ProQual Level 7: Fault Detection & Safety Leadership
Purpose of the Task
This task helps learners understand how poor documentation affects ISO-aligned safety systems. It trains the learner to identify incorrect, incomplete, or misleading safety documents and rewrite them to meet professional, strategic, and ISO-45001-compliant standards.
Scenario:
A contractor submits a risk assessment to the main contractor. The document contains several errors, missing information, and non-compliant practices. The assessor provides the defective document for review.
Learners must:
- Identify all faults.
- Explain why each fault creates risk or non-compliance.
- Rewrite the document correctly.
- Show how the corrected version supports ISO standards, quantifiable risk scoring, and clear risk communication.
PART A — Faulty / Incorrect Document (Assessor-Provided)
Faulty Risk Assessment (Intentionally Poor Quality)
| Field | Entry in Faulty Document |
| Task / Location | Construction site |
| Activity | Working |
| Hazard | Tools |
| Who Might Be Harmed | Workers |
| Likelihood (1–5) | 1 |
| Severity (1–5) | 1 |
| Risk Score | 1 |
| Existing Controls | PPE is available. |
| Additional Action Required | None |
| Action Owner | Safety man |
| Date | Not filled |
| Review | When needed |
PART B — Fault Identification Table (Model Example)
| Fault Identified | Why It Is a Problem | ISO / Strategic Risk Link |
| Task is written as “Working.” | Not specific. No clarity on the actual activity. | ISO 45001 requires contextspecific hazard identification |
| Location written only as “Construction site.” | Large area. No defined boundary. | Limits risk communication; breaks ISO requirement for operational planning. |
| Hazard described as “Tools.” | Too vague; no risk pathway identified. | Fails systematic hazard identification. |
| People at risk listed only as “Workers.” | Excludes visitors, subcontractors, supervisors, pedestrians. | Poor stakeholder risk evaluation |
| Likelihood 1 + Severity 1 without justification | Underestimates risk. Document gives no evidence of assessment. | Violates quantifiable risk evaluation principles. |
| Risk score 1 | Unrealistic for construction hazards. | Weakens strategic risk decisionmaking. |
| Existing controls: “PPE is available.” | Does not confirm correct PPE type, condition, or enforcement. | Lacks hierarchy of controls and ISO documentation detail. |
| Additional actions marked as “None.” | Shows no forward planning or improvement. | Opposes ISO clause on continual improvement. |
| Action owner written as “Safety man.” | Unprofessional, unclear, not a formal role. | Accountability failure. |
| Date missing | No traceability. | Breaks ISO requirement for documented information control |
| Review field: “When needed.” | Too subjective; no set review frequency. | Contradicts operational control planning. |
PART C — Corrected / Rewritten Risk Assessment (ModelCompleted Sample)
Corrected Risk Assessment – Fully Completed and ISO-Aligned:
| Field | Corrected Entry |
| Task / Location | Block B, Level 2 – Installation of cable tray using step ladder |
| Activity | Electricians installing cable tray at height (2.2 m) using hand tools and ladder |
| Hazard | Fall from ladder; dropped tools; manual handling strain; electrical contact with live points |
| Who Might Be Harmed | Electricians, adjacent workers, visitors passing under work area |
| Likelihood (1–5) | 3 (activity involves height and manual tools; medium probability without strong controls) |
| Severity (1–5) | 4 (possible fracture, head injury, severe strain) |
| Risk Score | 12 (Medium–High) |
| Existing Controls | Ladder inspected and tagged; trained electricians; exclusion zone established; insulated tools; permit to work; supervisor present |
| Additional Action | Use podium step instead of ladder; install tool-lanyards to prevent drops; |
| Required | add warning signage; verify cable run is isolated before work |
| Action Owner | Site Electrical Supervisor |
| Date | 20/11/2025 |
| Review | Review one week after task completion or sooner if an incident occurs |
PART D — Explanation of How the Corrected Version Meets the Unit Learning Outcomes
1: Development and Implementation of ISO Standards
The corrected risk assessment follows ISO 45001 requirements by:
- Using clear activity descriptions
- Identifying hazards through a structured method
- Including control hierarchy evidence
- Ensuring traceability through dates, roles, and review schedule
- Demonstrating continual improvement
2: Evaluation of Strategic Risks Using Quantifiable Assessment
The corrected document:
- Breaks down risk into likelihood × severity
- Provides justification for scoring
- Uses a clear numerical system to support decision-making
- Supports senior leadership in prioritising controls based on real risk levels
3: Articulation of Risk Communication Strategies
The improved document improves communication by:
- Giving clear language for all parties
- Showing exact locations and actions
- Presenting professional accountability
- Allowing consistent interpretation by workers, supervisors, auditors, and management
PART E — Learner Task Instructions
Learners must now:
- Review the faulty document.
- Identify and list at least 15 faults.
- Rewrite the document in a fully compliant manner.
- Compare their corrected version to the model example.
- Explain how their corrected document supports ISO standards, quantifiable risk scoring, and risk communication.