Back to basics: how to do a risk assessment for psychosocial hazards at work

Hello everyone. I'm Chris Bombolas, your MC for today. Welcome to the first Queensland Mental Health Week livestream session for 2024. I'd like to begin by respectfully acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land we are speaking to you from today and on which you are learning and working from today. We also pay our respects to Elders past and present and extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people watching today.

Mental Health Week is held nationally every October to raise awareness of the importance of psychologically safe workplaces and contributes to driving behaviour and attitudinal change to reduce stigma and discrimination of mental illness. In today's session, you'll hear from Dr. Rebecca Michalak, otherwise known as Dr. Becs, who will explore how to do a risk assessment for psychosocial hazards in the workplace. The session will also be recorded, so if you need to take a break, you can catch up on the recording later.

There will be opportunity to ask Dr. Becs questions at the end of this presentation. So be sure to submit them via the chat box. If you have any technical problems during the livestream, please make sure the sound on your computer is turned on, refresh your browser, and of course, if that doesn't work, contact us via the live Q&A chat box. You can also change the size of your screen to full screen by selecting the four small arrows next to the volume bar at the bottom of your screen. I'd now like to officially introduce Dr. Michalak, Managing Director at PsychSafe. Dr. Becs, as she is known, is an evidence savvy specialist in psychosocial risk management and organisational performance. With more than 25 years of experience spanning the public, private and not-for-profit sectors, she draws from her uniquely transdisciplinary expertise to help organisations tackle wicked problems. Her expert opinion, strategic advisory and capability work building highlights what transitioning from bad-to-best really means. Moving from a compliance focused cost saving approach through to one that emphasises value creation. She holds tertiary qualifications in psychology, business and management research, and is a certified trainer and assessor. It's my pleasure to welcome Dr. Becs.

Thank you so kindly for a wonderful introduction. It is such a pleasure to be here today, and I really thank the Office of Industrial Relations for inviting me here. This, it's such an important topic and I guess that this week is an opportunity. We need to be doing this every day of the week, and I'll talk about that later in terms of psych risk assessment being dynamic. But this is a really important opportunity for us to get together, look at things in a little bit more detail, really focus in on the topic, and then take hopefully a couple of insights out into what we do every other day of the week. So similarly, we'd like to acknowledge the traditional custodians and owners of the various lands upon which PsychSafe works both domestically and internationally. We'd also like to recognise their continuing connection to the lands, waters, and community and pay our sincere respects to the Elders past, present and emerging.

And to anyone in the audience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent, we really do welcome you here and thank you for joining us. I guess that if I was to summarise the crux of today's session is demystification, and that's a big word for trying to simplify something.

But there's a lot out there in this space at the moment, it can be really quite confusing. And my observation generally speaking is that people are quite motivated to do something new, better and different in this space, but they're not necessarily quite sure where to start or how to do it, and in some cases, they're quite fearful of getting it wrong, right? And so they choose just not to do anything. So I'm hoping to share a couple of insights, some practical examples. Do a bit of demystification so that you've got a couple of tips that you can actually take at the end of the session and, and get cracking on some action.

So I am going to start with a bit of a brief primer about a couple of key concepts that are really integral to understanding how we do psychosocial risk assessment effectively. So we're going to do that at the front end, and then we'll focus on some of the more practical examples on exactly how we assess psych risk. So let's get on. I wanted to give you a very brief overview of how have we ended up where we've ended up right with psych risk and psychosocial hazards assessment. So some of you may or may not be aware of, you're in the safety space that really the very old historical roots of our current safety system in Australia really came from a case back in 1837 where this unfortunate servant, Priestly had about 183 kilos of mutton weight fall off an overloaded wagon.

And it, and it hurt him quite badly, and he had to spend a number of weeks in recovery from his injuries. And that was really arguably the foundation of our current health and safety system in terms of duty of care that we have as employers or PCBUs and then also around common law. So that's kind of where it all kicked off. If we skip forward a little bit, we have the 1950s. There's a pretty big shift where the international labour organisation actually included in the health definition, so in health and safety that it isn't just about physical safety, it's about social and emotional health and safety as well. The big step change in Australia, and it's been what I would describe as a bit of a tsunami, it's been a, a slow burn. It's been building for quite some time. It kicked off in earnest with the safe work guidance in 2011.

And since then we've actually seen quite a, you know, either that or an avalanche you might want to call it instead of a tsunami, but it has hit the shore, okay? And we need to be prepared for it. So we did have also the Boland review, Marie Boland, who's now the head of Safe Work Australia as Chair. And there were a number of things in her review where she emphasised psychosocial risk needing to be better managed and better regulated. So that was a, that was really where it kicked off in earnest. The first code of practice came out in 2021 in New South Wales, and we also had ISO 45,003 come out as a global quality assurance standard around this. So this is a child standard, if you're familiar with the international standards framework to ISO 45,000 and one, I think, don't quote me on that one.

So, we had those two big things kick off in Australia and they were really leading the pack. We then also had things around the Model Act amendment. So, you may recall, again, if you're in the work health and safety space specifically that we have the, the effort at harmonisation across Australia. So, one of the things that I actually, myself, even as an expert find difficult to keep track of is all the different jurisdictions and the little nuances between the jurisdictions in Australia. So even if we look at the Model Act, the model act then changed to incorporate psycho health and safety and psychosocial risk very explicitly in 2022. And then we had things to do in Queensland in your specific jurisdiction. We had the new regulations, and the code of practice came out last year in April. Now a little bit of a forward lens and a very recent change we've just had the sexual harassment amendment has gone through.

So that came into effect on the 1st of September. And there is a component of that that by March 2025, so not that long from now, if we think that Christmas is only a couple of months away, if you celebrate Christmas where you're meant to have an actual prevention plan in place. So, this is something that really isn't going to go away. It's been something who's that's been building for a really long time. And the key message I'd like to get across is, it might seem new, it might seem new, but this is not new. It actually has been incorporated in work health and safety legislation for really quite some time. What's happening is we are just getting more explicit and more robust around what it actually means and what you need to do. And that's both as workers and then PCBs as well. So that's a little bit of like, this is where we've ended up and why it's been a bit of a journey.

