Psychosocial Risks (PSR): the complete guide to understanding what is at stake
A close manager walks past a colleague's desk who, for three weeks, has been arriving earlier, leaving later, answering emails at 11 PM, and never missing a meeting. Everyone cites him as an example. No one sees that he is burning out. At the other end of the hallway, a female employee is getting annoyed over a detail, interrupts, "isn't the same character anymore." She is considered difficult. In both cases, what is at stake has a name: psychosocial risks (PSR). And in both cases, the organization of work plays a much larger role than one might think.
This is the starting point of this guide: psychosocial risks (RPS) are neither a matter of fragile personality, nor a managerial trend, nor a topic reserved for occupational health services. They are genuine professional risks, with identifiable causes, documented mechanisms, and concrete levers for action. This article does not present a training session: it provides you with the foundational markers to understand what is really at stake behind stress, burnout, conflicts, or withdrawal — and to distinguish a symptom from a character trait, a cause from a consequence, a useful action from a false good idea.
The essentials in 30 seconds
Psychosocial risks (RPS) refer to the risks to mental, physical, and social health caused by working conditions and organizational and relational factors. They are not within the person: they arise from the interaction between an individual and a work situation.
- Three main forms occur most often: chronic stress, internal violence (harassment, conflicts), and external violence (assaults, incivility).
- Six families of factors allow for the analysis of almost all situations, according to the report from the expert committee on RPS (Gollac report, 2011).
- Many "behaviors" transmitted as character traits — irritability, withdrawal, unusual errors — are actually warning signals.
- Effective prevention acts on the organization of work, not just on the individual: this is confirmed by INRS and ANACT.
- The central principle: preventing upstream always costs less, both humanly and economically, than repairing downstream.
What are we talking about: defining psychosocial risks (RPS)
The term is everywhere, often misused. It is sometimes used to talk about a person's stress, sometimes to refer to a degraded atmosphere, and sometimes as a polite synonym for "burnout." These usages create confusion that prevents action. Therefore, we must start by establishing a clear definition.
According to INRS (National Institute for Research and Safety), psychosocial risks correspond to risks to mental, physical, and social health, caused by employment conditions and organizational and relational factors that may interact with mental functioning. Two words deserve to be emphasized in this definition. "Caused by the conditions": the primary cause is not within the individual, but in the work situation. "May interact": the risk materializes in the encounter between an organization and a person, at a given moment.
A risk, not a state
The first clarification is the most important. A risk is not a damage. The road risk is not the accident; it is the probability that it occurs, considering the road, the vehicle, and the driver. Similarly, RPS are not the stress felt nor the declared depression: they are the work situations that increase the likelihood of these harms occurring. This distinction changes everything because it shifts the focus from the person to the organization. One does not "treat" a road risk by teaching people to better endure accidents; one acts on the road, the vehicle, the rules. The reasoning is the same for RPS.
The three main forms
To make sense of it, we usually distinguish three main families of manifestations, which can combine.
Chronic stress
A lasting imbalance between what the situation requires and the resources available to cope with it. Occasional stress is normal and sometimes useful. Chronic stress wears you down and damages you.
Internal violence
Conflicts that become entrenched, moral or sexual harassment, repeated hostile behaviors between colleagues or in hierarchical relationships.
External violence
Incivilities, insults, threats, or assaults from outside individuals: clients, users, patients, the public. Common in reception, care, and education.
These three forms are not isolated. A service subjected to a lasting overload often sees internal tensions arise; teams exposed to incivilities develop underlying stress. It is precisely because they feed into each other that it is useful to think in terms of risks rather than individual cases.
RPS and quality of life at work: do not confuse
We often hear about RPS and quality of life at work (QVT, now "QVCT" for quality of life and working conditions) as if they were the same thing. They are two complementary but distinct logics. The prevention of RPS falls under a protection approach: it aims to prevent harm to health, it is an obligation. QVCT falls under a promotion approach: it seeks to improve work and its organization to reconcile well-being and performance. One can have a great QVCT policy and allow RPS to thrive if one does not address the root causes; conversely, preventing RPS creates the foundation on which a quality of life approach becomes credible. Confusing the two often leads to addressing a risk problem with comfort actions, which disappoints and demotivates.
Talking about “fragility” or “stress resistance” shifts the responsibility onto the individual and masks the organizational causes. Talking about “risk factors” and “work situations” opens up action. The choice of words, in a team meeting, already guides the solution.
