OT Unplugged: Community of Practice Insights

Sarah Collison, Nikki Cousins and Alyce Svensk

OT Unplugged is a space for you to connect, reflect and stay up to date on OT practice and the evolving world of the NDIS.

  1. OCT 26

    S70E3 - OT Week Special Episode

    OT Unplugged: Community of Practice Insights

    44 min

  2. OCT 23

    S7E02 - What’s Changing Now: NDIS Therapy and Respite Updates Explained

    Recent NDIS updates are reshaping how therapy supports and respite services are delivered and justified. Two new documents – the Therapy Support Guideline and the Short-Term Respite Guideline – mark a significant shift in expectations for evidence-based practice, outcome measurement and funding accountability. For OTs, these changes mean reviewing how group programs, therapy assistant hours and respite recommendations are structured, documented and billed. While the intent is greater consistency and transparency, the practical implications will be felt across paediatric, community and functional assessment work.   New expectations for evidence-based therapy The Therapy Support Guideline places strong emphasis on therapy being explicitly evidence based, outcome driven and capacity building in nature. It also highlights that therapy must demonstrate measurable improvement in functional capacity, not simply maintenance or general participation. For many OTs, particularly those in paediatrics, this signals a need to clearly link every intervention to research evidence or documented clinical reasoning. Interventions such as Lego-based social skills groups or animal-assisted therapy can still be justified, but only when delivered as occupational therapy interventions supported by measurable outcomes. Clinicians running group programs will now need to show the functional gains achieved during participation, gather baseline data before and after sessions and demonstrate how the group supports capacity building rather than maintenance. This represents a move away from broad social or recreational groups toward structured, evidence-backed interventions.   Clarifying qualifications and the role of therapy assistants The guideline also tightens requirements around professional qualifications. For example, speech pathologists must be certified practicing members of Speech Pathology Australia to provide NDIS-funded therapy. Similar expectations apply across all allied health disciplines, reinforcing that services must be delivered by appropriately accredited practitioners. It also clarifies how therapy assistants can be used. While assistants remain an important part of therapy delivery, OTs cannot bill for student-led sessions or any time when the supervising clinician is not present. However, supervision time within the participant’s session can still be billed if the OT is directing the work in real time. These updates underline the NDIA’s focus on value for money and accountability, ensuring that therapy hours funded under plans directly reflect qualified professional input.   Group programs and reporting requirements Group-based interventions remain permissible but must now show clear evidence of effectiveness and link to functional outcomes. Invoices and program descriptions should reflect that the service is an occupational therapy group, not a “social skills” or “Lego group”, as these labels risk being flagged for non-compliance. Clinicians are advised to document outcomes in progress reports that are concise but evidence informed. The NDIA’s new reporting preference is for short, factual summaries that show where the participant started, what interventions were delivered, what measurable change was achieved and what recommendations follow. This shift will require services to collect clearer baseline data, reference clinical evidence where relevant and maintain defensible reasoning behind every intervention.   Capacity building versus maintenance therapy The distinction between capacity building and maintenance therapy has reappeared after several years of absence from NDIS language. OTs are now expected to define which type of therapy is being delivered, how long it will be required and what measurable change is anticipated. While maintenance therapy remains fundable in certain contexts, it will require robust justification and alignment with the participant’s goals. Progress reports will need to demonstrate that services continue to add value beyond routine care.   