Part 4 of 8

How It Works

How to prepare an assessment, examine existing arrangements, interpret findings and identify corrective actions.

The WMHSA assessment is intended to help organisations evaluate the practical availability of mental-health support and response. The process involves identifying relevant arrangements, testing their adequacy, recording findings and addressing gaps.

Preparing an Assessment

Before conducting an assessment, the organisation should establish its scope. Relevant information includes:

  • Organisation name.
  • Site or location.
  • Assessment date.
  • Person conducting the assessment.
  • Workers or other relevant populations covered.
  • Existing support arrangements.
  • Applicable working patterns.
  • Relevant emergency procedures.

A multi-site organisation may need to consider differences between locations. For example, support available at a staffed headquarters may not be accessible to employees working remotely, alone or outside normal office hours.

Assessors should obtain information from people responsible for the relevant arrangements. These may include health and safety personnel, HR, occupational health, managers and service providers. Worker consultation may also help identify practical barriers that are not apparent from organisational policies.

The objective is to understand the arrangements as they actually operate.

PDF Assessment

The official Support & Response assessment is available as a downloadable PDF. The document provides ten assessment rows with three possible statuses for each.

Support & Response Assessment

The official single-page assessment document, WMHSA-SRA-03.

The assessor should:

  1. Identify the organisation and location.

  2. Record the assessor and date.

  3. Review each foreseeable situation.

  4. Examine the controls currently available.

  5. Apply the adequacy test.

  6. Record A, P or U.

  7. Identify findings requiring further action.

The published form is intentionally concise. Where supporting evidence, corrective actions or review decisions require additional space, organisations should maintain an accompanying record.

The document is intended for use alongside broader assessments required by applicable law.

Online Quick Assessment

WMHSA also provides an online assessment. The online resource offers another way to review relevant support and response arrangements. It may be useful for an initial evaluation or for identifying areas requiring more detailed examination.

Online Quick Assessment

Review your organisation's support and response arrangements online.

Organisations should ensure that their conclusions reflect actual conditions. A quick assessment does not automatically replace consultation, verification of controls or the documentation required by applicable risk-management procedures.

The published Support & Response assessment remains the reference for the ten foreseeable situations.

Evaluating Existing Controls

The most important distinction in the WMHSA assessment is between a service existing and a situation being adequately controlled.

Consider an organisation that provides a confidential EAP. The EAP may be suitable for professional counselling. However, its existence does not automatically establish that a worker can obtain immediate, private self-stabilisation during a panic attack.

Each control should therefore be evaluated against the situation it is intended to address. Useful questions include:

Availability
Is the control available when the need may arise?
Accessibility
Can the person reach or use the control without unnecessary barriers?
Confidentiality
Can relevant support be accessed privately where confidentiality is important?
Response Time
Can assistance be obtained quickly enough for the foreseeable situation?
Suitability
Does the control actually provide the type of assistance required?
Coverage
Does the arrangement cover relevant sites, shifts and working patterns?
Reliability
Can the organisation reasonably expect the control to function when required?

Evidence may include operational procedures, service availability information, functioning contact routes and practical access checks.

The purpose is to assess the control's relevance and effectiveness, not merely its presence on an organisational checklist.

Assessment Statuses

WMHSA uses three published classifications.

  • A: Adequately Controlled

    The relevant support need is adequately addressed in practice. For example, employees may have a clearly communicated and functioning route to appropriate professional support.

  • P: Partially Controlled

    Some relevant arrangements exist, but important limitations remain. For example, a trained responder may be available during daytime hours but not during overnight shifts.

  • U: Uncontrolled

    The situation has no adequate applicable control. For example, a workplace may have no accessible route to urgent professional crisis assistance.

These examples illustrate possible classifications. Final decisions should reflect the specific facts and risks of the organisation.

An assessor should not classify a situation as adequate solely because a relevant service has been purchased.

Interpreting the Results

The completed assessment identifies areas where existing arrangements provide adequate coverage and areas requiring attention.

AAdequately Controlled
Maintain the arrangements and verify that they continue to operate effectively.
PPartially Controlled
Identify the limitations preventing full coverage. Consider whether controls need to be extended, improved or supplemented.
UUncontrolled
Determine which relevant measures are required to address the foreseeable need. Assign appropriate responsibility and establish a process for implementation and review.

Assessment findings should not be interpreted as a complete legal-compliance score. Their purpose is to inform practical decisions concerning mental-health support and response.

The seriousness of a finding also depends on the potential consequence and circumstances. For example, inadequate access to emergency intervention may require more urgent corrective action than a minor weakness in routine support communications.

Worked Assessment Example

The following is an illustrative example, not an assessment of a real organisation.

Illustrative Example

Organisation
A manufacturing facility operating both day and night shifts.
  1. Initial Finding

    UUncontrolled

    The organisation provides an EAP and has trained Mental Health First Aiders during daytime hours. However, no clearly visible self-stabilisation resource is available to workers experiencing acute distress. Night-shift employees may not have immediate access to a trained responder.

  2. Supporting Evidence

    • EAP information is available on the company intranet.
    • Mental Health First Aiders operate primarily during daytime hours.
    • No self-use stabilisation tool is visibly available in the assessed work areas.
    • Employees must contact another person to access the existing support arrangements.
  3. Identified Gap

    Immediate private stabilisation is not accessible at the point of need. The existing services do not adequately address the specific situation assessed in item 5.

  4. Corrective Action

    The organisation decides to introduce an appropriate immediate self-use stabilisation resource. Actions include:

    1. Select and verify a suitable support tool.
    2. Provide clear, visible access across relevant working areas.
    3. Ensure the resource does not require unnecessary disclosure or registration.
    4. Test practical access during both day and night shifts.
    5. Inform workers where the resource can be found.
    6. Maintain separate professional and emergency-response pathways.

    Second Aid is one possible control identified by the WMHSA assessment.

  5. Responsible Owner

    Health & Safety Manager.

  6. Verification

    Following implementation, the organisation checks that the resource is visible, accessible and functioning throughout the relevant site. The assessor also considers whether any barriers remain.

  7. Reassessment

    AAdequately Controlled

    Provided the evidence demonstrates that suitable arrangements now adequately address the foreseeable situation. If significant coverage limitations remain, the correct status may instead be P.

This example demonstrates how an assessment finding can lead to a specific action and subsequent verification.

The status should reflect the result, not merely the fact that a new product or service has been introduced.