The mechanisms at play, explained simply
Why does a work situation end up damaging health? Understanding the mechanism avoids two symmetrical errors: minimizing (“it's just stress, everyone has it”) and dramatizing (“as soon as we are tired, it's burnout”). Three everyday analogies help to grasp what is happening.
The overflowing bucket
Imagine a bucket. The constraints of work continuously pour water into it: deadlines, demands, unforeseen events, tensions. The resources — support from colleagues, leeway, recognition, recovery time — create holes through which the water flows out. As long as the inflow and outflow balance, the bucket does not overflow. The problem arises when the constraints increase and the resources become scarce at the same time. The bucket fills up, then overflows. This overflow is the impact on health. We therefore act on two levers: reduce what comes in, or increase what goes out. Acting solely on the individual — “learn to manage your stress better” — is like asking them to hold a bucket longer without ever touching the tap.
The effort/reward imbalance
The scientific models of work stress — notably Karasek's demand-control-support model and Siegrist's effort-reward model, widely adopted by the INRS — converge on a simple idea. Stress becomes harmful when the efforts made are not compensated by sufficient rewards: salary, recognition, job security, prospects, esteem. An intense but recognized and controlled effort mobilizes without destroying. An intense, imposed effort, without recognition or leeway, wears one down over time. It is not just the quantity of work that matters: it is the ratio between what one gives and what one receives, and the feeling of control over what one does.
From acute stress to chronic stress
Acute stress is a useful adaptation reaction: the body mobilizes its resources to respond to a situation, then returns to balance once the episode is over. It is the stress before an interview or a specific deadline. The problem does not lie there. It appears when the organism can no longer return to balance because the pressure never subsides. The state of mobilization becomes permanent. This is chronic stress, which, according to the INRS, is accompanied by documented health effects: sleep disorders, musculoskeletal disorders, cardiovascular issues, anxiety and depressive disorders. The tipping point does not depend on the strength of an isolated constraint, but on its duration and the absence of recovery.
Why the same situation does not affect everyone the same way
An objection often arises: “If it's the organization that is at fault, why doesn't everyone crack?” The answer lies in the word “interact” from the definition. The risk arises from the encounter between a situation and a person, at a moment in their life. Two colleagues facing the same overload do not have the same resources at the same time: one is going through a stable personal period and benefits from a close-knit team, while the other is facing external difficulties and finds themselves isolated. This does not mean that the latter is “weaker”: it means that their bucket was already more full. Drawing the conclusion that we need to select “strong” individuals is a classic reasoning error. Individual variability does not disqualify the organizational cause: it simply explains why the first signals appear first in some individuals. These individuals are not the problem; they are the sensors that alert before the situation affects the entire team.
A person who has been "holding on" for months is not stronger: they may be more exposed because their bucket fills up without ever emptying. The most invested and conscientious people are often the most at risk, precisely because they do not let go.
The six families of risk factors
How to analyze a concrete situation without getting lost? The report of the expert college on the monitoring of psychosocial risks at work, submitted in 2011 under the direction of Michel Gollac (often called the "Gollac report"), proposes a framework of six families of factors. It has become the reference in France, adopted by the INRS, ANACT, and occupational health services. Its strength: it covers the essential situations and systematically shifts the focus towards the organization.
| Family of factors | What it covers | Concrete example |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Intensity and working time | Overload, untenable deadlines, constant interruptions, unpredictable hours, spillover into private life | A schedule redone every morning, objectives that increase without additional resources |
| 2. Emotional demands | Contact with suffering, obligation to mask emotions, tension with the public | Having to smile at an aggressive customer, supporting people in distress |
| 3. Lack of autonomy | Narrow margins for maneuver, rigid procedures, absence of participation in decisions | Being unable to adapt to an unforeseen event, executing without ever deciding |
| 4. Deteriorated social relations | Lack of support, absent recognition, conflicts, failing management, harassment | A job well done that is never acknowledged, a team where everyone is isolated |
| 5. Conflicts of values | Doing work that one considers useless, of poor quality, or contrary to one's ethics | Rushing due to lack of time what one knows should be done correctly |
| 6. Insecurity of the work situation | Fear of losing one's job, permanent changes, uncertainty about the future | Repeated reorganizations, precarious status, unclear future of the service |
The interest of this framework is practical. In the face of a struggling team, it transforms a diffuse impression ("it's not going well") into an actionable diagnosis: which of these six factors are present, and to what degree? It is often discovered that the problem felt as relational — "people can't stand each other" — has its root elsewhere, in intensity or lack of autonomy, which wear down relationships. Addressing the relational symptom without touching the organizational cause never holds in the long term.