Short-term accommodation becomes short-term respite The second major update redefines Short-Term Accommodation (STA) as Short-Term Respite (STR). This change signals a clearer intent: funding is now strictly for sustaining informal supports rather than providing holidays or capacity-building experiences. Respite is now expected to occur within the participant’s own state or territory, unless interstate travel is more cost effective. Participants can stay in hotels or short-stay rentals if clinically appropriate, but the focus must remain on maintaining carer relationships and wellbeing, not leisure. Under the new model, funding is based on the actual level of support required rather than a daily flat rate. For example, if a participant usually receives 12 hours of support per day, respite will be funded at that level, not for 24-hour coverage. Participants already receiving more than 18 hours of paid support daily are generally not eligible for additional respite funding.   Clarifying purpose and eligibility Short-term respite is now explicitly for sustaining informal carers and ensuring participants continue accessing their usual daily activities. It cannot be used for capacity building or skill development, even though this was common practice previously. Eligibility will now depend on factors such as the intensity of supports required, the presence of complex behaviour or high-intensity needs, the risk of carer burnout and whether informal supports have additional caring responsibilities, such as other children or family members with disability. In the paediatric space, this last factor will be particularly important. Reports recommending respite should clearly evidence how it sustains carers and why this is necessary for family functioning.   Funding and compliance implications Meals and activities are no longer automatically included unless respite occurs in a group residence or SIL-style setting. For hotel-based respite, only accommodation and support hours can be claimed. For many providers, this means revising quotes and cost structures. Respite must now align with the NDIS pricing arrangements and cannot be billed using generic daily rate line items unless explicitly approved. The guideline also notes that respite will appear as flexible funding within the core budget rather than as a stated support. Participants and plan managers should still ensure that all spending aligns with plan goals and eligibility requirements.   Implications for paediatric and community OTs For paediatric therapists, the therapy guideline reinforces the need to back interventions with evidence, measurable outcomes and clear rationale. Services that rely heavily on group programs or alternate therapy models will need to tighten documentation and ensure invoices clearly indicate professional oversight. For community and fucctional assessment OTs, the respite guideline will require more detailed justification for carer relief. Reports must now explicitly link respite recommendations to maintaining informal support capacity rather than participant skill development. Both updates highlight the NDIA’s continued focus on evidence, accountability and cost containment, reinforcing that high-quality, transparent clinical reasoning remains an OT’s strongest asset.   Key takeaways for OTs The new Therapy Support Guideline requires evidence-based, outcome-focused therapy linked to functional improvement Group programs must demonstrate measurable outcomes and be invoiced as occupational therapy services Therapy assistants and students can only be billed when appropriately supervised by a qualified clinician The distinction between capacity building and maintenance therapy has been reinstated Short-Term Accommodation is now Short-Term Respite, funded only to sustain informal carers Respite funding is based on actual support hours rather than a daily rate Meals and leisure activities are generally excluded from respite claims Reports must clearly evidence rationale for respite and link it to carer wellbeing Respite now appears under flexible core funding but must align with NDIS price limits Strong documentation, evidence and clinical reasoning remain essential to safeguard quality and compliance.

