Lessons in allied health report-writing from the Administrative Review Tribunal of Australia
Sounds boring, I know, but the Administrative Review Tribunal of Australia might have just given allied health professionals the ‘play book’ on report writing.
I asked Copilot to help me understand the important messages for allied health professionals who write reports for the NDIS. Let me know your thoughts?
🧾 Case Overview
Applicant: [participant], a participant in the NDIS.
Tribunal Decision: The Tribunal affirmed the NDIA’s decision to not include additional supports in [participant]’s Statement of Participant Supports (SOPS).
Key Issue: Whether the requested supports were “reasonable and necessary” under section 34(1) of the NDIS Act 2013, specifically in relation to [participant]’s section 24 disabilities:
Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS)
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS)
Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS)
________________________________________
🧠 Key Messages for Allied Health Professionals
1. Critical Assessment of Support Recommendations
The Tribunal found that many allied health reports repeated the applicant’s own list of supports without independent clinical justification.
Practitioners must critically evaluate whether a support is:
Directly related to the participant’s section 24 disability
Evidence-based
Value for money
Necessary at the time of decision
⚠️ Reports perceived as advocacy rather than independent expert opinion were given less weight.
________________________________________
2. Distinguishing Clinical vs Therapeutic Supports
Supports that are clinical treatments (e.g., psychology for PTSD, dietetics for non-s24 conditions) are not NDIS supports under Schedule 2.
Allied health professionals must clearly differentiate therapeutic interventions aimed at improving function from clinical treatments for general health.
________________________________________
3. Functional Relevance and Timing
Supports must be functionally relevant to the participant’s current condition.
The Tribunal emphasized that supports must be assessed at the time of decision, not based on past or potential future capacity.
Example: [participant]’s request for 415 hours of physiotherapy was rejected due to her current limited mobility and fatigue.
________________________________________
4. Avoiding Duplication and Overlap
Supports must not duplicate existing funded supports.
Allied health professionals should:
Review the participant’s current SOPS
Justify why additional supports are needed
Demonstrate how they complement—not replicate—existing services
________________________________________
5. Evidence-Based Practice and Documentation
The Tribunal expects:
Clear linkage between impairments and requested supports
Reference to current good practice, guidelines (e.g., NICE), and peer-reviewed evidence
Justification of cost-effectiveness
Example: IPL hair removal was rejected due to lack of cost-benefit analysis and unclear relevance to s24 disabilities.
________________________________________
6. Use of AI in Report Writing
Reports generated or assisted by AI must be:
Reviewed and verified by the practitioner
Free from errors, inconsistencies, or unsupported claims
The Tribunal expressed concern about AI-generated content lacking clinical rigour.
________________________________________
✅ Supports Approved
Only 2 additional hours of support worker assistance per week were approved.
All other disputed supports (e.g., psychology, dietetics, assistive tech, home modifications) were rejected.
________________________________________
📌 Implications for Practice
Allied health professionals supporting NDIS participants should:
Ensure independent, evidence-based assessments
Align recommendations strictly with section 24 disabilities
Avoid over-reliance on participant-provided lists
Be cautious with AI-assisted documentation
Understand the NDIS legislative framework, especially section 34 and Schedules 1 & 2
________________________________________
About The Author
Harmony Turnbull
I’m a speech language pathologist with over 15 years experience working with people with lifelong disability. I now work in the Department of Education, Tasmania and I am a PhD candidate at The University of Technology Sydney (UTS). You can find me on Twitter sharing and learning with the handle @SP_Harmony and LinkedIn.