Lessons in allied health report-writing from the Administrative Review Tribunal of Australia

Posted On September 30, 2025

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?

Drop a comment below to tell me your lessons or tips about reports and report writing!

🧾 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 that were 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 Allied Health 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