    45 min

  3. OCT 16

    S7E01 - It’s Not the Tool, It’s the Process: The ICAN Conversation

    The recent announcement confirming the ICAN tool as the foundation for future NDIS support needsassessments has sparked serious discussion across the Occupational Therapy community. While many clinicians recognise the need for a more consistent national approach, the way ICAN is being positioned raises major questions about process, workforce capability and the independence of assessments. Used as part of a broader OT evaluation, ICAN can be useful. Used alone to determine funding it risks misrepresenting function and undermining the professional reasoning OTs bring to complex cases.   Beyond the tool itself: why process matters more than the platformICAN is currently used with participants under the Disability Support for Older Australians (DSOA) program. It provides a framework across domains such as mobility, self-care, cognition and communication. The concern lies not in the tool’s existence but in its unstructured nature. Assessors decide which domains to explore, what questions to ask and how deeply to probe. There are no standardised questions, norms or benchmarks meaning two assessors could reach entirely different conclusions about the same person. This flexibility demands significant clinical experience and interviewing skill – qualities that develop over years of OT practice. Without that depth, important details can be missed especially when assessments rely heavily on self-report rather than observation. The training for ICAN focuses mainly on how to complete the form, not how to interpret or validate the information gathered. When used by non-clinical assessors the potential for bias and inaccuracy increases sharply. Reliability, bias and the independence problemThe NDIS has indicated that the agency itself will employ assessors to complete support needs assessments. When the same organisation controls both assessment and budget setting questions of neutrality are unavoidable. Current legislative wording requires assessors to consider NDIA-requested assessments but only may consider other professional reports. That single word – “may” – creates uncertainty about whether participant-provided clinical evidence will be given proper weight. This approach mirrors earlier concerns raised during the independent assessment debate of 2021. If an NDIA-employed assessor’s findings can override treating clinicians’ data without opportunity for clarification, participants risk losing access to necessary supports and OTs risk having their evidence dismissed without review. The process must allow for right of reply, transparent reasoning and consistent standards across assessors.   What makes ICAN different from functional assessmentsUnlike structured tools such as the Vineland or other standardised measures, ICAN lacks normative data and published inter-rater reliability. It generates narrative statements rather than comparable scores. While it may complement a clinical assessment it should never replace comprehensive observation, task analysis and validated functional measures. The risk is that a conversational checklist could be treated as a definitive reflection of capacity when it captures only part of the picture. For now, ICAN is intended for participants aged 16 and over but paediatric therapists should still pay attention. The broader reform agenda signals a long-term move away from current functional capacity assessments (FCAs) so understanding the principles and limitations of ICAN will help clinicians prepare for future expectations. How OTs can safeguard quality, ethics and business continuityIn the meantime OTs can take practical steps to strengthen practice and protect service viability. First, continue writing clear and defensible reports that link observed function, assessment data and participation outcomes. Be explicit about what was trialled, what worked, what didn’t and why. Second, corroborate self-report with direct observation, caregiver input and measurable results wherever possible. Simple additions like annotated photos or short video clips (with consent) can help bridge gaps if decisions rely on third-party review. If you encounter an NDIA decision based solely on ICAN findings, reference the tool’s lack of standardisation and reliability in your response then present the alternative evidence your assessment provides. The key is to keep reasoning transparent and grounded in observable function. Business-wise, services that rely heavily on FCAs should diversify now. Build capacity in home modifications, assistive technology, participation-focused therapy and supervision. These areas remain in demand regardless of how assessment frameworks evolve. Supporting participants through reviews and appeals will also remain critical. Educate clients about documenting outcomes, collecting incident notes and keeping evidence ready for future reviews or tribunal processes.' Transitional rules and funding decisionsThe 12-month leniency period for incorrect purchases under $1,500 has ended. From now on, errors may trigger recovery or compliance action. With final guidance still pending, OTs should document the functional rationale, cost-effectiveness and risk mitigation for every recommendation. Across the country, decision-making on low- cost AT and community access supports remains inconsistent and appeals continue to overturn a large proportion of NDIA determinations – proof that sound, evidence-based documentation still carries weight. Compliance and business obligations for 2025The changing funding environment isn’t the only issue to watch. In New South Wales, a portable long service leave scheme has been introduced for the community services sector. While it includes disability supports, allied health professionals may fall outside scope because they provide clinical not ongoing support services. Nevertheless, all employers must complete the self-assessment to confirm their position and keep records in case of future audits. Meanwhile, providers delivering paediatric services in Queensland must now comply with the Child SafeStandards. Align policies with national frameworks, ensure all staff complete safeguarding training and embed clear procedures for recruitment, incident reporting and complaints. Key takeaways for OTsSupport needs assessments are changing and ICAN will soon form part of that picture. The tool itself isn’t the danger – it’s how it’s applied, who applies it and whether independent clinical reasoning remains central. Continue documenting comprehensively, question decisions that don’t align with observed evidence and adapt your business model so your expertise stays indispensable regardless of future funding structures. In summary:• ICAN is planned for participants aged 16+ but its rollout will take time• The process and workforce matter far more than the tool itself• Lack of norms means outcomes can vary assessor-to-assessor• Maintain defensible, evidence-based reporting and advocate for right of reply• Diversify beyond FCAs and monitor compliance changes in NSW and QLD• Change is inevitable – but with strong reasoning, clear evidence and ethical practice OTs can continue to anchor the system in quality, fairness and function-first care.

