Workplace safetyMulti-site operations
Site access reviews: check permissions against real responsibilities
A site access review should connect each permission to a current role and operational need. A list of active accounts does not establish that staff should still see every site, document or action they could access previously.
At a glance
A site access review should connect each permission to a current role and operational need. A list of active accounts does not establish that staff should still see every site, document or action they could access previously.
Define the decision behind the record
Define who reviews access and how changes are implemented. Include role moves and departures, while preserving historical authorship of records. Avoid deleting evidence merely because the person associated with it no longer has an active account.
Review access against the work a person actually performs
Identify people, sites, current roles and the evidence or actions each role needs. Define who authorises access decisions and how role changes are reported. A valid login does not establish a continuing need to see every site or attachment.
Record the reviewed permissions, business reason and decision to retain, change or remove them. Keep unresolved role questions visible. Where access changes affect action ownership or review, transfer the responsibility explicitly rather than removing permissions while leaving work assigned to an unavailable user.
Test an ordinary role change and departure using the actual site scope. Confirm the authorised changes took effect and that necessary record history remains attributable and retrievable. Do not use account deletion as a substitute for reviewing responsibilities or preserving evidence.
Worked example
A manager transfers to another site. The access owner reviews the new scope, removes unnecessary access through the approved process and records the change. Earlier records still identify their author without leaving the former permissions active.
Build a usable record
Use the fields below to capture the facts needed for this particular decision. Keep the actual observation separate from any later correction or approval.
- User or role and current scope
- Sites and sensitive record categories
- Business owner review
- Change and implementation evidence
- Outstanding access questions
Example record and review decision
Fictional record example: ACCESS-10: person, site, current role, permissions and business reason; REVIEW-10: retain, change or remove decision.
Test access against actual responsibilities and confirm that role changes are reflected without losing required record history.
Having a valid login does not establish that a person still needs access to every site or evidence collection.
Test the review, not just the form
Test with representative roles rather than only an administrator. Verify both an allowed and a disallowed view. Record what was actually checked; a signed review list alone does not prove a permission change was implemented.
A few useful answers
Should removing an account erase its record history?
Preserve the required historical record and manage access through the organisation’s applicable process.
Does removing access complete a responsibility handover?
No. Transfer open work and review duties explicitly, preserve attribution and verify the intended permissions. Access status and operational ownership are related but different decisions.
Sources and further reading
MarkdownExplore starter templates
Start with a useful checklist
English