The most degraded situations almost always accumulate several families: high intensity, little autonomy, and weak support form a particularly deleterious trio. Conversely, the same level of demand becomes sustainable as soon as autonomy and support are present. This is good news: we can act on the most accessible factors without solving everything at once.
The signs to know, and what is not
RPS do not announce themselves. They are read in discreet signals, often attributed to something else. Knowing how to identify them — in oneself, in a colleague, in a team — is the first act of prevention. However, it is necessary to distinguish a warning signal from a normal variation.
Three levels of signals
In the person
Fatigue that does not go away with rest, sleep disorders, new irritability, isolation, unusual mistakes, loss of pleasure, difficulties in concentration.
In the team
Tensions rising, mutual aid disappearing, humor becoming biting, deserted or silent meetings, “everyone for themselves”.
In the indicators
Rising absenteeism, turnover, repeated short absences, recruitment difficulties, accidents, complaints. Late signals, but telling.
A principle guides the reading of these signs : what matters is the change. A naturally reserved person who remains reserved signals nothing. A usually expansive person who withdraws, yes. A diligent employee who starts to forget things, yes. The reference point is not a behavior in itself, but its deviation from the person's norm. That is why the nearby manager, who knows their teams on a daily basis, occupies an irreplaceable observation position.
What looks like a psychosocial risk but is not necessarily one
Beware of the opposite excess, which consists of interpreting everything in terms of suffering at work. A temporary fatigue after an intense period, a one-off annoyance, a frank but healthy disagreement, a drop in motivation related to a personal event : all of this falls within the normal life of a team. The alert signal is characterized by its duration, its repetition, and its installation. A bad Monday is not a psychosocial risk. Three months of exhaustion that does not relent, yes.
Signals specific to remote work
The development of telecommuting has made certain signs harder to perceive : you no longer cross paths with the person in the hallway, you no longer see their face close up. Other signals then take over and deserve attention : connections very early or very late, emails sent at unusual hours repeatedly, a camera that is systematically off when it wasn't before, responses that become rarer, a gradual withdrawal from informal exchanges. At a distance, isolation settles more quietly and the overflow into private life becomes easier, as the boundary between work and home blurs. The manager benefits from maintaining regular check-ins, not to control activity, but to preserve the connection and keep a window of observation. A simple “ how are you doing these days ?” at the beginning of an exchange is better than a tracking table : it opens a door that the indicators never cross.
Spotting a sign does not allow for a diagnosis. Telling someone “ you are burning out ” or “ you are depressed ” goes beyond the professional role and can be experienced as an intrusion. The role consists of observing, opening the dialogue with kindness, and directing towards competent professionals : occupational doctor, occupational health service, psychologist. Diagnosis and care belong to them.
The exact words to open the dialogue
Approaching a colleague you are worried about is a delicate moment. A few formulations help avoid confrontation.
To say : “ I noticed that you seemed more tired these past weeks, I wanted to check in on you. ” You describe an observed fact, you open up, you do not conclude. “ How do you feel about your work right now ?” leaves the person free to respond.
❌ To avoid : « You look overwhelmed, you should consult » (diagnosis + injunction), « You need to learn to decompress » (shifting responsibility), or bringing up the subject in public, on the fly, between two doors. The place and the moment are part of the message.
Common misconceptions, debunked one by one
Few subjects convey as many false certainties. They are not trivial : each one blocks a lever for action. Here are five among the most persistent.
« Stress is all in your head »
Chronic stress has measurable biological effects documented by research : sleep disturbances, muscle tension, cardiovascular effects, weakened defenses. The INRS classifies it among the risk factors for physical health, not just mental. Reducing stress to a mental issue ignores half of its consequences — and blames those who suffer from them.
« Some people are tougher than others »
Individual resources exist, no one denies that. But making “ resilience ” the central solution asks individuals to compensate for organizational shortcomings. Effective prevention, remind the INRS and ANACT, first addresses collective causes. Relying solely on the robustness of individuals is like installing more powerful fire extinguishers instead of investigating why the fire starts.
« A little pressure is motivating »
Acute and temporary stress can indeed mobilize. But confusing this useful tension with permanent pressure is a costly mistake. Beyond a certain threshold, especially over time, pressure degrades performance, quality, and health. The curve is not linear : what stimulates one day can destroy over three months.
