News/Posts/Events

How to improve noise report quality. Perhaps a template?

Expressing 40 years of frustration since founding INVC... Peter Wilson

I see a lot of reports (we developed and run the IOSH noise competency courses). Most are placebo check-box reports that tell you what you already know, that you still have a noise problem. What they don’t tell you is how best to reduce hearing damage risk.

You need to write or acquire a template report for all future risk assessments (consultant or in-house) to ensure quality and to enable you to track progress in risk reduction (very difficult if all reports have different formats and content).

I’ve been writing noise risk assessment reports for decades with the added benefit of seeing hosts of other reports. Given the current dire state of play documented by the HSE, I’ve decided to use that experience to develop what I modestly consider to be the ultimate high-end benchmark report to encourage better quality. It will shortly be released into the wild as an open source resource. Free to use, free to copy and paste to create bespoke or massively cut-down (for simple sites) versions.

We can even generate bespoke versions for you if required, such as the version I recently provided for a major insurance company.

Typical noise report content. Useful much?

After spending £thousands on a report, you're presented with what I call, a “write only report” where, understandably, very little of it has ever been read. Summarising the typical content:

No useful, best practice Action Plan to reduce risk, despite it being the sole reason for the report.

HSE report quality survey results (spoiler alert, D-)

Q1: why are so many noise reports so poor? A1: lack of tonal evaluation. Time to change...

Expressing 40 years of frustration since founding INVC... Peter Wilson

I was due to give a presentation at the 2019 CIEH INVC conference: "Why are most noise consultant reports inadequate". The title was changed at the last minute to "Noise consultant reports: current best practice approaches" because “Some of our colleagues in the industry mention to us that ‘most noise consultants’ is quite a generalisation and perhaps not the sort of message we should be saying, quite so strongly."

I remarked on this to a roomful of EHOs, saying I felt that around 80% of reports we saw were inadequate. The chair (IOA president at the time) pulled me up “You can’t say that...” I asked the audience. A couple said they strongly disagreed with my statement – as it was 90% or more...

2023 EA report quality survey: 95% of consultant noise reports were inadequate: 60% extremely poor, 30% very poor, 5% poor. EHO accuracy!

The serious consequences

• organisations waste a fortune on poor quality (often unnecessarily complex) noise reports
• companies waste a fortune on noise control measures based on guesswork (no diagnosis) that are not best practice
• complainants suffer unnecessarily for extended periods (see above). Problems that should be sorted within weeks often drag on for months or years...
• regulator resources (EAs and EHOs) are wasted due to the above

And the 1st major elephant in the noise industry room is...?

Supplier data: 29dB. Reality, as used: 5dB. You need to know this...

We have developed a real-world passive PPE performance calculator based on the latest research into the factors that affect attenuation in the workplace, not just in the lab. This allows you to make a realistic estimate of the actual attenuation that is being achieved in your working environment rather than the assumed figure from the (almost irrelevant) supplier data.

It also allows you to assess the effects of changes to improve protection. The result is an evaluation of your Return on Investment (RoI) for your PPE regime.

How does it work?

It shouldn't be this depressing - by Peter Wilson

When I founded INVC on 01/01/86 with my ex boss, Steve May, the world was a very different place. In the field of noise, there has been both massive progress in some areas and, sadly, zero progress in others. This is the first of my honest "end of 40 year report cards" on the noise industry, an industry in which I am seriously disappointed.

I'm going to be blunt about the failings I see in both occupational and environmental noise management and mitigation. Failings that are both prevalent worldwide and very damaging to the population. I'll also be including the changes I feel should be made to improve outcomes in the hope it will encourage others.

Feathers may (will) be ruffled...

But first, a good news/bad news example...

Instrumentation - from a needing a mortgage to a free app...

23 years on, noise report quality remains abysmal. It can be changed...

I find the results of the recent HSE noise assessment report quality seriously depressing. Not surprising (we see a host of poor placebo reports via running the IOSH noise competency courses), but depressing. In 2002, a similar HSE survey found that 63% of noise reports were unsatisfactory, so nothing has changed...

Noise reports: 40% unsatisfactory, 14% poor, 6% very poor (2025 HSE data). Not only that, but 77% of reports do not include a prioritised list of noise control measures, despite HSE advice.

Noise control: even when it is included (only 23%), the advice is almost always useless, generalised copy-and-paste along the lines of "it would be a good idea if you could work out ways to reduce noise - here's a few links to stuff I've seen". It doesn't have to be that way...