And here we are. Let's start off simple principles. I'm a big fan of simple. I don't think it's dumbing it down. There are people who try to get the complex stuff and haven't got the actual grounding in place. So, this is really about getting a grounding and psychosocial risks and psychosocial hazards management. So, what is it? Let's go to the regs. So, if we do that though, the funny thing is we get this, I feel a little bit vague circular definition, which is that it's a risk to the health and safety of a worker or another person from a psychosocial hazards. And then somebody says, okay, well what is the psychosocial hazard? And then we end up with this 55 a of the regs, and these are actually quite consistent across the jurisdictions. A psych psychosocial hazard, or I nickname the psych hazards, I'm a little bit lazy, is a hazard that arises from or relates to the design or management of work, a work environment, plant at a workplace or workplace interactions and behaviours that may cause psychological harm, whether or not that hazard may also cause physical harm.

Yeah, okay. Like I'm an expert and when I read that, I can understand totally why people just go, oh my gosh, like that's a whole paragraph definition. And I also totally understand why you might just go, oh my God, that just blew my mind, right? So again, the aim of today is to demystify some of these things. Let's get it down to some basic principles that are really workable. So, if you look at actually the safe work definition, they've made it really simple. They've said, psychosocial has, there's anything that can cause psychological harm, IE harm to someone's mental health. And I think that's a nice neat, handy definition. The other thing is, if we look at risk, risk then flows from psychosocial hazard exposures. So, it's harm that might arise from hazards that relate to what we do at work. So, if you think about the work tasks that you complete each day and or your workers complete each day, and there's a plethora of things that are attached to that.

There's things like demands. What are the emotional cognitives, the brain power demands of those roads, those tasks. It might even be something like the demands for hiding emotions. We look at customer facing roles and that requirement to always keep your cool even when you've got somebody being quite aggressive towards you. So, it's not just about the nature of the work tasks and the complexity and, and the demands that are attached to that. It's also how many of them we do, how much work do we do? Then we flow into how work is managed. So, start thinking about things like how you supervise, what, what, what is your manager like in terms of giving you guidance around those tasks? How are you rewarded? Okay, is your pay fair? And just things like job in job security or insecurity being the hazard. So, where people feel like they're on contingent working arrangements that may be casual or a part-time arrangement where they would prefer to have something that's a little bit more secure or a little bit more full-time.

Things around general fairness. So procedural fairness, how you're dealt with in the workplace. And these are all wrapped up in the justice kind of hazard category agency and control. And that is really about being the master of your own destiny. We know as humans, we very much typically like to be in charge of our own destiny to be driving where we are going rather than being micromanaged. And there's some nuances around the most common sort of combination of psych hazards that we see in one of the most problematic, whereas you have high demands, which sort of come out of what we do, but then you actually have very little control around how you might try to meet those demands. Okay? So, there's quite a few there that we can think about. So, in the code of practice, if you go and jump into that, it's got four categories.

I actually quite often use a three category framework, which is maybe perhaps now a little bit of an oversimplification, but the four category one, we can spit it out into these five by looking at what we do and how work is managed in the code of practice, you'll see that those are actually combined into one sort of category. Then you've got psychosocial risk arising from hazards that exist to do with the people we see at work, right? Whether we're liaising with them directly or indirectly, their actions, their behaviours. So, you are looking at things like, you know what does your, what is your manager's style? Like? You looking at things to do with your colleagues, do you feel supported? And do you have good relationships with them? And even customers. And if we look at something to do with foreseeability of harm customers and clients can be a little bit of a little bit of one that's harder to manage.

And I'll try to share some examples of how we do that better, but it's really about the people that we work with. The next category is where we work. So, let's look at the physical setting now for those of you who might be perhaps experts in your own right and things like physical health and safety. There are, there's a, I guess a lack of understanding that there's physical hazards that can also be psychosocial hazards, okay? So being in an environment where your physical setting is, you know, has a lot of noise in it, it can be difficult to concentrate. So that then feeds into creating higher demands in that first category that the work that we do. Things like temperature, not being something that we're happy with biohazard exposure, whether you are working with you know, you may be working in a medical setting where you're working with viruses and things like that.

Or it may even be things like outside of biohazard chemicals, manual handling, those kind of things that can be physically hazardous, but actually, just the stress attached to being exposed to those in the workplace is actually a psych hazard as well. There's remote isolated working. There's been a number of conversations going on recently about things like work from home and the pivoting that we did during COVID, and then there's now a bit of a push to be so-called back in the office. And again, I hope to unpack that a little bit later in terms of how do we manage the risk associated with that. The fifth category I'd like you to look at is the tools that we use to get our work done. So that's things like equipment and plant, and you'll see plant included in the code of practice, but it's also things like systems or software systems.

And if anyone's ever had to deal with a software system that doesn't quite work the way we need it to, I can understand the frustration. Okay? So these sort of five categories of things, if we can think about what we do, how our workers manage, the people we work with, and the nature of the interactions we have with them, where we work, and also the tools that we use to work, that's really where psychosocial, psychosocial hazards can be grouped into. Okay? Now, some of these hazards, as I've mentioned, can also cause physical harm. So, you might have something like a very aggressive customer that might engage in physical violence. So, you've got both physical and psychosocial there. And when we are talking about harm, there's a spectrum of harm, okay? So, it can be anything from sort of the level of distress or uncomfortable, and we're finding unpleasant to deal with all the way up to, you know, your injury thresholds.

So that may then lead to a worker's compensation claim. So, I know that if there's PCBU reps in, in the audience, what one of our key imperatives is we really don't want psych injury claims extraordinarily expensive. And the insurers that are paying for them at the moment are pretty pretty upset about the trends there. So, we really do have a bit of pressure to get on this journey and start getting this right. Now, I'm going to unpack this a little bit in the next slide, but there's individual risk factors, so to speak, that influence how these five categories may or may not result in risk and the level of risk attached to those hazards. We've got hazards that may lead to risk, and the degree of risk is really what we're looking at next, what influences psychosocial risk? So, there's three key things that we need to look at, and this is where it does get a little bit more complicated.

So, we are looking at, it's not just about being exposed to one of the hazards, okay? And let's take something like quite extreme work demands. So, a lot of work to do. So how much of it and things that are quite demanding in terms of using your brain, maybe cognitive load or it might be emotional demands. So, you know, keeping your cool when you've got a customer going bananas in the background, whatever it is, okay? So, it's not just about being exposed to the hazard, it is, how often does that happen? Okay? Is it once in a blue moon, right? It might be things to do with overtime. Do you need to do overtime once in a blue moon or is it happening kind of all the time, right? Because once in a blue moon tends to be less risky. Generally speaking and frequent exposure makes it more risky.