« RPS is an HR problem »
Preventing RPS is a shared responsibility. Management sets the framework, HR provides tools, but it is at the closest level, in the daily decisions of the frontline manager — distributing workload, mediating, recognizing, listening — that a large part of actual exposure occurs. Outsourcing the issue to a single department deprives it of its most concrete levers.
« Talking about it is opening Pandora's box »
The fear that naming the problem makes it worse is widespread and false. The unspoken, on the other hand, allows situations to fester and eventually result in absences, departures, or conflicts. Opening a structured, factual space for dialogue focused on solutions diffuses much more than it ignites. Silence has never prevented anything.
From benchmarks to good management reflexes
16 lessons, 100 % online and at your own pace, to transform these benchmarks into concrete actions : identifying, dialoguing, acting on the organization, and knowing whom to direct. Designed for the proximity manager.
Discover the training — 150 €What research and the legal framework say
On this subject, we do not improvise : there is a solid scientific foundation and a precise legal framework. Knowing them gives weight to action and protects everyone.
What research says
Three lessons are widely accepted in the reference literature.
Primary prevention is the most effective. There are three levels of prevention. Primary prevention addresses the causes, upstream : work organization, workload, margins for maneuver. Secondary prevention equips individuals to cope better : stress management, awareness-raising. Tertiary prevention repairs once damage has occurred : support, return to work. The INRS and ANACT are consistent on this point : primary prevention, which relates to organization, is the most sustainably effective. The other two are useful but insufficient on their own.
Burnout is recognized as a work-related phenomenon. The World Health Organization, in its International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), describes burnout as a syndrome resulting from chronic work-related stress that has not been successfully managed. The WHO specifies that it is a work-related phenomenon and not a disease per se. This definition clearly situates the origin : on the side of working conditions, not personal weakness.
Social support protects. Numerous studies show that support from colleagues and management mitigates the effects of constraints. With equal demands, a cohesive team and attentive management significantly reduce exposure. This is one of the most accessible levers for the proximity manager and one of the most effective. This support cannot be decreed : it is built through ordinary and repeated actions — taking the time to listen, acknowledging good work, advocating for your team upwards, allowing mutual aid rather than competition. All practices that cost nothing and make a difference measured by research.
What the law says
| Benchmark | What it implies |
|---|---|
| Employer's obligation of safety (Labor Code, art. L.4121-1) | The employer must take the necessary measures to protect the physical and mental health of workers. Psychosocial risks explicitly fall within this scope. |
| Risk assessment (DUERP) | Psychosocial risks must be included in the single document for professional risk assessment, alongside other risks. |
| General principles of prevention | The law specifically requires avoiding risks, combating risk at the source, and adapting work to the individual — principles that point towards primary prevention. |
| Moral and sexual harassment | Prohibited and sanctioned by the Labor Code and the Penal Code. The employer has a specific prevention obligation. |
The legal framework is not just a constraint: it is a support. It legitimizes dedicating time to these topics, putting psychosocial risks on the agenda, and requesting resources. Acting on psychosocial risks is not "doing social work": it is fulfilling an obligation and preventing a professional risk.
The main steps and what to expect
How does a prevention approach actually unfold? There is no universal recipe, but a progression in steps that can be found in most organizations. Having the map avoids two pitfalls: rushing into solutions before understanding, and remaining paralyzed for lack of knowing where to start.
- Identify and alert. Everything starts with signals: individual, collective, quantified. At this stage, everyone's role is to not let them pass and to escalate them through the right channels, without overinterpreting.
- Understand and analyze. Before acting, we look for the causes. The grid of six families of factors serves as a compass. We cross-reference observations, we involve the concerned individuals: they know their actual work best.
- Act on the causes. We prioritize accessible levers and distinguish between curative and sustainable prevention. An action on the organization is better than a cosmetic response. We first act where the impact is greatest for the least effort.
- Monitor and adjust. An unassessed action fades away. We define in advance how we will know it works, and we revisit it. Prevention is a cycle, not a one-off project.
What to expect? That it will be neither quick nor linear. Organizational causes take time to change, resistance is normal, and the first effects of an action are not always immediately visible. It is also necessary to accept that some situations, once established, require the intervention of specialized professionals. Patience and consistency matter more than grand announcements.