This poor report quality damages health and increases noise risk reduction costs

It has recently become clear that Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) has a much greater effect on health than previously suspected (it's the number one modifiable dementia risk). There is also a large pool of people who have as yet undiagnosed NIHL (unlike OtoAcoustic Emission (OAE) testing, traditional Pure Tone audiometry (PTA) is not good at detecting all forms of damage). Coupled with the changing legal landscape, unless improvements are made, claim and insurance costs are set to soar.

There is a simple solution...

1. Create and use a high quality template report for all future noise risk assessments, whether in-house or via consultants. This makes it easy to track progress over time, something that is a) very important and b) virtually impossible if report formats keep changing. Because we feel it is the right thing to do, as part of our NIL NIHL campaign, we will shortly be providing access to our benchmark noise report template - see below...
2. Carry out a Noise Control Audit to generate a cost/benefit analysis and ranking of the options, using current best practice. If you haven't done this, you cannot say that you have best practice in place. Sadly, noise consultant knowledge of modern noise control engineering is generally abysmal...

Urgent Action: HSE report reveals "Serious Gaps" in PPE protection performance

The HSE noise inspection programme has revealed that >75% of employees exposed to potentially dangerous noise levels lack essential knowledge on how to use hearing protectors and 63% of them had not had any guidance on their use. So they are still at risk...

Seriously? After decades of PPE use, that's the situation?

PPE has been the only basis for almost all hearing conservation programmes. We have known about the serious shortcomings for decades, and yet the prevailing mistaken assumptions about the efficacy of PPE remain almost universal. Hence the continuing tsunami of hearing damage with the consequent dangers to health (x5 increased dementia risk), dangers to life quality (higher unemployment, x2 accident rate) and to claims costs (recent >£700k settlement - that could become commonplace).

It doesn't have to be like that...

The HSE published results from the current noise inspection programme tell a seriously depressing story followed by a call to action. You can download our free guide on Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) mitigation best practice for a summary of current best practices.

The following are the links to the HSE publications and general advice (CUFF) on the process improvements that inspectors will be expecting to see.

How to use modern noise control technology to cut costs, carbon footprints and NIHL risk...

I'm a speaker at #OH2025, the BOHS annual conference in Gateshead (19th June) on the above. Whether you're running a consultancy, managing a team, or just starting your OH journey, this conference is full of practical takeaways, inspiring sessions, and a genuine sense of community, and there's still time to secure your place here: www.bohs.link/oh2025

My presentation describes the risk/benefit analysis and engineering process involved with case studies from across the world to illustrate the noise control techniques that delegates can use to:

• cut carbon footprints of noise control projects by up to 99%
• cut NIHL risk by 50% - 80% within current budgets
• how to maximise risk ROI and reduce waste

The presentation includes a host of links to resources. If you can't make the day but would like the information, contact us or download the free NIL NIHL guide. View more information on the Greener, Quieter "Green Peace" noise control dividend.

HSE identified common failings, preemptive advice and resources

300% increased enforcement actions + a crack-down on rogue consultants...

Chris Steel, Specialist Noise & Vibration HSE Inspector reported the initial findings. The headline figures and intent from the results of the first 3 months of the programme include:

• 300% uptick in noise related enforcement letters and notices (does not include health surveillance shortfalls)
• Only 5% of sites test for audibility of warnings etc when using PPE (over-protection)
• Common errors in noise reports - 41% of sites use external consultants
• Noise risk assessment consultant and reporting quality checklist
• Crack down on "rogue" noise consultants

Apart from the obvious (and expected) large increase in noise related enforcement activities, one of the key takeaways from the inspection focus is the HSE desire to move organisations away from the all-to-common risk assessment checkbox mentality towards risk controls.

Our advice on this (based on seeing so many poor noise reports on our IOSH competency courses) has always been -

"Why spend so much money on placebo risk assessment reports that tell you what you already know; that you have a problem? Spend the resources on risk reduction instead..."

Hearing loss associated with 57% higher risk per 10dB. Another reason to update policies?

Recent research adds to the damage list - and potential claims costs

Could the recent >£700k settlement become commonplace?

What effect should this have on hearing conservation programmes?

New research (Lancaster University, January 2025) indicates that hearing damage is associated with a dramatically increased risk of developing Parkinson's.

Why is the Hierarchy of Control (HoC) for noise so conspicuous by it's absence?

