FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
Contents
Self-directed learning
5
Task A: Intranet research
5
Task B: Our Guidelines
7
Task C: Ecomaps
7
Task D: Developmental Milestones
7
Facilitated Session
9
Introduction and welcome
9
Activity Group introduction questions (Optional)
9
Topic 1: Best practice in early childhood intervention
10
Activity: Explaining best practise
10
Topic 2: The early childhood approach
12
Activity: Ecomap
13
Activity: Suzy
13
Topic 3: Eligibility for the NDIS
15
Activity: Eligibility scenarios
16
Topic 4: Functional assessment and screening
18
Activity: Developmental milestones discussion
19
Topic 5: Case scenarios
18
Declan case scenario
18
Lucy case scenario
19
Lin case scenario
23
Beth case scenario
26
Topic 6: A family perspective
29
OFFICIAL
ndis.gov.au
3
Page 405 of 438
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
Topic 7: Quiz – True or false?
29
Appendix
31
Accessible version - the early childhood approach image
31
Accessible version - early connections image
31
Accessible version - medical model image
32
Accessible version – best practice model image
32
National Disability Insurance Agency
33
Version Control
33
OFFICIAL
ndis.gov.au
4
Page 406 of 438
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
Topic 5: Case scenarios
Let’s have a look at some case scenarios.
Declan case scenario
Declan is 3 years old and lives with his mother Andrea. He goes to childcare 2 days
each week.
Andrea also takes Declan to playgroup once a week where she catches up with
friends and Declan plays with other children. When at playgroup Andrea notices that
Declan’s communication skills are not as wel developed as other children his age,
and he doesn’t get along as well with peers.
During a visit to the paediatrician Andrea mentions her concerns. The paediatrician
gives Andrea some strategies to help her continue to support Declan’s development.
They also suggest Andrea contacts an early childhood partner.
Andrea and Declan meet with an early childhood partner, at their home. Andrea and
the early childhood partner discuss Declan’s strengths and Andrea’s concerns about
Declan’s development. They also complete an ecomap.
The early childhood partner observes Declan going about his usual activities at home
and at childcare. She also talks to Declan’s educators and uses tools like the ASQ
and PEDI-CAT. The information gathered helps the early childhood partner
understand Declan’s development, strengths, and functional capacity.
The early childhood partner determines that Declan’s presentation is best described
as developmental concerns and offers early supports, which Andrea accepts.
The early childhood partner provides support through a range of activities during
early supports.
For example, they:
• work with Andrea to develop and implement strategies at home and in the community
to support Declan build his skills and increase his independence.
OFFICIAL
ndis.gov.au
20
Page 410 of 438
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
• visit Declan at childcare and talk about strategies with staff to ensure a consistent
approach to supporting Declan.
• support Andrea to connect with community supports such as a local community
centre parent support group.
• deliver group workshops on social skills and communication skills.
After a few months Declan’s communication and social skills have improved. His
speech is easier to understand and his interactions with other children have
improved.
Andrea and childcare staff feel more confident in supporting Declan’s ongoing
learning and development. Declan and Andrea no longer require early supports.
Early supports, delivered by the early childhood partner have sufficiently supported
Declan and Andrea, without the need to apply to the NDIS.
Question: What are some examples of resources the early childhood partner might
have used when supporting Declan and Andrea during early support?
Notes:
OFFICIAL
ndis.gov.au
21
Page 411 of 438
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
Lucy case scenario
Lucy is four years old. She really enjoys spending time with her younger brother, and
her parents, Samantha and John in the backyard and going to the playground.
Samantha notices that Lucy needs help doing some things other children her age
can do. She needs a lot more help than other children her age with things at home
like the mealtime routine and dressing. She also needs a lot more support than other
children her age at childcare with things like staying seated for story time and playing
and communicating with friends. Samantha and Lucy’s educator discuss the
concerns. Lucy’s educator suggests that Samantha contacts an early childhood
partner.
The early childhood partner meets with Samantha, John and Lucy at their preferred
location, their home. The early childhood partner gathers information from various
sources. For example, by speaking with Samantha and John and Lucy’s educators
and observing Lucy at home and childcare. They also use tools like the ASQ and
ecomap.
After meeting with Samantha, John, and Lucy several times the early childhood
partner suggests that Samantha and John apply to the NDIS on behalf of Lucy
because it is likely she meets the NDIS early intervention requirements for
developmental delay.
The early childhood partner also suggests that community support might help Lucy’s
family. They put the family in touch with a local peer support group so they can meet
other families of young children.
