The Moving and Handling Report: What Schedule 3 Actually Asks For

Avoid, assess, reduce, in that order

Regulation 69 is a hierarchy, and most handling reports open at step two. The first duty is to "take appropriate organisational measures, or use the appropriate means, in particular mechanical equipment, to avoid the need for the manual handling of loads". Only where that need cannot be avoided does the assessment duty arrive, at Regulation 69(c)(i): "taking account of the risk factors for the manual handling of loads specified in Schedule 3, assess the health and safety conditions of the type of work involved and take appropriate measures to avoid or reduce the risk, particularly of back injury".

Read the order. Avoidance is not the best outcome of an assessment. It is the duty that comes before it.

In a home this matters more than on a ward. A ward is fixed. A house can be changed. Move the bed so the clear side is the side the carer works from. Reorder the morning so the first transfer happens after the person has been awake twenty minutes rather than in the first two. An assessment that never asks whether a task could be designed out has skipped the first thing the regulation asks for, and an occupational therapist standing in the room is the person best placed to ask it. Where the answer is a permanent change to the building rather than a change to the routine, you are into Housing Adaptation Grant territory, which is a different report with different rules.

The five headings, and the two acronyms

Schedule 3 lists the risk factors under five headings: characteristics of the load, physical effort required, characteristics of the working environment, requirements of the activity, and individual risk factors.

Two of those do most of the work in a house. Under characteristics of the load, Schedule 3 catches anything "unwieldy or difficult to grasp", "unstable or has contents likely to shift", or held "at a distance from the trunk, or with a bending or twisting of the trunk". The Authority’s healthcare guidance notes that the load here "can be either an object or a person", which is worth pausing on before you write the word into a document the family may read. Under physical effort, the factor that catches home transfers is effort "made with the body in an unstable posture", because a carer kneeling on a bed is in an unstable posture by definition.

The other three are quicker to apply and easier to skip: space and floor surface and temperature under working environment, effort and recovery and distance under requirements of the activity, and the handler’s own physical suitability, footwear and training under individual risk factors.

Now the acronyms, because clinicians get corrected for picking the wrong one. The Health and Safety Authority’s healthcare guidance says "The acronym T.I.L.E. summarises these risk factors", covering Task, Individual, Load and Environment. The Health Service Executive’s national policy describes the same process as "considering the risk factors associated with the Task, Individual, Load, Environment and Other risk factors commonly known as TILEO". Two bodies, two acronyms, and a statutory list of five headings that matches neither exactly. Writing for a Health Service Executive service, use TILEO and use their words. Otherwise write to the Schedule 3 headings, because nobody can argue with the regulation. Do not spend a paragraph justifying the choice. No one reading the plan cares.

Generic or individual, and which one you are writing

The Authority draws a line here that decides the shape of your document. A generic assessment is "an assessment of the general situation usually found in the ward or department. It takes account of the work environment and how the work is organised with regard to manual handling." An individual assessment applies "Where a patient cannot move independently and manual handling by the employee is needed".

A private occupational therapist called out to a house is almost always writing the second. The Health Service Executive’s 2025 national policy sets the same rule in its own words: "Each service user who needs assistance will be individually assessed, taking into account their particular needs, capabilities and circumstances including their understanding of the movement and their ability to communicate and help themselves."

Look at the end of that sentence. Understanding of the movement, and the ability to help themselves. Those are functional findings and they are yours to make. A plan built around what a person contributes to their own transfer is a different document from one built around what is done to them, and it often needs fewer handlers.

Whose duty it is, and where your report sits in it

This changes what you write and how firmly you write it, so be clear about it. Regulation 69 puts the duty on the employer. Where the person is supported by a home care provider, the provider is the one required to assess and to act. The Health Service Executive’s policy covers its own employees, agency workers and contractors, and says that where a service user cannot move independently, a Service User Specific Clinical Risk Assessment and Moving and Handling Plan "must be carried out with the appropriate clinician which informs the care plan".

You are the appropriate clinician. You are not the duty holder.

Two things follow. Your report is an input to somebody else’s risk assessment rather than a replacement for it, and one line in the document should say so. And where the family are the handlers and there is no employer anywhere in the picture, no statutory duty exists at all, which makes your plan the only structured thing in that house. Write it knowing that.

Specificity is the requirement, not the polish

The Authority gives one worked instruction, and it is the best editing rule available for this document: "When manual handling equipment is identified as a control measure the information should be specific (e.g., state the type and size of sling required)." Run the same test over everything else.

• Not "assist with transfers". Which transfer, from what surface to what surface.
• Not "two carers". Two for the bed to chair transfer, one for the toilet, and the reason for the difference.
• Not "use a hoist". Which hoist, which sling, what size, and where it lives when it is not in use.
• Not "when the person is tired". Which times of day, and what the handler does when the second carer has not arrived.

Clinical reasoning, and when wishes and safety pull apart

The Health Service Executive asks that complex assessments "demonstrate balanced decision making, clinical reasoning and where possible should be evidence based". Clinical reasoning in a handling plan is not a paragraph about your philosophy. It is the sentence explaining why this method and not the obvious alternative.

Where the person’s wishes and the handler’s safety pull apart, the policy takes a position rather than hedging: "The wishes of the service user should not be to the detriment of the health and safety of the employees involved." Where issues arise it asks for "a comprehensive multi-disciplinary risk assessment process including consultation with the service user and their family", taking cognisance of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015.

Competence, and when to hand it on

The Authority says "Persons undertaking manual handling risk assessments should have the necessary competence to do so", and names our profession among the specialists an employer may need: "Access may be required to specialist expertise such as occupational health, health and safety, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, ergonomists or manual handling advisors". The regulator has put you on the list, and that cuts both ways. CORU’s code asks you to "act within the limits of your knowledge, skills, competence and experience" and to refer on "where a task is beyond your knowledge, skills, competence or experience".

Bariatric handling. Ceiling track installation. A person whose presentation changes hour to hour. These are the places to write one sentence naming what you can stand over and what needs someone else. A plan that quietly covers ground the writer is not competent in is worse than one that stops and says who to call.

The guidance also raises a question most handling plans never answer: whether "the handling plan needs to be integrated with the therapy plan". If the person is working on a rehabilitation goal, a plan that maximises safety and ignores that goal gets abandoned within a fortnight.

What the written plan should contain

There is no official template for this document. What follows is a way of organising the material so everything the regulations and the guidance ask for has somewhere to sit. It is a working structure, not a required one.

• Who the person is, what they can do, and what they understand of the movement.
• The environment, room by room, wherever handling happens.
• Each handling task assessed separately against the five Schedule 3 headings.
• For each task: the method, the equipment named to type and size, the number of handlers, and the reason.
• What the person contributes, and the independence you are working toward.
• What to do when the plan cannot be followed as written.
• Who was consulted, including the person and the family.
• The review date. The Health Service Executive’s policy says "It is best practice and HSE policy, to review risk assessments at least annually." An undated plan is a plan nobody returns to.

Two requirements clinicians leave out

The plan has to be reachable: "The risk assessment and care plan should be easily accessible to any patient-care staff who require it." And the person has to be told, because "the handling procedure selected should be explained to the patient/client and where possible the patient’s consent should be sought".

Then sign it. CORU asks that records be "identifiable as being made by you, using your registered name and registration number", and "dated and timed".

Carearoo drafts the moving and handling report for Irish clinicians. You give it your assessment findings, it returns a structured draft with a section for each task, and you review, edit and sign, because the clinical reasoning has to be yours. Your first report is free and each one after that is €59, no subscription, on Carearoo for Ireland.

Frequently asked questions

Related guides