What is CEAL-SM/SUSESO?
CEAL-SM/SUSESO is a validated methodology for evaluating psychosocial factors in the workplace in Chile. It replaced the SUSESO/ISTAS21 instrument in January 2023. It is part of the monitoring and prevention process, so its usefulness depends on how the assessment is prepared, the results are interpreted, and measures are implemented regarding working conditions.
It is not a test to diagnose an individual mental illness, nor a generic satisfaction survey. Psychosocial assessment examines organizational exposures. Using the responses to rate performance or identify problematic individuals distorts its purpose and can undermine the trust necessary to understand the organization’s true situation.
To whom does it apply and how often
The official guidelines stipulate its application in organizations with ten or more employees. For smaller entities, there is an exception when a work-related mental illness is present and the administering agency orders an evaluation. The specific conditions of the protocol and the center’s configuration must be reviewed before organizing the process.
The assessment is repeated every two years, regardless of the risk level obtained. This interval does not mean that intervention must be postponed for two years. If a relevant exposure is identified, the measures and their monitoring should be carried out during the cycle. It is advisable to separate the measurement, the discussion of results, the implementation of actions, and the verification of their effects in the timeline.
What dimensions does it consider?
The questionnaire addresses twelve dimensions, including workload, emotional demands, professional development, role clarity and conflict, leadership, camaraderie, insecurity, work-life balance, trust and fairness, vulnerability, and violence and harassment. Its structure allows for examining different components of psychosocial risk without reducing it to a single cause.
These dimensions help formulate preventive questions. A difficulty associated with emotional demands may require examining contact with users and the support available. An organizational justice issue may guide a review of decision-making criteria and procedures. Interpretation should be based on context and participation, avoiding identical responses for outcomes of different natures.
Implementation and Preparation Committee
The implementation committee coordinates the stages of the method with representation from both the employer and the employees. Official information indicates that it consists of between four and ten members, with equitable representation and alternates. Its function differs from that of the joint committee, although both bodies can coordinate within the organization’s preventive management.
Before responding, it’s advisable to explain the objective, the use of the results, and the confidentiality conditions. Practical issues should also be addressed: access to the questionnaire, time available, analysis centers or units, and support for those who have difficulty participating. A clear call for participation reduces uncertainty and prevents people from perceiving the survey as a formality unrelated to their work.
Confidentiality and results analysis
The manual establishes conditions for protecting anonymity and organizing the units of analysis. These conditions must be respected when applying the instrument and presenting results. Grouping or disaggregating data without considering the size and characteristics of the group can facilitate indirect identification, even if names are not published. Caution is especially important in small teams.
The analysis requires discussing what situations explain the responses, without focusing on who gave a specific answer. A useful practice is to examine tasks, demands, decisions, and resources that can be modified. If people only receive a chart without space to understand it, it will be more difficult to develop relevant measures and later assess whether working conditions have actually changed.
Questionnaire update in 2026
On June 23, 2026, SUSESO announced the addition of two questions related to violence perpetrated by third parties and the characteristics of the aggressor. This update expands the information available regarding situations involving users, clients, patients, or other external parties. The official version should be used; forms should not be reconstructed from older documents.
The Institute for Occupational Safety clarifies that these additions do not modify the calculation of the risk level for the dimension or the overall result. Their purpose is to provide supplementary information. It is advisable to keep a record of the version used and review the current instructions before each application, especially when comparing results obtained at different times.
Practical example
In a hypothetical case, a customer service organization identifies problems associated with emotional demands and episodes of external violence. The discussion of results shows that people need support when an interaction deteriorates and that certain procedures generate waiting times and recurring conflicts. The analysis focuses on these conditions, without attributing the outcome to a supposed lack of individual resilience.
The plan combines procedure review, support criteria, and incident tracking. Each measure has assigned responsibilities and deadlines. Throughout the cycle, its implementation is verified across different shifts, and feedback is gathered from those providing the service. The questionnaire provides a baseline, while work observation helps determine whether the improvements effectively address the situations that prompted the intervention.
From the result to the intervention
The psychosocial intervention plan must translate the findings into concrete and measurable changes. Awareness-raising activities can support the process, but they do not replace a review of workloads, organizational structures, or support systems when these are the root causes. The selection of measures requires prioritizing and allocating resources to the identified exposures.
The monitoring process should communicate progress and challenges to the participants. This feedback helps maintain trust and allows for adjustments to measures that are not working as expected. The next evaluation will be more valuable if it can be linked to decisions documented during the cycle, rather than becoming a new, isolated measurement that simply repeats known problems.
