Yes! You can use AI to fill out Risk Assessment Form

People often jump straight to the hazard table and forget the header fields (Name of assessor, Date, Time). Missing these details makes the assessment hard to validate, audit, or trace back to the person responsible, and it can invalidate the record for compliance purposes. Always complete these fields first and use a consistent date format (e.g., DD/MM/YYYY) and a clear time (24-hour or AM/PM) that matches your site standard.

A common error is writing broad locations like “site,” “warehouse,” or “outside” without specifying the exact work area. This causes confusion about where controls apply and makes it difficult for others to verify conditions or replicate the assessment. Use precise identifiers such as building/room, line/zone, or specific area names used on site maps (e.g., “Warehouse A – loading bay 2”).

Many entries list a task as a single word (e.g., “lifting,” “cleaning”) rather than the specific activity being assessed. Overly broad tasks lead to missed hazards and controls because the risks differ by method, equipment, and environment. Write the task as a clear activity statement including what is being done, with what, and under what conditions (e.g., “Manual handling of 25kg boxes from pallet to racking using step platform”).

People often write injuries or outcomes (e.g., “back injury,” “cuts”) in the “What is the hazard?” column instead of the hazard source (e.g., “manual handling,” “unguarded blade”). This muddles the logic of the assessment and makes it harder to select effective controls. Enter the hazard as the source of harm, then use “How might people be harmed?” to describe the injury mechanism and potential outcomes.

A frequent mistake is listing only employees and forgetting contractors, visitors, trainees, cleaners, or members of the public. This can result in missing controls like signage, segregation, supervision, or induction requirements. Think through everyone who could be exposed in or near the work area, including people who enter intermittently or during non-routine times.

In the “How might people be harmed?” field, many people write vague phrases like “could get hurt” or “injury possible.” This reduces the usefulness of the assessment because it doesn’t clarify how exposure occurs or what severity is plausible. Describe the mechanism and likely injury types (e.g., “slip on wet floor leading to fall and sprain/fracture,” “inhalation of fumes causing respiratory irritation”).

People sometimes copy standard controls (e.g., “PPE worn,” “training provided”) without confirming they exist, are current, or are consistently followed. This creates a false sense of safety and can lead to incidents and audit findings when controls can’t be evidenced. Only record existing controls that are implemented and verifiable (e.g., documented training date, inspection records, installed guarding, written SOP in use).

The form shows L/C/R (often Likelihood, Consequence, Risk), and a common error is entering only one value, mixing scales, or not calculating the overall risk rating consistently. Inconsistent ratings make it hard to prioritize actions and compare risks across tasks. Follow your organization’s risk matrix: enter Likelihood and Consequence using the defined scale, then calculate/record the resulting Risk rating for both current and residual risk.

Additional controls are often written as broad intentions like “be careful,” “use PPE,” or “improve training,” which don’t specify what will change. This leads to no real risk reduction and makes follow-up impossible. Write controls as specific actions with clear deliverables (e.g., “install anti-slip matting at entrance,” “fit interlocked guard,” “update SOP and brief all operators with sign-off”).

Many forms keep the same risk rating before and after controls, or they fill in the residual rating without considering how the new controls change likelihood or consequence. This undermines the purpose of the assessment and can hide whether controls are effective. Re-rate the risk after the additional controls are implemented, using the same matrix, and ensure the residual rating logically reflects the control impact.

The “Action/monitored by whom?” and “Action/monitored by when?” fields are frequently left blank or filled with roles like “management” without a named owner or a specific date. Without clear accountability and timelines, actions stall and risks remain unmanaged. Assign a responsible person (name or defined role with a named incumbent) and a realistic due date, then ensure it aligns with the risk priority.

The bottom fields (Review date, Signature, Training Provider name) are commonly overlooked, especially when the form is duplicated or spans multiple sections. Missing sign-off and review scheduling can make the assessment non-compliant and increases the chance it won’t be revisited after changes or incidents. Always complete the review date based on your policy, obtain the required signature(s), and record the training provider name where training is part of the control strategy.