How long does it last for? Okay, so is it prolonged and enduring? Is it relentless? Is one of the words I use in terms of the stress attached to it, or is it quite brief? So, it may be something as, you know, as small as maybe you're only having to do half an hour over time each day, right? But it's every single day and that's frequency. Or it could be you're only doing half an hour and it's not happening that often. Or it could be that you're doing 2, 3, 4, 5 hours. It might be of overtime, it might be that you've had to work through the night. Okay? So, the hazard in terms of the demand, it's not just being for a brief duration of time, 15 minutes, half an hour, an hour, it's actually been for a number of hours, okay? So how long the exposure lasts for also influences risk severity.

And like all of these can be a, a bit of an opener of a can of worms, but severity can be a particular kicker. Okay? So, severity is how does it impact a worker? So, you know, it might be that it seems like something that is perhaps semi frequent. It doesn't last very long, situations low, but the impact that it has on the worker in terms of how that worker perceives the stressor, perceives the hazard. And a good example I can think of there is perhaps where you've got a worker that's got outside caring responsibilities. They're trying to pick children up from, you know, daycare or childcare or whatever it is. And you, you as an employer might think, oh, I'm just asking them to work another half an hour each day. It's really not that bad. But the stress that is created by that, because then they're worrying about their role conflict.

So external roles, they've got their role as a perhaps a parent or a carer, and they're in a situation where it seems like only half an hour, but to them it's causing a massive amount of stress. They don't know whether they're going to get there to pick their children up in time or, or, or get perhaps an elderly parent. They're caring for off to an appointment on time, those kind of things. And so the impact on that worker is going to be different to perhaps somebody who doesn't have commitments outside of those hours. So we really need to think about frequency. How often does it happen? How long does it last? And how does it impact the worker? And I think how does it impact the worker is one of the ones I generally find that, that employers really struggle with because there's no, that's like, almost like a how long is a piece of string kind of stuff.

Now I'm seeing over the years I've been seeing clients and, and, and PCBs looking at trying to, you know, identify the hazards that are occurring in their organisation. They're not necessarily doing risk assessment, okay? So if you're looking at just whether a hazard occurs or not, so think about those five categories. Does it happen, does it not happen? How often does it happen? What you're really doing there is what we call hazard identification. You're not actually really assessing risks cause you're not looking at the other two components. You are looking at prolonged or duration of exposure and severity, importantly. So things that you can have things that seem quite minor. So things even like rudeness at work, incivility and, and, and a lack of courtesy and just not being treated with respect. It may not seem like something big, but if it's happening all the time, over time it really does grind down on people.

So when we look at only identifying hazards, we're not really looking at cumulative impacts. So when that's happening all the time, that adds up to a greater stressor, right? It also doesn't capture that harm. And that really is to do with the stress and the psychological impacts of that exposure. And that is going to vary worker to worker. Having said the fact that it's going to vary, we do know from the evidence what the trends are, right? And I'll try to share some of those more generic trends with you. So any of these can actually really elevate your risk, okay? They really can. So any of those can, can open a can of works. But if you can think about psych risk is not just about exposure to a hazard. Cause some people might cope with exposure to that hazard. It's really about the combination of frequency, duration, and severity together.

And that's what really culminates in risk. Now, I think that this is, you know, where it does get, you know, into that grey area. And one thing I will say about this is you need to get comfortable with grey, right? So if we think about physical risk, we've got some very defined standards. Even when we think about noise or chemical exposures or things like that, manual handling, we've got very defined limits in there. So if we've got people working in a physically risky environment, we know that the, like the average person give or take, you might be a bit of a ninja. Maybe you're a bit of a cat, you land on your feet more often than others, right? But if you fall from a particular height, the chances of you breaking bones is, it's almost unequivocal. Okay? It's pretty black and white. We're really looking here at laws of physics, okay?

So when we look at physical hazards, it's probably been a lot more clear cut. You know, you bang you get banged on the head with an a, an iron bar that causes a brain injury, right? It's a little bit more clear cut. When we look at psych risk, the almost irony is some people will go into high, high, high psychosocially hazardous roles and still be fine, right? And others might be in less of a hazardous role and really not be fine. So if we look at things around using that, if we're going to talk in, in, in generic principles, and what we know about most people is you can look at things like emergency services. So if you look at public administration and safety these are, these are often roles that have what we would call inherent risk attached to them from the fact that there is hazard exposures that really can't be avoided as part of the role.

So think about your firefighters, your ambulance officers, your police, things like that, okay? It's a pretty tough gig, right? And yet some people will be okay with that over the longer term and others may not be. And we'll talk about you know, the, the worker and how the worker fits into this whole picture in a little bit. But, you know, there's also things around, you know, there might be somebody who is working in a role that doesn't seem to be that risky, but because of other things going on that can create risk and there's a risk that you can bring into organisation, attached to a worker. And then there's things that the organisation should be reasonably aware of or not reasonably aware of. So, again, I'm going to unpack this hopefully a little bit. The key thing is, it really isn't that clear cut. And if you're looking for really clear cut stuff in psychosocial hazard and risk assessment, you're probably going to be a little bit disappointed.

Okay? So get comfortable with grey and it's okay that it's grey. Okay, let's move on. We've got psychosocial hazards, I think physical hazards, we've got psychosocial hazards. These are the things that can create psychological harm, okay? And that harm may reach the threshold of an injury. They generally fall into these five categories. What we are doing for work, the people that we work with, how our work is managed, where we work, and the tools that we use, and the final and then we have frequency, duration, and severity. And the final component of this complicated picture, right, is the worker. Okay? And it's interesting, there are some worker level risk factors that affect how we think and the impact and how we perceive being exposed to a hazard. Okay? Now I'm going to share a couple of examples here. I see organisations quite frequently. They advertise a role and they say, look, we'd love to have somebody who is a, you know, type a personality.

Perhaps people have heard of that sort of a cluster of real go-getter driven, you know, workaholism might pop in there somewhere, right? They're re they, you know, they're really okay. And we often look for that in a, in when we're recruiting for people. The reality is there are, there are some worker level factors that are great for job performance. I mean, these people will work themselves, you know, but literally to the bone. So we get a, we are looking for the job performance, but we're not actually realising that we are bringing a bit of risk into the organisation because these people are more prone to compassion, fatigue to burnout, and in some respects, to developing poor mental health. Right? Now, if we look at the code of practice, something I'd like to emphasise here, the stuff that has gone into the codes of practice right across Australia and what we see in the regs, these are based on what we, what a reasonable person and how they would react to being exposed to these things at a particular sort of level of frequency, duration, and severity.