    46 min

  4. SEP 25

    S6E10 - Reports on Trial: OT Documentation and the NDIS

    A recent case before the Administrative Review Tribunal has reignited a conversation many Occupational Therapists are already having: what does defensible documentation look like in 2025? Anything you write can travel far beyond its original purpose. A brief letter to a GP, internal correspondence between providers or a simple progress note may be bundled into evidence for plan reviews or tribunal matters. That doesn’t mean you need to write like a barrister – it means your documents should be clear, accurate, clinically reasoned and ready to stand on their own. If your name is on it, assume it could be read by a planner, a reviewer or a tribunal member. AI in clinical documentation: policy, disclosure and quality control AI can help polish language, summarise meetings or structure notes, but it must never replace your clinical reasoning. Set a practice policy that defines acceptable AI use, approved tools, privacy safeguards and who reviews what. Gain client consent before using any AI that processes identifiable information. If AI materially helped compile a report’s content or structure, add a short statement in the methodology section. Always perform a human quality check. Read line by line for subtle errors that can undermine credibility, such as the wrong locality, diagnosis, names or pronouns. Keep clinical thinking human – use AI to refine wording, not to decide recommendations, interpret assessments or justify funding. Templates and human error: move from examples to prompts Copy-over mistakes remain one of the most common credibility killers. Replace example-filled templates with prompt-based templates that cue what to write without prefilled text you might forget to change. Build forced checkpoints for person details, diagnoses and co-occurring conditions, functional impact across domains, environmental factors and risks, strategies trialled with outcomes, then specific measurable recommendations with expected benefits. A prompt-led structure reduces the chance of mixed pronouns, recycled localities or legacy goals slipping through. Advocacy and objectivity: getting the balance right Treating clinicians are not independent experts – and that’s fine. Your role is to provide an objective, evidence-based account grounded in therapeutic relationship and longitudinal knowledge. Be objective when describing findings and explicit when offering clinical opinion. Use neutral, neuro-affirming language about autism and other neurodivergence. Avoid deficit framing and focus on participation, function and support needs. Write to function, not labels, and connect observed performance and assessment results to everyday activities, safety and goal attainment. Scope and funding rules: what to include and how It is appropriate to recommend supports outside NDIS funding scope when clinically relevant – simply separate them clearly. Differentiate between recommendations you believe are reasonable and necessary under the NDIS and items that are self-funded or suited to other schemes. Explain the functional rationale for all recommendations without implying NDIS responsibility where it doesn’t apply. List co-occurring conditions where they affect function, and clarify when supports relate to the person’s ability to self-manage health conditions due to their disability. Independent assessments and your role When an ART matter seeks an independent opinion, the assessor will sit outside the treating team. Your task remains to produce high-quality treating-clinician documentation that summarises longitudinal observations, presents assessment data transparently, links findings to functional outcomes and risks, and shows the trials you’ve completed, the person’s response and the expected benefit from each recommendation. Risk-aware communication and record keeping Assume every document could be read out of context. Progress notes should be objective, free of jargon and capture consent, risks and decisions. In correspondence, state the purpose, audience and limits. If a letter is not a funding request, say so. Use version control with dates, page numbers, your credentials and contact details on every document. Protect privacy by avoiding unnecessary identifiable detail in email chains and using secure channels where possible. A practical before-you-send sweep Give yourself a 60-second sweep before you submit anything: confirm person details and locality, check diagnoses and co-occurring conditions, ensure functional impacts are linked to observed evidence, show what was trialled, the outcome and the risk profile, ensure recommendations are specific, measurable and prioritised with clear expected benefits, separate NDIS-funded items from other suggestions, keep language plain, respectful and neuro-affirming and confirm any AI use aligns with your policy and is disclosed if it materially shaped the document. Key takeaways Write every document as if it could be read at review or tribunal Use AI as a language assistant, not a clinical brain Prefer prompt-based templates to reduce copy-paste errors Balance compassionate advocacy with objective, function-first reporting Separate NDIS-funded supports from other recommendations Keep records professional, secure and easy to audit

    38 min

  5. SEP 18

    S6E09 - Psychosocial disability, pricing and Section 10: what OTs need to know now

