Unit of competency Outline

Date retreived
22/07/2026 6:17 AM AWST

Whilst all efforts are made to provide accurate and timely information from the relevant source/documentation, please be aware that the information supplied may not be the most current version. The accuracy of the detail has not been confirmed by the Department and therefore should not be relied upon without first confirming the contents.

Manage risk treatment implementation

Manage risk treatment implementation

Unit of competency
National Code
PUAEMR025
State Code
WE465
TGA Status
Replaced
DTWD Status
Transition (Replaced)
Current Release Number
1.00
Current Release Date
17/08/2012
View on TGA
State Implementation and Classification
Approved Date
14/11/2012
Field of Education
080313 - Public And Health Care Administration
Original Release Date
14/11/2012
Nominal Hours
50
Description
This unit describes the outcomes required to communicate, facilitate and review implementation of selected risk treatments.
Notes
Elements and Performance Criteria
1. Confirm implementation context
  • 1.1 Project drivers/triggers, risks, risk management context, treatment options, priorities and practical constraints are clarified.
  • 1.2 Applicable policies and procedures are identified.
  • 1.3 Key stakeholders are identified along with their potential interests, sensitivities, roles and responsibilities.
2. Develop implementation plan
  • 2.1 Risk(s) to be treated and current relevance of treatment option(s) confirmed.
  • 2.2 Performance criteria for assessing the effectiveness of treatment implementation are established in consultation with stakeholders.
  • 2.3 Treatment actions, resources required, milestones, budget, reporting procedures and roles and responsibilities of project team members are identified.
  • 2.4 Implementation issues are identified and contingencies developed where necessary.
  • 2.5 An agreed treatment plan is documented and submitted for approval in accordance with organisational policies and procedures.
3. Communicate the treatment plan
  • 3.1 Processes to effectively consult and communicate about implementation are selected.
  • 3.2 A consultation plan is developed and implemented.
4. Facilitate treatment plan implementation
  • 4.1 Treatment tasks/activities are allocated in accordance with the implementation plan.
  • 4.2 Effective communication between working group members is maintained.
  • 4.3 Stakeholders are kept fully informed of progress, performance and any proposed variations in strategy or implementation.
  • 4.4 Agreed variations to the treatment plan are introduced to accommodate changed circumstances or to achieve more effective outcomes.
5. Monitor and review treatment plan implementation
  • 5.1 A review process is established in consultation with stakeholders.
  • 5.2 Effectiveness of treatment activities, adequacy of resources, project progress and expenditure is monitored against plans, recorded and reported.
  • 5.3 Implementation plans are adjusted as required following the review process.
  • 5.4 Adjustments to implementation plans are communicated to stakeholders.
  • 5.5 Residual risk is re-evaluated and a decision made whether to accept this risk or to re-visit the risk assessment.
The Range Statement relates to the Unit of Competency as a whole. It allows for different work environments and situations that may affect performance. Bold italicised wording in the Performance Criteria is detailed below.
Drivers/triggers may include:
changes in community characteristics
changes in legislation, policies and disaster/emergency management plans
changes in insurance policies and premiums
new sources of risk or changed perception of risk
planning deficiencies
recent emergency incident reports/debriefs, safety issues
recent judicial decisions
strategic and corporate plans
Practical constraints may include:
arrangements, roles and responsibilities set down in existing emergency management plans
availability of technical expertise, technology, equipment
budgets, time, availability and capability of people
land use planning
legislation covering emergency management, environmental management, safety standards, local government regulations
limited community knowledge of emergency risk management processes and benefits
political, social and cultural considerations
Policies and procedures may include:
arrangements specified in legislation
organisational or jurisdictional emergency risk management policies or procedures
existing disaster plans, agreements or memoranda of understanding
local planning regulations, development controls and environmental plans
Stakeholders may include:
staff
client groups
decision makers
members of the public
community groups
industry groups
public and private sector organisations
non-government organisations
elected officials
Performance criteria for assessing the effectiveness of treatment implementation may include:
continuous monitoring of the maintenance of equity
continued involvement of stakeholders
cost effectiveness of treatment
evaluation of effectiveness in terms of actual risk reduction
the evaluation of the need for the redefinition of policy
a feedback mechanism
consideration of change that takes place over time
Critical aspects for assessment and evidence required to demonstrate competency in this unit
Candidates must demonstrate that they have developed criteria to monitor implementation progress, actually monitored and reported on progress, and communicated and consulted with stakeholders.
Consistency in performance
Candidates should be expected to present evidence from at least two different contexts, one of which may be simulated.
Context of and specific resources for assessment
Context of assessment
Evidence of competence in this unit may be collected in a simulated environment and real environment, often as part of a larger project with concurrent assessment of other emergency risk management competencies.
Specific resources for assessment
For the demonstration of competence in this unit it will be necessary to participate in a real-world project.
Underpinning knowledge may be assessed through written assignments, project reports, debriefings and action learning projects in real or simulated environments.
Guidance information for assessment
This unit contains many transferable skills, such as communication, consultation, research and analysis skills that can be applied in the emergency risk management context. Assessors should use formative assessment strategies in a simulated environment to contextualise underpinning knowledge. Summative assessment requires application of the unit in a real-world project, often in an action-learning context.
This unit may be assessed with other units that address the whole emergency risk management process.
Replaced By
State Code National Code Title Type
OAZ32 PUAEMR004 Manage risk treatment implementation Unit of competency