthens WHS systems and supports sustainable improvements in service delivery.

Example – Home-Based AAOT Inspection

An Occupational Therapist attends a client’s home to assess use of an assistance dog during mobility-related activities.

During the environmental review, the OT observes:

• a narrow pathway;
• several mobility devices;
• dog equipment beside the doorway;
• a loose floor mat; and
• adequate lighting.

The presence of mobility devices and assistance animal equipment is not itself considered poor housekeeping.

The OT assesses how the environment interacts with the planned activity.

The loose mat creates a foreseeable slip or trip risk for both the person and dog during turning.

The dog’s equipment beside the doorway reduces available clearance.

Possible controls include:

• securing or temporarily removing the mat;
• relocating the animal equipment to accessible storage;
• preserving sufficient turning space; and
• reviewing whether the changes work during the actual task.

The OT does not require the client to reorganise unrelated areas of their home.

This demonstrates a proportionate approach focused on identifiable risk.

Example – Audit Finds a System Problem

An assistance animal service has a policy requiring emergency equipment to be checked regularly.

The audit confirms that the policy exists but finds:

• no clear person responsible;
• inspection records are inconsistent;
• expired first aid supplies remain in one kit; and
• workers are unsure who should report deficiencies.

The finding should not simply state:

“Staff failed to follow policy.”

The audit should consider the broader system.

Corrective actions may include:

• assigning responsibility;
• establishing a review schedule;
• replacing expired supplies;
• introducing a simple inspection record;
• communicating the process to workers; and
• reviewing the system later to confirm it is functioning.

This converts an audit finding into meaningful system improvement.

Key Practice Principle

Workplace inspections and audits provide structured opportunities to evaluate whether WHS arrangements are:

• appropriate;
• implemented;
• accessible;
• followed;
• effective;
• current; and
• responsive to changing circumstances.

Inspections should focus on actual hazards and work environments.

Audits should evaluate both:

what the WHS system says should happen

and, where appropriate,

what actually happens in practice.

Within assistance animal Occupational Therapy, inspections and audits should integrate:

safety + accessibility + occupational participation + reasonable adjustment + animal welfare + organisational accountability

Housekeeping and environmental assessment should identify genuine risk without imposing inappropriate institutional standards on a person’s private home or lifestyle.

By systematically reviewing environments, equipment, procedures, documentation and actual workplace practices, Occupational Therapists can identify hazards, verify implementation, recognise systemic weaknesses and contribute to continuous quality improvement.

Regular inspections and audits can therefore strengthen organisational resilience, support evidence-informed decision-making and promote safe, inclusive and sustainable assistance animal practice.