    Psychosocial disability, pricing and Section 10: what OTs need to know now The NDIS is changing quickly and it can be hard to keep up. Many people with disability aren’t seeing the updates, yet the impacts are real. Here's a recap on what’s shifting and how OTs can respond. Psychosocial disability needs steady, long-term support Early intervention matters, but it won’t replace the NDIS for everyone. Many people with psychosocial disability have ongoing, fluctuating needs. They benefit from stable, wraparound supports across home, community, education and work. OTs understand everyday life. We translate goals into routines, coordinate teams and show how supports improve function. Our voice is essential in this debate. The information gap is real Policy moves fast. Participants often hear last. That isn’t co-design. Let’s keep updates simple, timely and accessible so people can make informed choices. What’s turning up in plans Therapists are seeing plans with sharp reductions or odd phasing that block setup and continuity. Example: a five-year plan with only 10 hours of capacity building released in quarter one, then nothing. Without clear reasons or a pathway to adjust, progress stalls. Another risk sits with people who rely on larger core budgets to live independently. If those budgets drop without alternatives, we’ll see more hospital presentations, housing stress and crisis care. Short-term cuts don’t save money if they shift costs elsewhere. Support needs assessments are delayed The Support Needs Assessment is now pushed to mid-2026. Decision rules are unclear in the meantime. Transparency helps everyone plan and keeps decisions accountable. Foundational supports and ‘Thriving Kids’ Early childhood changes sound promising but details are thin. If services outside the NDIS aren’t real, funded and available, families will miss out. OTs know what works for children and caregivers – our practical input should shape any new model. Pricing and the IHAPCA work Consultation feedback shows current pricing often fails to cover the true cost of quality services, especially in regional and remote areas. When prices don’t match delivery, access shrinks and innovation slows. Evidence-based pricing supports equity and a stable workforce. Art and music therapy Their evidence base has been recognised, yet recent price cuts send a poor signal to a highly trained, largely female workforce. When rates fall, participants lose access to skilled, consistent support. Section 10 and housing The transitional Section 10 rule has changed what’s considered mainstream versus reasonable and necessary. In practice, some people are being pushed toward costly home modifications when relocation would be safer, faster and cheaper. Permanent rules should weigh lifetime cost, safety and function – not just categories. What OTs can do right now • Strengthen assessments: Cover permanence, functional capacity and support needs in every report. Use the ICF and make your reasoning easy to follow.•   Log impacts: Track plan changes, delays and risks. Share trends through peer groups to support advocacy.•   Keep participants informed: Use plain-English updates, timelines and checklists for reassessments.•   Plan for continuity: If funding is phased, map what can start now, what needs bridging and what will stall.•   Back the ecosystem: Stand with allied health peers on pricing and access. A strong network helps participants most.    Key takeaways •   Psychosocial disability often needs lifelong, wraparound supports – early intervention alone won’t replace the NDIS.•   People with disability must be included and informed or reforms will miss the mark.•   Current plan structures are creating gaps in setup and continuity, with hidden risks in housing and core supports.•   Pricing should reflect real delivery costs to protect access, quality and workforce stability.Section 10 needs a whole-of-life lens that prefers the safest, most cost-effective option.

