In Australia, many workplaces treat audiometric testing as a back-end compliance task—a “tick-the-box” exercise that is done every two years that gets lost in the myriad WHS checklists. This laid-back attitude, however, is out of sync with the health and safety changes that are taking place in the country, especially those dealing with noise assessment.
Organizations that perceive audiometric testing as a standalone activity are living well below par in the age of strict compliance and early intervention. With more focus now on psychosocial hazards, risk compliance, manageable risk compliance, and audiometric testing’s more broadly proven potential, organizations are missing the point. Audiometric testing is a feedback tool that should reside within a dynamic noise risk management framework. It is more than a healthcare checkpoint for the eardrums. It is a performance metric for an entire safety ecosystem.
Expand your knowledge with a related post that complements this content.
From Test to Trend: Harnessing Hearing Data
Most organizations meet WHS Compliance obligations by securing audiometric test results in folders. Very few delve deeper to analyze results beyond pass/fail summaries. There’s a gold mine of insight—especially when uncoupling hearing trends from historical noise assessment data.
The more sophisticated safety leaders strategically employ audiometric testing to validate noise control measures beyond what’s required in Section 58 of WHS Regulations. For example:
Do some departments experience more shifts in averaged hearing thresholds than others?
Is there a greater rate of deterioration among new employees compared to more seasoned employees?
Do employees exposed to 80-85 dB(A) noise level still show early signs of hearing loss?
If organisations view audiometric testing as an early indicator, rather than a lag indicator, they are able to hone in on PPE, engineering control, and shift pattern rationalisation.
Aligning Noise Assessments to Worker Outcomes
In Australia, noise assessments are done at a minimum every 5 years or when there is a major change in equipment or process. However, audiometric testing is a continuous process. This is an example of a mismatch: you are collecting hearing data on an ongoing basis but only have a snapshot of the surrounding noise environment every 5 years.
The result? Assuming something to be true without proof. This phenomenon hasn’t been countered in 4 years, and there is an increase in hearing threshold shifts in the last 18 months, so what is the missing component? Something regarding machines, perhaps? Or has the average dB readings changed and a new procedure was added that has random peak noise levels obscured?
In Australia, WHS practice is based on the need to close the loop. Consideration must be given to a set of rest and recovery measurements. The rest must evaluate workload and monitor shifts.
PPE is the last resort, and in instances of elevated audiometric results, is the earmuffs the only thing that should be improved? Fundamental decisions should be made regarding the deployment of resources, and in this case, the resources are time blocks.
It is a given that some employees are bound to breach the threshold of compliant dB readings if for a given audiometric test result, a ceiling has been set. The absence of this threshold exposes unprotected employees to noise levels that if averaged over a compliant 8 hours shifts, there is a peak of 8 hours shift.
Employers of all types these days are matching shift data with HR rosters and noise maps to figure out not only noise hotspots, but people exposure hotspots. This redefines audiometric testing from a medical requirement to a strategic workforce planning consideration.
The Rise of Worker-Centric Hearing Safety
In Australia, workplace health and safety law is moving towards empowerment and shared responsibility. Workers are more often than not expected to be active participants in their own risk management—and hearing safety is no exception.
This means reframing audiometric testing from something that is a requirement, to something that is a right. Whenever employers readily provide workers with their audiometric data, along with an explanation of the correlation between the early threshold shift and the impact to overall health and wellbeing, and foster collaboration to mitigate noise exposure, the workplace safety culture is raised to a new level.
There are far too many employees who have their audiometric results and do not see the value in the results. This is a lost opportunity in education, early intervention, and trust-building.
Digital Integration: The Next Frontier
Now that workplace health and safety platforms have become a common feature—like SafetyCulture, Lahebo, or Vault—there is more opportunity than ever to incorporate audiometric testing with incident reports, noise assessments, PPE compliance, and training records.
When these systems are linked, safety professionals are able to visualize exposure profiles across sites, produce hearing shift deterioration heat maps, and automate review triggers. This streamlines audits and subsequent responses and supports sustained progress.
Final Thoughts
When it comes to WHS compliance, that box to tick for audiometric testing is so much more than just testing and it’s the WHS codes that make it easier to understand the process that matters.
If undermined, paired with noise assessments in a deeply-interwoven, pre-emptive risk posture, audiometric testing is a system-level diagnostic tool of immeasurable power, generating value far beyond hearing alone.
It is time we shift the sentiment around audiometric testing and stop treating it like a compliance tick box and elevate it to the primary tool in a sense of strategy.
Featured and trending—this post is a must-read. Click to see why!