The most common pitfalls
Three missteps regularly occur and deserve to be anticipated. The first is to skip the analysis step: under the pressure of "something must be done," actions are launched before understanding the causes, and a symptom is treated while the cause continues to act. The second is to not involve the concerned individuals: an approach decided in isolation, without those who experience the actual work, misses the essential and faces legitimate resistance. The third is to promise then abandon: nothing undermines trust more durably than a shared diagnosis, raised expectations, then silence. It is better to commit to little and deliver, than to promise much and disappoint. A modest but sustained approach over time produces more than a grand plan announced and never evaluated.
If a person expresses intense suffering, dark thoughts, or is in danger, do not analyze: ensure safety and direct immediately to a health professional, occupational medicine, or, in case of vital emergency, the emergency services of your country. Detection is never a substitute for care.
What really helps, what is useless
A lot of energy is spent on well-intentioned actions but with no lasting effect, while powerful levers remain untapped because they are less visible. Let's sort it out.
| What really helps | What is not enough (or distracts attention) |
|---|---|
| Giving back leeway on actual work | A break room or a foosball table, if nothing changes alongside |
| Concrete recognition of the work done | A one-time bonus that does not replace daily recognition |
| Strengthening support and mutual aid within the team | An isolated team-building seminar, with no follow-up |
| Clarifying roles, priorities, and decisions | An email reminding of the organization's "values" |
| Adjusting workload to realistic means | A training on stress management while the workload remains unmanageable |
| Opening discussion spaces about work | An anonymous questionnaire with no feedback or action behind it |
The dividing line is clear: what addresses organizational causes helps sustainably; what remains on the periphery provides at best temporary relief. This does not mean that stress management or moments of conviviality are useless — they have their place. But they become counterproductive, even cynical, when they substitute for action on the real causes. A "well-being" workshop offered to a team in chronic overload is often perceived as a provocation.
Everyday actions that make a big difference
The frontline manager has modest levers that appear insignificant, but whose cumulative effect is considerable: thanking specifically rather than generally, protecting the team from contradictory demands, clearly prioritizing when not everything can be done, allowing real latitude on the "how," and taking a signal seriously from the first time. None of these actions require a budget. All require attention and consistency.
❌ To avoid : transforming each difficulty into an individual file (“ it's a problem between them ”), responding to a collective alert with an individual solution, or promising changes without ever following up. Nothing damages trust more than an open word that is then closed without follow-up.
A concrete example of reasoning
Let's take a team where the atmosphere has become tense : irritability, decreased mutual aid, two recent short absences. The immediate temptation would be to organize mediation between the individuals who are clinging to each other, or a friendly moment to “ recreate the bond ”. Reasoning by causes leads to another reading. By filtering the situation through the six families of factors, we find that the workload has significantly increased since a reorganization, that priorities are no longer clear, and that everyone is left to make decisions alone, without margin. Relational tensions are not the cause : they are the consequence of poorly regulated intensity and a lack of autonomy. Acting solely on the relational aspect would not have resolved anything ; tensions would have reappeared in another form. The useful response consists of clarifying priorities, restoring decision-making rules, and adjusting the workload : the climate then calms down as a consequence, without being directly targeted. This shift in perspective, from symptom to cause, is the very heart of competence in preventing psychosocial risks.
Free tools to structure observation
Objectify, trace, transmit : these reflexes can be developed with simple tools. A three-column table helps to separate facts, feelings, and actions, which avoids transmitting an impression instead of an observation. A visual timer or a motivation board can support team organization and make shared markers visible. All of these tools are available for free in the DYNSEO tool catalog. In terms of cognitive and mental health, the application CLINT offers stimulation activities suitable for adults, and cognitive tests allow for self-observation ; these resources do not replace professional advice in any way.
Who does what : the scope of each
One of the most common sources of blockage is the confusion of roles. Everyone believes it is the other's responsibility to act, or conversely, ventures outside their scope. Clarifying who does what frees up action and protects everyone.
| The proximity manager | The organization (management, HR) | Health professionals |
|---|---|---|
| Observe, listen, open the dialogue | Set the framework and prevention policy | Clinically assess the health status |
| Act on the organization of work at their level | Include psychosocial risks in the DUERP | Make a diagnosis |
| Recognize and support on a daily basis | Provide resources and equip managers | Prescribe and support care |
| Raise issues and alert | Coordinate the approach and the bodies | Decide on an adjustment or unfitness |
| Direct to the right contacts | Ensure continuity and follow-up over time | Comment on the prognosis |
The golden rule can be summed up in one sentence : everyone acts within their scope and passes the baton at the right moment. The manager does not have to provide care, but they cannot hide behind “ it's not my role ” when they hold the organizational levers. The organization cannot delegate everything to the field without providing resources. And the health professional intervenes on what pertains to care, while preserving confidentiality. It is the articulation of these three levels, more than the performance of one of them, that determines the quality of prevention.