Lucy becomes eligible for the NDIS under the early intervention requirements and a
NDIS plan is developed. The plan includes the goals Samantha and John have for
Lucy and funding to support progress towards goals. The family use funding to get
early intervention through a key worker who provides strategies to help Lucy develop
her social, self-care and communication skills and increase her participation in daily
routines and the community.
OFFICIAL
ndis.gov.au
22
Page 412 of 438
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
Lucy turns 6. Since becoming a participant, she has made a lot of progress towards
the goals in her NDIS plans.
She started school and Samantha is pleased with the additional support she is
getting with learning. Her teacher says she has settled in, taking part in all activities,
and getting along well with her new friends. She is much more independent in
completing daily routines at home too.
The key worker has worked with Samantha and John to develop strategies they can
continue using at home to support Lucy.
The early childhood partner has had many conversations over the last two years with
Samantha and John about the eligibility requirements of the NDIS.
They understand that Lucy no longer meets the early intervention requirements for
developmental delay. They also understand that Lucy is unlikely to meet the early
intervention requirements or disability requirements for any other reason. Lucy does
not have an impairment that is likely to be permanent. However, they do not want
Lucy to leave the NDIS.
The early childhood partner revisits the conversation about eligibility reassessments
with Samantha and John and refers Lucy for an eligibility reassessment. They also
confirm that Lucy, Samantha, and John continue to remain well connected with
community and other government supports and services.
The eligibility reassessment determines that Lucy is no longer eligible. Lucy and her
family are supported to leave the NDIS. Samantha and John are prepared for this
given the many conversations they have had with the early childhood partner and
planner delegate about the eligibility requirements.
Lucy remains well supported by her family, school, and the community.
• Lucy became eligible for the NDIS because she met the early intervention
requirements for developmental delay.
• Over time her support needs changed. She no longer requires support from the
NDIS.
OFFICIAL
ndis.gov.au
23
Page 413 of 438
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
• Also, a participant can only access the NDIS for developmental delay until they are 6.
• Lucy leaves the NDIS and remains well supported by her family, school, and the
community.
Activity: Work in pairs or small groups. Discuss how you would explain to Samantha
and John why Lucy is no longer eligible for the NDIS.
To support your discussion, you can refer to:
Our Guideline - Applying to the NDIS (external) and
EC: Guide – Eligibility conversations for children younger than six with developmental
delay.
Notes:
OFFICIAL
ndis.gov.au
24
Page 414 of 438
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
Lin case scenario
Lin is 3 and lives with her parents Simone and Thai.
Lin becomes eligible for the NDIS under the early intervention requirements, for
developmental delay.
Lin’s first plan is approved, and Simone and Thai speak with several early childhood
intervention providers to choose one.
They contact Nully Early Childhood Services (Nully).
The early childhood partner and the planner have provided Simone and Thai with
information on best practice in early childhood intervention.
Simone and Thai are pleased that the supports Nully offers is in line with best
practice.
They feel that the early childhood professionals from this service understand Lin’s
needs and are best able to support them.
Simone and Thai use funding from Lin’s NDIS plan to pay for supports from Nul y.
This helps them work towards the goals in Lin’s NDIS plan.
Simone and Thai work with the key worker to develop strategies to support Lin.
Strategies are updated regularly as Lin’s skills develop and they are shared with her
early childhood educators.
Lin and her family are well supported by community and other government supports
and services too. Lin is now 5, attends preschool and she is getting ready to go to
school next year.
Over the last two years, Lin has made good progress towards the goals in her NDIS
plan.
It appears her presentation may no longer meet the developmental delay definition in
the NDIS Act 2013.
OFFICIAL
ndis.gov.au
25
Page 415 of 438
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
This is because her functional ability in most areas now appears to be like her peers.
The remaining concern her family have is that Lin is sometimes fussy with her food
choices.
The early childhood partner meets with Simone and Thai and revisits the
conversation about eligibility. Some examples of things the early childhood partner
includes in the conversation are:
•
Lin’s progress towards goals.
•
Lin’s current functioning and support needs. They use this information when referring
to the eligibility requirements to explain why she is likely not to continue to be eligible.
•
Confirmation that sufficient community and other government supports and services
are in place. They discuss the role of the health and education systems in providing
ongoing support.
•
Whether Lin’s family would like Lin to voluntarily leave the NDIS.
Simone and Thai decide Lin will voluntarily leave the NDIS.
They let the NDIS know of their decision by completing a form which is available on
the NDIS website.
They also could have done this by sending a letter or email if they preferred.
They will continue to get support from their general practitioner and community health
dietician to manage Lin’s diet and nutritional needs.
They will also continue to be supported by preschool this year, and school next year.