    36 min

  6. SEP 11

    NDIS reform round-up: What OTs need to know in 2025

    NDIS reform round-up: What OTs need to know in 2025 NDIS reforms are moving, but not always in straight lines. Here’s a clear, practice-first update based entirely on the issues raised in your discussion: consultation fatigue, the Evidence Advisory Committee, delays to the planning framework and support needs assessments, what impairment notices might mean, mandatory registration realities, audits in practice and the latest OTA pricing survey.   Thriving kids: consultation fatigue, advocacy that still matters Clinics are feeling tapped out after repeated consultations and still-unreleased best practice guidelines. Yet advocacy remains important. A Senate inquiry into Thriving Kids was noted with limited specifics available. Given uncertainty, clinics should plan conservatively – avoid locking in long leases and keep service models flexible over the next two years. Evidence Advisory Committee: who’s on it and how it may work Expressions of interest for the NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee (EAC) have concluded with appointments described as largely academic. Subcommittees include assistive technology and capital, capacity building and therapy and economics. The first public consultation is expected “in the coming weeks”. Open questions remain about how EAC advice intersects with operations on the ground and with the Enduring Supports Rule process.   Planning framework: delays, and unclear timing for impairment notices The new planning framework has been pushed back and support needs assessments are delayed. It’s unclear whether impairment notices are also delayed – timing wasn’t confirmed. Takeaway: keep documentation consistent, stay transparent in service agreements and avoid assumptions about start dates.   Mandatory registration: what the consultation said and what to expect Consultation outcomes reflected familiar themes: registration costs and admin load, fairness for different provider sizes and locations and continuity of trusted supports. Priority areas flagged elsewhere remain supported independent living, support coordination and platform providers. Large-scale rollout faces capacity constraints – auditors are limited and processing times can already stretch towards a year. Expect staged change with grace periods to signal intent followed by a longer window to complete audits.   Audits in practice: costs, process and realistic timelines Audits can be onsite or remote. Providers reported costs for auditor travel and accommodation for certification audits, document sampling across caseloads, client and staff interviews and close scrutiny of policies, records and safeguards. Experiences vary by auditor background and demand and timelines can extend beyond initial expectations.   OTA pricing survey: pressure on viability and access From OTA’s recent survey of 600 OTs, key data points discussed were: 14% of providers expect to exit in the short term – estimated as 1,267 practices – potentially affecting up to 17,320 participants 39% don’t expect to remain profitable under current settings, 43% are unsure and 55% reported no profit in 2024–25 79% already have a waitlist; 52% report waits of 12 weeks or more Travel matters: 95% provide some travel, 56% travel daily, 98% say travel reimbursement is important to viability, 51% say it’s critical to deliver assessments and therapy in natural environments 85% exceed travel caps at least some of the time; 29% do so more than 70% of the time If caps remain, 92% plan to reduce travel and outreach, 63% to reduce regional and remote services, 33% to stop home and community visits and 24% to stop taking complex cases OTA’s asks discussed: reverse the travel cut, apply an immediate 7% uplift to OT hourly rates and co-design a fit-for-purpose allied health pricing model that properly accounts for travel, reports and multidisciplinary work.   Business reality: profit as safety A modest profit buffer is a safeguard, not a luxury. It’s what allows services to ride policy pivots, delays and compliance costs. Until reforms settle, prefer flexible overheads over long commitments. Document processes now – it pays off later.   What to do next Expect staggered change rather than a single switch Keep service agreements clear and documentation tight Model scenarios for travel, outreach and home visits Build a small profit buffer to cushion policy shifts Stay vocal in consultations, even when it feels thankless   Resources and Updates NDIS Quality & Safeguards Commission: Mandatory Registration   Occupational Therapy Australia: OTA’s survey of OTs shows dire consequences of NDIS pricing decision