Directing a person to occupational medicine or a psychologist is not offloading : it is doing your job correctly. Knowing when and to whom to pass the baton is part of the key skills of the manager. Saying too much or wanting to manage everything yourself exposes as much as doing nothing.
To go further
Everyday situations10 difficult situations related to PSR and how to respond concretely
ToolboxActivities, resources, and concrete adjustments to implement in response to PSR
Professional posturePosture, teamwork, and skill development around PSR
These deep dives outline, situation by situation, what this guide establishes as principles. To go further on all the pathways, the catalog of DYNSEO training offers modules dedicated to professionals in establishments, schools, and companies.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between stress and psychosocial risks ?
Stress is a possible manifestation ; psychosocial risks are the work situations that increase its likelihood. In other words, stress is an effect, and psychosocial risks are causes. Occasional stress is actually normal and sometimes useful : it is chronic stress, maintained by persistently unfavorable working conditions, that becomes harmful. Psychosocial risks also encompass other realities beyond stress : internal violence such as harassment, and external violence such as assaults. Reasoning in terms of risks rather than perceived stress allows for action on the causes rather than just the symptoms.
Do psychosocial risks concern all sectors ?
Yes. No sector is immune, even if the dominant factors vary. Care, social, and teaching professions often combine high emotional demands and high intensity. Office jobs are more familiar with constant interruptions, information overload, and unclear priorities. Roles in contact with the public are exposed to incivilities and external violence. The framework of six families of factors applies everywhere : what changes is the relative weight of each factor depending on the context. No organization can therefore consider the issue as foreign to its reality.
Can a manager be held responsible for psychosocial risks in their team ?
The primary responsibility for health and safety lies with the employer, under their legal obligation. The frontline manager acts by delegation and within the limits of the resources available to them : they cannot be blamed for what they do not have the means to prevent. However, they have an active role in identifying, dialoguing, and taking action on what falls within their level. Their protection comes through traceability : reporting, alerting, transmitting. A signal raised in writing and left unaddressed engages the organization, not the person who alerted. Training and understanding the framework secure this position.
How to know if it is work-related or personal ?
The boundary is rarely clear, and it is not for the manager to judge. A personal difficulty can weaken someone at work, and degraded work can impact private life. The professional role is not to untangle the origin but to act on what pertains to work and to guide on the rest. We remain factual : we describe what we observe in the professional context, without investigating the person's private life, and we leave it to health professionals to assess what is their responsibility. Trying to explain everything by one or the other is a dead end.
Is the prevention of psychosocial risks expensive ?
A large part of the most effective levers does not require a budget : recognizing work, clarifying priorities, restoring margins of maneuver, and supporting mutual aid fall under the way of managing, not an expense. Conversely, the absence of prevention has a high but deferred cost : absenteeism, turnover, disorganization, disputes, loss of quality. Reference organizations, such as INRS and ANACT, emphasize that preventing upstream is always cheaper than repairing downstream. The main investment is not financial : it is time, attention, and consistency over time.
This guide is intended for general professional information. It does not replace a clinical assessment, the protocols of your organization, or the advice of a healthcare professional. In case of doubt about a specific situation, or when facing a person in distress, refer to your supervision, occupational medicine, and the relevant health services.
Understanding psychosocial risks (PSR) is already starting to prevent them
16 lessons, 100% online and at your own pace, with unlimited access and a certificate of completion. This is enough to sustainably anchor the good reflexes of the nearby manager: spotting, dialoguing, acting on the organization, and guiding at the right moment. Qualiopi certified organization (No. 11757351875).
Discover the training — 150 €Did this content help you? Support DYNSEO 💙
We are a small team of 14 people based in Paris. For 13 years, we have been creating free content to help families, speech therapists, care homes and healthcare professionals.
Your feedback is the only way we know if our work is useful. A Google review helps us reach other families, caregivers and therapists who need it.
One action, 30 seconds: leave us a Google review ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐. It costs nothing, and it changes everything for us.
