Briefings for support coordinators · Complex Care Continuum · September 2026

Most plan reassessments for participants with complex needs are lost or won on the provider’s report. The planner is not in the room at 2am when the worker is suctioning; the report is. Yet the document most providers send is a bundle of progress notes, written for the next shift rather than for someone deciding whether 168 hours a week of support is reasonable and necessary. This briefing sets out what a provider report should contain so that you can attach it to a reassessment request without rewriting it, and so that you can ask any provider for the same thing.

Write to the test the planner has to apply

Section 34 of the NDIS Act sets the test for every funded support: it must relate to the participant’s disability, be value for money, be likely to be effective and beneficial, take account of what families and the community reasonably provide, and be most appropriately funded by the NDIS rather than another system such as health. Since October 2024 the support must also fall within the NDIS supports lists. A provider report earns its place when every requested support can be traced to those criteria in a sentence or two. A report that describes a lovely relationship with the participant but never says what happens without the overnight worker gives the planner nothing to fund.

The seven sections

This is the structure we use. A de-identified sample report built on it is on our coordinator page.

1. Participant and report details

Plan period, reassessment date, who prepared the report and their registration, the reporting period, the registration groups the provider delivers under, and the consent obtained to share the report with you and the NDIA. Consent is not a formality: a report shared without it is a privacy breach, and a report the planner cannot be sure the participant has seen carries less weight.

2. Summary

Half a page, written last, that a planner could read alone: who the person is, what the disability means day to day, what supports are delivered now, and the one or two things that have changed or that the next plan needs to address. If the plan is running out early, say so here with the date, because that is often the trigger for the reassessment and the planner should not have to hunt for it.

3. Functional impact and current supports

A table, one row per area: breathing and airway, nutrition and swallowing, bladder and bowel, mobility and transfers, skin, medications, behaviour, communication and decision-making, community and relationships. For each row, what was observed during the reporting period in concrete terms (suctioning six to ten times a day, two hoist transfers per shift, a bowel routine of 60 to 90 minutes every second day) and the support that meets it. Frequency, duration and the number of workers are what turn a description into a funding basis. “High support needs” is not evidence; “requires two workers for every transfer because of a ceiling hoist and a Braden score of 9” is.

4. Evidence from the reporting period

Three lists. Clinical events, each with the date, what was done and the outcome, and wherever possible the comparison with what used to happen: two chest infections managed at home this period against four admissions in the year before. Incidents, including reportable incidents, with what was reported to the Commission and what changed afterwards; a report that hides incidents is less credible, not more. And hours actually delivered, by support item and time of day, averaged per week. The hours table is what the planner will compare against the plan, and it is the part most providers leave out.

5. What happens without these supports

One paragraph, written plainly, that walks through the consequence of removing or reducing each major support: why an active overnight worker rather than a sleepover, why two workers for transfers, why nursing oversight rather than support work alone, and what the alternative (usually hospital or residential care) would cost the scheme and the person. This is the value-for-money and effectiveness argument in section 34, and it is the paragraph planners quote back in their decisions.

6. Supports requested for the next plan

A table by support category and item, hours per week, and a pointer to the section of the report that justifies each line. State clearly what is unchanged and what is different from the current plan, and why. Attach the things the planner will otherwise ask for: the consumables list, the competency register for the worker team, the incident reports, the GP or specialist letter confirming diagnoses. Do not put dollar figures in the report; hours and items are the provider’s evidence, and prices change with each edition of the Pricing Arrangements.

7. The participant’s view

Their words, quoted, with the date they reviewed the report. What they want the next plan to let them do, and what they are afraid of losing. This is required by the spirit of the Practice Standards on informed choice, and it is also the most persuasive paragraph in the document, because the planner is funding a person’s life, not a roster.

Timing, and what to ask for

Ask for the report six weeks before the reassessment, and send the provider the reassessment date the day you receive it. A good provider will already be producing a monthly summary with the same headings, so the report is an assembly job rather than a scramble. If a provider tells you they do not write plan-review reports, or offers progress notes instead, that is useful information about the provider.

For participants we support, the monthly summary and the reassessment report are part of the service, not an extra. Details, and the capacity check, are on our support coordinator page.

Makena, Registered Nurse, Clinical Lead, Complex Care Continuum. This briefing is general information for support coordinators and is not clinical or legal advice for an individual participant.