Okay? It's almost the reasonable person's test. You ask somebody to work 15 minutes over time, that's usually not going to, you know, create that much stress. But if you are doing it all the time that person's got extra responsibilities you're, you know, and it's, and it's relentless or it's longer than half an hour, 15 minutes an hour each day, then, then you're getting into this, you know, frequency, duration, severity kind of thing. And you're starting to tap into where that worker is perhaps going to struggle with that. So there is the reasonable person's test. There are things that we will need to get done. Like if a job isn't demanding at all, it's, it can, you know, not having any demands in a role monotonous work is actually a stressor as well. So there's kind of an optimum level in there, right? But around this worker level risk factors we're offering actually recruiting people in for job performance. But we're not really thinking much about how that might affect the risk attached to that. And again, I'll try to share some more examples in a moment.

I want to pause here, and this seems like a little bit of a sojourner. There is a lot of confusion that I'm observing out there. Workers and PCBUs around psych health and safety, psychosocial risk psych hazards, that and psychological safety. And unfortunately, there are a number of parties out there that are actually using these terms interchangeably. Those top three that I've got on the slide there, all work kind of together. There's psych risk, psychosocial risk, psychological health and safety, psychosocial hazards, they're kind of clustered together, right? And that's what we're talking about mostly in work health and safety. It is not the same as psychological safety. Psychological safety is a cultural feature. It's to do with the freedom to feel like you can speak up, express yourself, bring yourself to your whole self to work to ask questions, to raise concerns. Okay? It's a feature of the organisation.

It is different to psych risk. Now, if you want to do psychosocial risk management and assessment, well you need very high levels of psychological safety. And again, I'll talk about exactly how that works out. But effectively you won't even get through the hazard identification part of the process. Well, if you don't have high levels of psychological safety, you're really going to be like floundering around in the dark. Alright? The risk assessment process. We've gone through a couple of the key concepts. We've got categories of psychosocial hazards, we've got frequency, duration, and severity. We've talked about how it's a combination of the worker and the things that happen at work, right? This is the process that you'll see in the code of practice. Now, let's translate this. Some of you may have been may be familiar with the S-A-S-F-E process. So, this is really about identifying hazards.

Spot the hazard, my top tip—liaise with your people. Your people pretty much will tell you what those hazards are. Alright? Then we need to assess the risk again, liaise with your people, right? And risk is not only risk raw, it's risk that's left over once you've got controls in place, okay? Then you need to control the risk, right? So this is getting on with making some changes, do things new, better, different, again, liaise with your people. And the final step is evaluate results. Another key thing I would really like you to walk away with, because I know that this is it's a bug bear for regulators. And it's something that we often see crop up in legal proceedings, is it's not a control unless it works, right? When you're putting in your risk management strategy. So your risk controls, they do need to be evidence-based.

You need to be able to show that they actually work, okay? It's not a control unless it actually works. So, it's not as simple as saying, oh, we've spotted the hazards, we've assessed the risk. We think it could be harmful to people. We've put some strategies in place, we're good, right? You need to be able to actually show that those strategies are working. And that is where I see a lot of organisations falling down. They're not going in and actually monitoring and evaluating their controls. Alright? So, spot the hazard, assess the risk, make the changes, evaluate the results. You want to make sure that it works.

How to, let's get into a couple of examples here. Okay? You need to identify potential and actual, okay? And again, talking to your people is the best way to do this. There might be potential exposures to psychosocial hazards. So, if you're working in retail, it could be that you could have an aggressive customer come in. So, it might not actually have already occurred. It's a potential hazard, but you know that it's likely to occur, right? You're dealing with members of the public. People might be frustrated. It might be a setting where you're dealing with, you know, I've done some work with clients in call centre environments. It is foreseeable and likely that you're going to be exposed to some unhappy people on the customer front. So, you need to assess the risk frequency, duration, severity, FDS, and develop your risk controls. The very best way you can do this is liaising with your people, right? Let's just cut through all of the other stuff that people talk about. Your workers are the best source of information on what those hazards could be, right?

Actually happening or potential. Go and ask your workers. And there's so many different ways you can do this. You know, it depends on what juris, what sort of setting or sector you're in. But we have, you know, you can have toolbox meetings, you can have staff meetings, you can have you know, formalised safety meetings where you literally go out and start looking for these things. You can survey, you can do focus groups, you can do a whole range of things. But the important thing is to be asking your people what is it about your work? What you do, how it's managed, what you do, and how much of it, how it's managed, the people you work with, the environment that you're in, right? And also, the tools that you've got that might create harm psychologically. Ask the question. And here, I think, you know, depending on the size and complexity of the organisation, I emphasise that you do need to have things from very informal anonymous ways of asking your workers all the way up to formal.

So, depending on how big your organisation is, you might know every single one of your workers, maybe you're a micro enterprise or under 20 sort of headcount, right? And you can really have those conversations. And that relates back to the psychological safety, where you've got a really strong relationship and you can have chats about those things, right? But if you're in a bigger organisation, you also need to collate that information, right? Because one worker's perspective might be different to another's and you need to be making sure that you're managing risk across the whole organisation, right? And it might mean that you identify certain hotspots, for example, but ask your workers. Literally go and ask your workers in whichever way. There are some great free tools to do this. I'm going to talk about people at work in a moment, in a little bit more detail.

But also, even if you can't use people at work, you need 20 staff to use that. You can still go into the resources that are available. You can use, there's like a pen and paper version of it still, or you can access the questions in that. And that really is about hazard identification. But if you're having a conversation about it, you can start to assess risk, okay? So not just the hazard, but whether it's occurring quite frequently, whether it's in duration or whether it is severe or any combination. Okay? So, think about things like people at work, but you could even just, you know, I hate to say it like the suggestion box, right? Just don't have a suggestion box. You don't check. That would be really bad. But the key thing is there inside your work, your, your workplace, the best source of information is actually probably from your workers.

So go and liaise with them. Ask your internal SMEs, your subject matter experts, right? If you're large enough, you might have some work health and safety reps, some HR people go and have a conversation with them about what they're observing around those five categories, the work that's being done, how it's being managed, the people that you're working with and the interactions you have with them. The plant that you're using. So, the tools and the equipment. And then also the work environment itself. Look at things like your role description. This can be a wealth of information. And again, you know, smaller organisations might not have this. Okay? So, it might be having conversations around what do you actually do day to day? What does a day in the life of look like, right? But looking at your role descriptions and going, okay, what's here? Is it clear who this person reports to?