This British Safety Council commissioned article by our technical director, Peter Wilson, demonstrates how modern low-cost noise control technology can be used to cut hearing damage risk by 75% - 90% at negligible or no cost.

Most noise reports are seriously inadequate (HSE research)

It’s a sad fact that the general standard of advice on reducing the risk of hearing damage to workers is truly abysmal and, consequently, many continue to suffer unnecessary hearing damage. Have any of your previous noise assessments included anything useful on noise control? Any at all?

The recommended Hierarchy of Control is typically nowhere to be seen when it comes to noise. PPE is the first, and usually the only, risk reduction recommendation. Noise control is ignored.

The current approach has failed to prevent extensive unnecessary hearing loss among workers. Organisations are unwittingly wasting resources on measures that are not best practice and not sufficiently effective. This article details these failings and provides a guide to using modern noise control technology to make noise risk reduction much more effective within current budgets - or even as a profitable exercise...

It's time to change...

HSE inspections target the failings of hearing protection and noise control

Over the 2024-2025 period, Workplace Noise will be specifically targeted by HSE Inspectors. Hearing protection and noise control have been selected as the initial subjects for a review of occupational noise risk across all industries. The 3 main issues that will be considered are:

1. PPE: the assumption that this is an easy risk management option is false as the real-world performance is only a small fraction of that generally assumed so too many employees still suffer Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL)...
2. Noise Control: effective noise control programmes are far too rare due to lack of knowledge.
3. Noise Reports: a quality review as the general standard is poor - enforcement action will be possible.

...40% of PPE users got no protection whatsoever… 60% had inadequate protection… 14% did not wear the PPE… HSE Research Report RR720

Preemptive Duty Holder Actions

Note: you can view the initial results from the HSE noise inspection programme here.

Check the following to ensure that you are using current best practices.

• Learn about the real-world limitations of PPE; review and update hearing conservation practices
• Invest in a Noise Control Audit to generate a cost/benefit analysis of the options that could be self-financing
• Review past noise reports and generate a high quality digital template for future use either in-house or by consultants

Institute of Acoustics (IOA) conference: October 2023

Noise report quality: 60% extremely poor, 30% very poor, 5% poor. Total 95%

Julija Smyrnowa of the Environment Agency (EA) gave a paper on BS4142. She also reported the results of an EA survey on the quality of the noise reports they get from acoustic consultants. Figures as above.

And lo, at that moment, (ironically) a deathly hush fell upon the room full of IOA consultants. Why am I not surprised? Because...

How to cut hearing damage risk by 75% - 90% at negligible or no cost

Date/Time: Feb. 29th, 13:00-14:30 + March 6th, 7am-8:30 (UK Times) – webinar repeated for different time zones.

Fees: Complimentary to all members of IOHA Associations. £80 for industry sponsored and for-profit organization participants

Webinar Content

This webinar provides a pragmatic guide to the necessary changes that delegates can implement immediately. The key changes involve simple techniques to improve the real-world performance of PPE by 50% - 75% combined with noise control measures that most organizations can use to reduce risk by 50% - 90% at little or no cost (or even at a profit) by using online tools to source the best engineering noise control measures available anywhere.

Download details and booking options >

Updated. A brief guide on how to evaluate low-frequency noise problems quickly and without spending any money - or simply using your smartphone.

Evaluating low-frequency noise complaints is one of the most common (“bane of my life”) issues that EHOs and the Environment Agencies contact us about. Using the right approach, we can sort most of them within a few days. The following is a brief, practical guide detailing solutions to the most oft encountered initial evaluation problems using a tool that won’t cost you a penny.

Does the updated HSE HAVS measurement guidance affect risk assessment?

Yes or No... Which is it?

Yes: if you haven't complied with the previous guidance and have been subject to disingenuous marketing.

No: if you are complying with the standards and the previous HSE guidance.

Unfortunately, many organisations would, usually unwittingly, have to go with Yes. If that is the case, then it can have serious implications re potential HAVS claims and risk management expenditure.

Elements of the HAVS measurement industry publish deliberately disingenuous disinformation. Vibration dosimetry seems plausible and useful. It usually isn't, leading to inflated costs and a false sense that risk reduction has been managed well. The HSE guidance has been specifically written to address this issue.

Q: why are wrist, hand or glove-based monitoring systems deprecated by the HSE?

Q: What does the updated HSE HAVS guidance have to say about what constitutes best practice in HAVS risk measurement?

Read on...