    43 min

  7. SEP 4

    S6E07 - NDIS Oversight is Broken — Here’s What That Means for Providers

    Navigating complaints, compliance and safeguarding in the NDIS Working within the NDIS can be rewarding but it also comes with complex responsibilities. For allied health providers, support coordinators and practice owners, ensuring participant safety isn’t always straightforward. Even when the right steps are taken, reporting concerns can lead to frustrating delays, unexpected consequences and, in the most tragic cases, life-or-death outcomes. This article explores the realities of raising concerns in the NDIS – from understanding who to report to through to the emotional toll of speaking up when systems don’t respond as they should. When reporting doesn’t lead to action Many providers share the same difficult question: what happens when you do the right thing, report an issue, and no one follows up? Some have seen investigations stall until it was too late while others have been disengaged from service arrangements after raising concerns. The reality is that compliance processes can be slow and fragmented and providers who step forward often face unexpected risks. Who is responsible for what? One of the biggest challenges is knowing where to send a complaint. Different issues fall under different bodies: NDIA – for fraud, misuse of funds and suspicious claims NDIS Commission – for provider conduct, safeguarding and quality of care Police and state-based agencies – for criminal, abuse or neglect concerns (for example, the NSW Ageing & Disability Commission or the Office of the Children’s Guardian) Without clear pathways, providers can be left unsure about whether they’ve contacted the right authority and whether action will follow. Real-world impacts of system failures Case examples highlight the human cost of these gaps: Fraud and non-compliance reports going unaddressed Investigations dragging on until after a participant has died OTs and support coordinators being disengaged after raising red flags The heavy emotional toll of holding professional and ethical responsibilities without clear systemic support These stories show why reporting is both necessary and, at times, incredibly difficult. Why some providers hesitate to report It’s no surprise that many providers think twice before submitting a complaint.  The risks can feel personal and professional – from being removed from service arrangements to dealing with prolonged uncertainty to facing an overwhelming administrative burden. Yet not reporting also carries serious consequences. Building safeguards into your own practice The most effective approach is to put clear internal processes in place. This means: Having a set threshold for when a matter requires reporting Documenting everything – case notes, emails and conversations Submitting reports to multiple bodies where appropriate (more is more) Taking the emotion out of decision-making by following established procedures Knowing when and how to escalate concerns further – whether to the media, local MPs or Ministers’ offices – if systems fail to act Key takeaways There is no one-size-fits-all reporting pathway – knowing who to contact is crucial Delayed action can have devastating outcomes including loss of life Reporting can carry risks for providers but silence carries greater risks for participants Internal documentation is essential for accountability and protection Escalation beyond the NDIS is sometimes necessary when urgent risks are ignored If in doubt, report – it’s better to act and be safe than to remain silent Important contacts NDIS Fraud Reporting and Scams Helpline – 1800 650 717 | fraudreporting@ndis.gov.au  NDIS Commission – www.ndiscommission.gov.au  NSW Ageing & Disability Commission – www.ageingdisabilitycommission.nsw.gov.au  Office of the Children’s Guardian – for matters involving children (Each state and territory may have its own equivalent reporting bodies.) Final thoughts Reporting under the NDIS is rarely simple and providers often find themselves caught in grey areas between compliance, safeguarding and professional ethics. But having clear procedures, documenting thoroughly and knowing when and how to escalate can help protect both participants and providers. Above all, the message is clear: if you see something, report it. Even when the system feels slow or unresponsive, speaking up remains a crucial safeguard for the people we support.

    40 min

  8. AUG 28

    S6E06 - So… What Would You Do Next? OT Futures and NDIS Realities

    In this episode, we dive into two big conversations every occupational therapist, and anyone in the disability space, needs to hear. First, we reflect on the reality of career uncertainty in OT. Whether you're in private practice, working for yourself, or exploring other sectors, we talk about the importance of backup plans, transferable skills, and why it’s okay to reassess your path without guilt or panic. You’ll hear honest reflections on transitioning between roles, recalibrating expectations, and staying grounded while thinking about “what’s next?” From there, we shift gears to the recently released NDIS Ministerial Brief, obtained under Freedom of Information. We unpack: The upcoming Notice of Impairment rollout (and the red flags it’s raising) The move from function-based to support-needs-based planning Concerns around simplified plans and what they might mean for funding The confusion around new support needs assessment tools Pilot plans for navigator roles and early intervention pathways The NDIS’ updated debt recovery approach and examples of flagged claims What OTs and AT suppliers need to know, especially around maintenance claims We also reflect on what these reforms mean for participants, practitioners, and the broader workforce as we all brace for the next wave of change. Tune in to stay informed, feel less alone in the chaos, and share a few laughs along the way. Links & Resources: NDIS Ministerial Brief (PDF) – available in the OT Facebook group file section Debt Recovery Summary on the NDIS website - https://www.ndis.gov.au/about-us/improving-integrity-and-preventing-fraud/recovering-funds-owed-ndia

    42 min
See All (77)

About

OT Unplugged is a space for you to connect, reflect and stay up to date on OT practice and the evolving world of the NDIS.

Information

You Might Also Like