Is it clear the different parties they might liaise with? Is it clear they might have exposure to customers? Those kind of things. You know, is it in the role description that you are asking, you know, if you advertise the role you are looking for that type A person, somebody who's dynamic and all of those things. Okay, well why are you asking for that? Right? And there's something called a realistic job preview. And I set this challenge quite frequently. If you're going to advertise a role and you know, to bring the right, hopefully the right people in for that role that is suited to that role, you need to accurately describe it. And so if you are writing down what a day in the life of looks like and you're looking at it and going, gee, I don't know that I'd want to do that job, right?

There's there, that's a risk assessment right there. Okay? You're going, oh, this actually sounds like it could cause psychological harm if we described it. If you find like you're trying to give a shiny version of the role, again, there's your kick card to go, there is probably psych risk attached to that. And we need to look at that role and see what we can change about it. Again, looking at larger organisations perhaps, but you can, there's so many different bits of information you could use from a HR and safety front. It might be incident reports, grievances even the informal stuff you hear along the grapevine about what people are whining about, they're not happy about the water cooler conversations, things like that. Exit information, a person's left organisation, why did they leave the organisation, right? So there is a whole plethora of things.

And again, if you look at the code of practice, they actually give you a pretty good list, right? But look at those data points, particularly as you get bigger. It is about trying to collate up identify hotspots of risk and then also your overarching risk. Because your safety system needs to encompass all of it, right? To meet your duty of care obligations. Explore things like customer pain points, okay? Now, if you get customer complaints going in saying, I lodge, you know, I had this query of this and it hasn't been dealt with in five days, and I was told I'd get a response in, you know, one day and they haven't done it and I'm getting really shirty. Well, one, the fact they're getting shirty with this staff is a psych hazard, okay? So you can start to attach some risk to that, but the fact that they're waiting long, that's a key indicator that perhaps the workloads are too high for that person or that team to manage, right?

So the amount of work that that team or that person's trying to do is in a hazard exposure kind of level, right? And use common sense. Not so common the these days, some people might say, but you know, if something is a really tough job and it's complex and it's draining and there's emotions involved and you're doing long hours like that is potentially psychologically harmful, right? Okay. So let's use a bit of common sense. If you're trying to work a 60 hour week or a 70 hour week, that should go red flag. Red flag, right? The National Employment Standards are sitting at that 37 and a half to 40 hours, okay? So as soon as you see evidence that people are working well above that, you really need to start asking questions. Let's just say that you don't have ready access to all of these things.

You've only got bits and pieces of information. You can also go external, right? So look outside the PCBU your regulator is actually a wealth of information. Queensland has got some great stuff on the, on the WorkSafe website. There's some tools, like I said, there's people at work which you can use for hazard identification. And then you can actually do the focus groups and ask the questions to start to do an actual risk assessment with it, which is fantastic. And even if you don't have the 20 staff, you can still use that to guide conversations you might have in a staff meeting or ask anonymously and ask for feedback to go in some, in some way, shape, or form, right? You can look at things like industry and profession reports, okay? So if you are working in mining or you're working in building and construction or in the service industry, there's some massive ones.

I mean, there has been quite a lot of focus. And we need to get outside of focusing on just singular hazards, things like sexual harassment in the workplace. But you can go to things like the respect at work report, okay? And that was from the National Inquiry into sexual harassment in Australian workplaces. Fabulous work by Kate Jenkins and her team there. But there is a wealth of information in there about hazard IT exposure raids and a whole bunch of other stuff. So if you don't have the information handy inside your organisation, look to things like industry reports, professional reports. Same with SME. So you can go to a subject matter expert and say, look, in my industry or my professional in my role, right? What might risk look like? What are the key hazards that you're observing? Go to research reports and I talk about evidence-based practice. The beauty of evidence-based practice is we do start to take quite complex groups of information and we can give you some overarching stuff with it. Okay? There isn't a silver bullet, but there are some key simple principles that we can use that are evidence-based. Go to your membership associations to unions, see what they're talking about that might fall into those five categories of hazard exposure. And then start talking to your people about the risk attached to that.

It's out there. But legal proceedings reports case judgements you know, you can sign on to get legal alerts of various types. So I try to stay across the, the most recent judgments, and it's actually not just in safety. You can get some really useful information, but from things like fair work. So fair work do have stop bullying orders and stop sexual harassment orders. They make judgements on unfair dismissal and adverse actions, which can be an a justice psychosocial hazard exposure, okay? So you can get information from all of these different sources and media looking at what's going on in the media when you see things that are cropping up and they're talking about disputes with workers and what the workers are unhappy about and what's going on kind of in that space that can be a really useful source of information about potential psychosocial hazards and the risk that goes along with them, right?

I wanted to give you a couple of primers on risk management and residual risk, okay? And we want to make sure we've got time for questions. So I'm going to move through this pretty quickly. If you look in the various technical documents, codes of practice, and so on and so forth, we tend to use the hierarchy of control, and I'll go through that in just a minute. But if we looked at the safe work guidance material, they actually have, if you want to simplify it, three levels of risk management, the tears approach. And what we're really trying to do here is to prevent harm, okay? We want to create the conditions for people to thrive. And that really means about identify the hazards, assess the risk, and remove the risks to the extent possible so far as reasonably practicable prior to problems arising prior to harm occurring, right?

Primary prevention, you really want to be in that green space. Intervene early is something that I call rescue management, right? The psychosocial hazard exposure has occurred is probably in the realms of being frequent of a duration or severity. That's enough to cause harm. And what you really trying to do is minimise the level of harm, right? The extent of harm. So the problems already occurred. You are, you are, you are trying to rescue the situation. And probably one of the worst scenarios to be in is where you know, you've got an injured worker and you're trying to support them to recover, okay? And there's some interesting statistics and information around psychological injuries and they are harder to get people back to work and they do last longer and all of those kind of things. So I call that, you know, you're really fixing what's already broken, right?

