Understanding The Problem

If you provide safety training for 20% of staff who are exposed to a particular risk, how do you decide who are the 80% who miss out?

Occupational violence and aggression (OVA) and other work-related violence risks cannot be addressed through partial coverage. To genuinely fulfil duty of care and protect staff, organisations need a structured, methodical approach to identifying risks, deciding who should be trained, and ensuring safety measures are both effective and sustainable.

This article explains a six-step approach that helps organisations work through this challenge and avoid common pitfalls. It also provides real-world examples and practical insights so that managers, OHS professionals, and HR leaders can make informed decisions.

Step 1: Identify and Assess the Hazard

The first step is to clearly define the hazard and assess the severity of the risk. This requires examining both the likelihood of incidents and their potential consequences. For occupational violence and aggression, risks often include physical harm, psychological stress, reputational damage, and financial loss.

Key questions to ask:

What forms of aggressive behaviour are staff encountering (verbal abuse, threats, physical violence)?
How frequently are these incidents occurring?
What has been the impact on staff wellbeing and organisational outcomes?

By rating severity using a risk matrix, organisations can prioritise which hazards require urgent attention. For example, an aged care provider experiencing regular verbal aggression from clients may identify high levels of stress, staff absenteeism, and increased turnover, signalling that the risk is high and needs immediate control.

Step 2: Apply the Hierarchy of Controls

Once hazards are identified, the next step is to apply the hierarchy of hazard control, which prioritises prevention through design. This framework ensures risks are managed systematically, starting with the most effective measures.

Control options include:

Elimination – Can the hazard be removed entirely? (e.g., redesigning customer service processes to reduce flashpoints).
Substitution – Can the hazard be replaced with something less harmful? (e.g., replacing face-to-face interactions with digital tools where appropriate).
Engineering controls – Can changes to equipment or the environment reduce exposure? (e.g., installing protective barriers, panic alarms, or shelter-in-place designs).
Administrative controls – Can procedures, rostering, or workflow adjustments minimise risk? (e.g., ensuring staff do not work alone in high-risk environments).

Training sits further down the hierarchy, but it becomes crucial when residual risk remains. That’s why hazard control must first focus on prevention and design before training is considered.

Step 3: Determine Who Is Still Exposed

After applying controls, organisations need to identify which staff remain exposed to risk. This step ensures training and other interventions are targeted effectively.

Considerations include:

Which roles regularly face aggressive behaviours (frontline, customer-facing, clinical, or enforcement roles)?
Are certain teams or individuals more vulnerable due to location, time of day, or type of service provided?
Are casual or agency staff adequately considered in exposure assessments?

For instance, in a hospital setting, while engineering controls may reduce risks, staff still face unpredictable behaviours and therefore remain exposed.

Step 4: Assess Staff Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities

Not all staff have the same baseline capacity to manage occupational violence and aggression. Some may already have training or extensive experience, while others may be completely unprepared.

Questions to explore:

Do staff understand de-escalation techniques and early intervention strategies?
Can they recognise warning signs of escalating behaviour?
Are they confident in managing high-stress situations without increasing risk to themselves or others?

This assessment is essential, as providing training only to those already confident may leave less-experienced staff dangerously underprepared. Conversely, failing to refresh experienced staff can lead to skill deterioration and complacency.

Step 5: Provide Appropriate Training

Once knowledge and skill gaps are identified, organisations must provide training that addresses both prevention and response. Training should be:

Practical and scenario-based – so staff can apply learning directly in real-life situations.
Tailored to the organisation – reflecting specific environments, client groups, and risk profiles.
Evidence-based and current – aligned with best practice standards and compliance requirements.

For example, Holland Thomas training emphasises prevention, early intervention, and de-escalation, alongside strategies for managing unavoidable risks. This ensures staff feel safer, more confident, and supported in their roles.

Key outcomes of training include:

Increased staff confidence and resilience.
Reduced incident frequency and severity.
Lower stress, absenteeism, and turnover.
Enhanced organisational reputation and compliance.

Step 6: Decide Who, When, and How Often

The final step is to determine which staff should be trained, when training should occur, and how often it should be refreshed. This step raises some challenging but necessary questions.

Which staff?
Imagine buying new work vehicles where the base model comes without airbags. Airbags significantly improve safety in a crash—but would you only install them in 20% of cars?

Similarly, training only a portion of exposed staff creates inconsistency and risk. Providing training to all staff exposed to hazards ensures:

Immediate safety benefits.
A clear message that all staff are valued.
Reduced liability for managers and the organisation.

When?
Staff are exposed to risks right now. Incidents could occur tomorrow, or even today. The sooner training occurs, the sooner staff, clients, and the organisation are safer. Delaying training until “next year’s budget” may expose the organisation to unnecessary legal and reputational consequences.

How often?
Skills in managing aggression are perishable. Like first aid or emergency procedures, knowledge fades without reinforcement. Organisations should set clear refresh cycles, considering:

Staff turnover and new hires.
Incident frequency and severity.
The complexity of skills required.

Regular, ongoing training ensures resilience, preparedness, and compliance.

What Are You Expected to Do?

At what point can you say your workplace safety measures are “safe enough”? Consider the professional, organisational, and personal consequences if a staff member is unprepared in their moment of need.

While it may not be practicable to train 100% of staff immediately, failing to train exposed staff within three to six months could expose leaders and organisations to liability for breaching duty of care. The reputational, financial, and human costs of such a lapse can be devastating.

By following this six-step framework, leaders can ensure risks are properly assessed, hazards are controlled, and staff are consistently prepared. The result is a safer, more resilient workforce, and a stronger, more compliant organisation.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Travis Holland
Managing Director
Holland Thomas

Should you wish to discuss strategies to improve your staff’s safety in their work environment, please feel welcome to contact Holland Thomas.

Passionate about creating safer workplaces our goal is to enhance wellbeing for all concerned, whilst also delivering improved operational and financial performance.

This blog draws on our years of experience delivering our M.A.B.™ Staff Safety Training (Contextualised Prevention and Management of Aggressive Behaviours) across Australia, and the development of My Safety Buddy, our smartphone app and web portal based lone worker safety system.