And for PCBs, I'm a little bit more blunt. I say you're really cleaning up a mess, right? We don't want to be cleaning up the mess. We want to be in the space where we are preventing harm. We're identifying those hazards across the five categories. We are trying to assess the level of risk that's attached to them. And we're putting controls in place, hierarchy of control. People who are in the audience that are in work health and safety framework would be familiar with this. But I'm going to give a bit of a prima facie for people who might be in here from perhaps HR or something and not be so familiar. There are different levels of controls. And when we talk about risk assessment, it's not just the risk attached to broad-based hazard exposure, frequency, severity, and duration. It's also around once you've got controls in place, so you've put some strategies in place to try to remove or minimise that risk.

What's the residual now? So this is a handy framework to think about what your residual risk might look like, and also how effective your controls might be. So we know with the hierarchy of control that getting rid of the hazard is the best thing usually, right? Just get rid of it, eliminate it. That may not be necessarily practical. So I talked before about service industries where, you know, disgruntled customers might be part of the role looking at public administration and safety, right? Where, you know, there's inherent hazard exposures, trauma and high cognitive demands to do with being, say, an ambulance officer, okay? So you may not be able to eliminate it, but you may be able to mitigate it or at least reduce it. So elimination is the bee's knees redesigning the work in the workplace, right? So if we looked at physical safety, this is sort of in a, in, in the box of combining reengineering, right?

Substituting and isolating. So the hierarchy of control kind of needs to be adapted to be used in psych risk, but it can be used. So we are looking at things like smart work design, for example. There are some wonderful free resources on the if you look up Sharon Parker's work online, there's some great stuff in there. There's some surveys you can use to assess these smart dimensions. Now these are evidence-based, we know that they work okay? And they're looking at trying to design work. So it's stimulating. You have mastery, you have agency and control, your relationships are good in it, and the demands are tolerable. So I don't have time, that's a whole session on its own, but please do go and have a bit of read of those free resources because they can be really handy. Now, elimination and redesigning work and workplaces is above the line.

We know that they are highly effective and your residual risk will be quite low. Okay? Then we get below, below the line, and this is where most risk control efforts are currently sitting, right? We have a policy and procedure for that right now. Policies and procedures are essential. They're just not enough in isolation usually. Okay? Administrative controls also include things like training, right? So it might be you train your staff in what you know, workplace violence looks like, or aggressive and unreasonable behaviour looks like, whether it's from a peer, somebody internal or external, right? And you are doing some training around that and you're saying, you know, don't engage in these behaviours at work, but these are what we call below the line controls. They are not as effective as eliminating them at the outset. So an example of eliminating at the outset might be if you work in say, retail and you have a non-problematic, aggressive customer, eliminating the hazard is where the organisation says, do you know what?

We're not going to, we're not going to serve this customer anymore. Okay? We know they're going to be hazardous to our staff and we can see that it's foreseeable. We know that it's upsetting our staff. We're going to refuse service, right? Or we're going to ban that person from our establishment. So there are things you can do to eliminate that hazard rather than necessarily just training your staff in how to deal with problem customers, right? That's still handy. It's just below the line. And your very, very lowest level is your PPE. So, you know, personal protective equipment, this is where we see things like resilience training, mindfulness giving people better coping strategies, things like that. We need to start thinking about those risk controls as you're giving people PPE, right? So we need to do that. It's great to have PPE, but that can't be the only thing you do, right?

You really need to go through the layers of trying to eliminate or reduce the hazards so far as reasonably practicable. Do things like redesigning the work and workplace, have some administrative controls, training and those kind of things. And then PPE is your last resort. So things like employee assistance programs can be extraordinarily useful. We just need to think about them as often being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, right? Whereas elimination is really about having a fence at the top of the cliff and actually deterring people from going towards the fence because it's a cliff. Okay? So start your thinking. Go, let's get above the line. Keep any stuff that you've got around administration and PPE, but look at it very carefully. Do your S-A-F-E, you've put some hazard controls in place. Evaluate whether they're working or not, right? If they're not working, you can consider getting rid of them. So, like I said, you're below the line stuff is really about mitigating risk rather than trying to reduce or eliminate it. And they're often not systemic. So they're down at sort of individual worker level often. And if you've got particularly a bigger workforce, you need to really be showing that you're doing this from a systems point of view.

All right? Couple of tips so we can get to some questions. It can be mind boggling, right? I, work in this space and even I read the legislation sometimes and gee, oh gosh, wow, <laugh>, okay, just start. It doesn't have to be perfect. Don't let perfect get in the way of better start having the conversations. Start looking at some of those information sources. Start putting together what could be a risk assessment, right? And utilise available resources. There are a stack out there that are free to use and are pretty handy. So you do have people at work, it is a hazard identification survey tool. You do need to have over 20 staff. And then what they have is a whole bunch of resources around it, around once you've looked at the hazards that have been identified, how do you have conversations with your workers about how you might resolve those hazards or address them or mitigate the risk, right?

And that's what really makes it a risk assessment tool is doing all the other stuff. But there is a whole website with a bunch of resources you can just go in and download, even if you don't have 20 workers. Go in there, download it, use it to start conversations, okay? So you can still use them, okay? The mentally healthy workplaces toolkit, again, a free resources provided by the, by the provider of this seminar, which is fantastic. Go in there, have a look, have a read, use whatever's relevant, okay? Liaise with your people. Let's bring it back to really, really grassroots, okay? Be curious. Ask insightful questions. What's going on in your role? What do you really enjoy? You know, what gets you out of bed in the morning? What makes you not want to come into work in the morning, right? Or at night if you're a night shift worker, right?

And listen carefully to what they say and use that information in your risk assessment. Be careful to pause and to respond rather than just going, no, they've just suggested something. They've brought up a problem that's bigger than Ben Hurr. It's just part of the role. They all need to build a bridge, get over it, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Listen carefully, pause and respond with an open mind, okay? That's part of psychological safety is that if you're going to encourage people to come to you with with hazards and potential risk, you need to be willing to listen as a PCBU, okay? If you're asking your workers to come forward. So, don't overreact, don't underreact, don't dismiss without careful consideration, right? And it's easy to say we can't afford to do that. I'm going to very gently remind you that the cost of an intervention is only one consideration as to whether it's so far as reasonably practical, okay?

There is a whole bunch of other considerations and cost is actually the least relevant if you're doing this right? You can do a lot of things that really don't cost very much at all or cost nothing, okay? And that's like building really positive relationships that people come to you before things are issues. For example, reframe Brad news. If you don't know about it, you can't act, right? You know, you want people to be able to come to you and say, I've got an issue, I've got a query, I've got a concern. Alright? And ignorance is not bliss. I talked about external sources of information. So just because you don't have people coming forward and lodging grievance reports or disputes or complaints about stuff doesn't mean it's not going on, right? So, ignorance is not bliss. You can actually be negligent by not going, okay, we haven't heard about our organisation, but all the industry data says that this is a big issue. So we should start framing perhaps our risk management around that. And then trying to get some more internal data.

No safety clutter. It is far better to have quality controls that work being evidence-based, smart work design is one of them. Okay? If it doesn't work, ditch it. Get rid of it, okay? You want things two to three or four or five controls that really work is better than having 500 controls that don't work, right? Going back to spot the hazard, assess the risks, make the changes, evaluate the results. Your circle, right? If it's not working, consider getting rid of it and trying something different, okay? And seek guidance. I mean, if you've got SMEs internally, go and ask them questions. Listen to what they say. You know, if you've got capacity to bring in SMEs or even going to your work safety regulators, all those things and asking good questions. And it might be that you need to do a bit of uplift where required and where possible.

So think about that. But seeking guidance. One of the things I'd like to say about this is sometimes you only need to invest in a little bit of guidance and it gets you on the journey. It gets you lined up with your ducks in a row and then you can run. Okay? So there are a couple of my overarching tips. I'm really hoping that this was insightful in terms of trying to demystify some of the more complex things. It is an important journey to get on. This isn't something that's going away and we do need, need to get cracking on it. So if you're not yet on the journey, go and start looking at some of those resources and see what you can do. And on that note, I would like to say, what questions do you have?

Thanks Dr. Becs. we have run a little bit over time. We have lots of questions. We'll get to as many as we can. And remember, if you still have a question, pop them into the q and a chat box. We will get to as many as we can. In the next couple of minutes, we're going to run a little bit over time, but that doesn't matter. And the first of those questions comes from Suri and Fatima, and they both ask, what is the legislative timeframe that a PCBU should be conducting a psychosocial risk assessment? And just to add a little hook to that, and Robin wants to know if it, that risk assessment is complete, completed for an individual or a job. So a two phase question,

Okay, great. On both fronts, this is actually raising something that I see as a common mistake. Psych risk assessment is not a one done. And that goes to the second point of the question is that at an individual level, psych risk can change minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day. Okay? So it is not a one and done. What I see organisations doing is trying to now, you know, do sort of a very thorough risk assessment, trying to look at the key things in their organisation and then lining up controls. But just because you've done it once, it's a little bit, it's not set and forget with physical risk, sometimes once, if, if the task doesn't change and the equipment doesn't change, you do the risk assessment and put the controls in place to check that they work done. Okay? And you might not need to look at it for a while.

Psych risk assessment is dynamic. You need to keep doing it. Okay? So the timeframe is as long as a piece of string. It really depends on your organisation. You need to make sure that you're looking for the critical risks in your organisation, getting those managed. But you need to be making sure that you're constantly dynamically assessing risk in terms of individuals and roles, again, it depends on the size of your organisation and what your system should look like. You know, starting with roles and looking at categories of roles and going, we generally know that these hazards are a problem perhaps, or a risk for these categories of roles. Then you're bringing it up from the individual worker and you're getting into systems. Okay? And that's really important. But for any one individual case, you do need to look at for this worker, what might the risk be? So it is both systems based all the way up to enterprise level, and it's all the way down to individual workers. So if you can find ways to simplify it, do that. That is a great way to start building your system. Just acknowledge that on any individual setting, it's about really equipping supervisors, frontline supervisors and managers to be having the one-on-one conversations. So you take your system and you make it real for each worker.

Thanks, doc. Julie is interested in any or how to maintain psychosocially safe work environments for remote teams. IE who are located across the state can only connect digitally and have completely different environmental experiences and digital capabilities.

Yeah, absolutely. If we think about smart work design, that relational peer pillar is really about that that person perceives that they've got support from their colleagues and from their supervision and management, and they've got all the resources they need to do that job. So you've already identified a key hazard in there, remote and isolated work. And then what you're doing is, that's a necessity for that role, okay? And then what you're doing is doing your best to connect that person in other ways. Now, we did find that virtual working can be highly effective for a number of roles. We learned some pretty quick lessons and, and useful lessons over the pandemic. It's really about having conversations with those workers. There is a report on fly in, fly out workers and remote and isolated work. I'll direct you to that was conducted by Sharon Parker's team over in Western Australia.

You should be able to Google it. It's got some fantastic tips in there about managing remote and isolated workforces. But really it's about that relationship with management, acknowledging the hazard exists and then putting those controls in place. It might be, you know, day to day call-ins. It might be things like having equipment like satellite phones and things like that. So they feel like at least if they need somebody they can reach out and it needs to be reach out and reach in is one thing I would say there. Don't leave it just to the worker to come to you and say, I'm feeling isolated, or I'm struggling here. You need to be as a PCBU proactively reaching in. But chase up that report. And in fact, what I'll do is I'll try and send the link and we can even disperse it. There's some great tips in there about managing isolated and remote workforces.

Dr. Becs, you've just been talking about FIFO remote jobs and things like that. Both Craig and Sarah would like to know after 12 hour days in FIFO jobs are they considered a high risk area? You know, the constant overtime, usually no choice. You know, it's all work, work, work.

Yeah. The FIFO workforce is quite interesting and there has been quite targeted research in that area. Again, it's really, if I could say if we summarise psych risk management at the worker level, it's

Alright. Well thanks everyone. Little technical difficulty there. It's frozen. I'll just remind you that we are in a livestream session with Dr. Rebecca Michalak, managing Director of PsychSafe. We were going through some of your questions. We will get back to them as soon as we can. We will try and reconnect with Dr. Becs. just a reminder about Queensland Mental Health Week 2024 Queensland Mental Health Week 2024 runs from the fifth to the 13th of October. It's aligned to World Mental Health Day, which is on October 10 every year. The theme for 2024 is Connect for Mental Health. It's set by the Queensland Mental Health Commission Working Group. The campaign raises awareness of the importance of good mental health and shares practical tools and resources employers can use to promote mentally healthy workplace practices, protect workers from psychological harm, intervene early, and support recovery in their workplaces.

The events as delivered our professional development opportunity for industry leaders and work health safety professionals. We are trying to reestablish connection with Dr. Becs. Thanks for your patience. Hang in there. We're just about right. The objectives of Mental Health Week 2024. Just to refresh your mind. Deliver awareness and engagement initiatives that raise awareness of Mental Health Week and help reduce stigma and discrimination. Deliver online and in-person events that provide information to Queensland workplaces to support building and sustaining mentally healthy workplace is develop and provide practical evidence-based resources and tools that provide businesses with the necessary knowledge and information to support action in their workplace. And of course, use social media advertising to promote mental health week events and existing resources. These resources include the Mentally Healthy Workplaces kit, the managing the Risks of Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code of Practice 2022, and the People at Work Risk Assessment Tool. Again, thank you for your questions. We appreciate it. Let's see if we can call in Dr. Becs again. Are you with us?

It looks like I am, hopefully.

Excellent. Shall we move to the next question?

Sure.

Okay. Rebecca would like to know, how do you recommend consulting with workers in doing a risk assessment? You and I'll, I'll quote you saying, inside your organisation workers are the best source of information. Ask them about their work, speak to all of them to ensure all hazards and risks and potential risks are identified. That's how important your resource of workers is.

Absolutely. And I guess when it is a really big organisation, it's difficult to consult with all workers and that's where you see things that are, you know, fast and furious. But also very helpful survey techniques. Because you can perhaps send a survey out to everyone and ask for their view. You know, otherwise you might have to go with representative groups. So you might say to a workforce, you know, let's get key representatives across different, you know, occupations or levels or functions and get them together on a taskforce to have these conversations. But absolutely, I think going back to what I said as well, have various mechanisms for getting that information. And some of them need to be anonymous and confidential. Okay? Because if you don't necessarily have high levels of psychological safety, people might be willing to raise a potential concern around hazards or risks that method rather than necessarily going into surveys.

So even if you're doing surveys, we do see some level of pushback where organisations don't make it clear that it's de-identified or that it's anonymous and those kind of things. And you get kind of a, a, a curved back set of responses. So having everything that from anonymous, informal, confidential, all the way up to formal is a great technique. And using representatives, if you have a large organisation to try to bring that risk up from, you know, perhaps individual worker level where you need feedback and then, you know, elevate it into your core risk categories.

Doc Julia, Leandra and Alyssa are all interested in the frequency times duration times severity equals risk calculation. Can you expand on what this is and provide any recommendations for the best ways to rate the severity, frequency, and duration? And are there any simple grids to use? They, they say the traditional five grid box is overly complicated.

Yeah, the traditional, I actually look at that traditional five grid box quite a lot and provide some insights on how that can be changed. Look, it's, it is a difficult thing to do because what one person perceives to be severe can be different to what another person perceives to be severe. So this is, I think when you're looking at, at individual worker level, you really need to equip your managers, okay, your frontline supervisors and managers to get to know your staff at that individual level so that they can understand what, you know, that worker might be bringing into work from outside work. Okay, some, both perhaps the individual level risk factors that might be contributing. Okay. And equipping that manager to then also feed information as relevant to, you know, to the functions that are looking after systems to say, okay, we are looking here at, you know, a, a person that needs support because they've got, you know, these added elements of demands that are outside the workforce or the workplace.

And we can't necessarily control them, but we can offer some support to them. So, you know, severity, duration, and frequency. There is only one non tool that I know that assesses that at survey level, and I'm happy to share that information with the organisers and they can disperse that. But it's really about having those conversations with your frontline people and your frontline managers to get them to be talking to individual level workers. Because if you've got a person that perhaps has already if we look at a younger worker or an inexperienced worker, they're going to find stresses to do with the tasks that they do and how much they do of it greater than a more experienced worker, okay? Because they haven't yet learnt the lay of the land. They haven't necessarily got all of their emotional regulation skills in place.

We mature in that space normally over time as we get older. Some of us not so much, but generally speaking, and so you're looking there at, you know, perhaps young and inexperienced workers being at a greater risk. So again, if you're into the code of practice, there are five or six I think, categories of at-risk workers, we could look at ones that are you know, perhaps speak English as a second language. And so if you've got a lot in policies and procedures they can find that quite difficult to understand and that can place them at higher risk. If a person has a preexisting vulnerability that could place them at higher risk. So there's, you know, there is a lot to unpack there and really my, probably my top piece of guidance there would be equipping your frontline managers to be getting to know their team really well so that they can unpack some of the individual level risk stuff that can influence at, you know, a worker level up, up the chain.

Unfortunately time on the wing. So last question. This comes from Jenny and Julie, and they'd like to know any tips you might have for navigating around leaders who may not be that effective at risk management?

I would actually almost be starting with psychological safety there. So giving them some skills around how do you build psychological safety in your team? Okay, so opening up those conversations, making it so that they, they feel equipped that they can take things like suggestions around hazard exposures or an employee coming to them saying, I've got a concern about this, that, and the other. I think uplift and, and doing some upskilling also in just in, in just these basics. So even something like a session like this if you've got to delegate responsibility for these duties of care sort of down the chain, you do need to make sure that people, you're delegating them to have got the knowledge that they need. And my most common observation is that people are willing and probably able, but they're not getting the information they need. And so they're deer in headlights because they just feel like they're going to get it wrong or they don't know what to do. So doing even some sort of basic uplift or upskill with your managers to say, Hey, this is what psychosocial hazards look like. These are the categories they fit into, this is how they can affect workers. These are some things you could do. Even something like that means that they're better equipped to have those conversations with workers. So just being careful with how you're delegating, how you do risk management.

Doc. and look, if we didn't get to your question please email them to psychologicalhealth@oir.qld.gov.au. So that's psychologicalhealth@oir.qld.gov.au. Thank you everyone for joining us today. We hope that you've learned some valuable takeaways to help protect the psychological health of your workers in your workplace. As we wrap up the event today, can I ask that you scan the QR code on your screen to complete our short survey? Your feedback is important to help us evaluate the program and inform planning for future events. If you are available, tune in tomorrow for our next livestream menopause and the Workplace Unlocking Potential through Reasonable Adjustments. In this session, join Janey McGoldrick, sorry from Menopause Friendly Australia for an insightful livestream event, exploring the importance of reasonable adjustments in supporting employees navigating menopause. Also, check out the website, worksafe.qld.gov au for other events and to access the recordings from other livestream events from Mental Health Week Plus, follow us on social media and stay up to date with the latest workplace health and safety updates. If today's presentation has brought up anything for you, please access the support services available, and if it's an emergency, call triple zero or visit your local hospital. Again, thanks for joining us and thanks to Dr. Becs who was fantastic today. Enjoy the rest of your day and remember, as always, work safe, home safe.