If Simone and Thai had not chosen to voluntarily leave, the early childhood partner
would have referred Lin for an eligibility reassessment.
•
Lin became eligible for the NDIS because she met the early intervention
requirements for developmental delay.
OFFICIAL
ndis.gov.au
26
Page 416 of 438
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
DOCUMENT 35
OFFICIAL
CI Connect – Severity
Tools
The contents of this document are OFFICIAL.
Please note, this security marking also appears in the header and
footer of this document.
Make sure protective markings and instructional text are removed
before external publication.
ndis.gov.au
Page 418 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
CI Connect – Severity Tools
1
1.
CI Connect – Severity Tools
3
2.
CI Connect – Severity Tools Knowledge Check
10
Appendix
14
Video Transcript
14
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
2
Page 419 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
1.
CI Connect – Severity Tools
Accessibility Options
Lesson 1 of 6
Accessibility options
•
To navigate through the course simply use the
previous or
next buttons at
the bottom of each screen. For screen reader keyboard navigation
instructions please follow this link.
•
All videos use closed captions
•
All hyperlinks will open in a new browser
Severity Indicator - Setting the Scene
Lesson 2 of 6
Pre-planning
Pre-planning is where you gather information from a participant or their carers and
nominees. Your conversations are integral to deliver a positive participant
experience. Your conversations help you to get the right information about the way a
participant lives their day-to-day life, what they can do, their goals and supports.
You are all aware of the five Engagement Principles from our Participant Service
Charter. They are:
Two are particularly important in the application of the content of this CI Connect
module.
Responsive – We will respond to individual needs and circumstances
Respectful – We will recognise your individual experience and acknowledge you are
an expert in your own life
When applying the “must dos” of Pre-Planning, it is very important to remember our
Engagement Principles and that you deliver a quality, strengths based, participant-
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
3
Page 420 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
centred conversation so that the participant feels listened to, respected and
empowered at the end of the conversation.
The Update the Severity Tools task is one of two Pre-Planning tasks that contribute
to the generation of the Typical Support Package (TSP). These two tasks are:
•
Update Severity Tools
•
Update the Guided Planning Questions
The primary disability is the disability with the greatest functional impact. The primary
disability also contributes to the generation of the TSP. It is important at the Pre-
Planning stage to confirm that the primary disability is correct and that evidence is
available to confirm the primary and any secondary disability.
Correct severity tool choice, correct scoring and recording, correct responses to the
Guided Planning Questions and a correct primary disability, ensures the integrity of
the participant’s Typical Support Package and plan. Data from quality checking of
recently approved plans demonstrates that when this information is correct and
evidence based, the funding decisions are more likely to meet all criteria in Section
34.1 of the NDIS Act 2013.
Note that for children 7 years and under the Guided Planning Questions are used to
guide decision-making, not generate a TSP.
Does the TSP matter?
You may recall that the first principle Fair for everyone, both today and for future
generations from the document “Principles we follow to create your plan” discusses
the Typical Support Package. The information below is written for participants,
however, it is a reminder for plan developers that the two Pre-Planning tasks that
generate a Typical Support Package do matter and must be correct.
"The Typical Support Package gives us
an indication of what supports we’d
usually expect to include in your plan based on the participant's situation and
disability support needs.
Each support in a plan must be reasonable and necessary, but they also need to be
reasonable and necessary as a package of supports. We approve your whole plan,
not the individual supports in a plan in isolation. The Typical Support Package
helps
guide this validation process.
The Typical Support Package also
helps to guide the consistency of our decision
making process. We use these to check the overall plan to make sure that all the
supports make sense together, and that the support types and amounts will
complement each other to help participant's fulfil "an ordinary life.”
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
4
Page 421 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
The Problem - What does the data show?
Lesson 3 of 6
What does the data tell us?
The graph below shows the June 2021 result for KPI 5a - % of plans where Section
34.1 of the NDIS Act is satisfied. Good, better and best ranges are represented by
colours. This graph was used in all the previous CI Connect modules. We are in the
good range at 82% nationally for Reasonable and Necessary decision -making.
Severity Tools and WHODAS - Percentage of compliance
The graph below shows the results from 500 - 600 approved plans from January to
June 2021 for three Pre-Planning tasks, as well as for whether the primary disability
is correct.
The vertical axis shows percentages.
The horizontal axis shows the different months from January to June 2021.
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
5
Page 422 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
The four colours represent four questions, and also where they are situated in the
good, better, best range (as shown by the KPI 5a graph above). Orange means not
yet in that range while green means they have achieved a good or better range.
The bar graphs below represent the results of quality checks for each question from
January to June 2021.
The four questions are as follows:
Question 1 – Have the Guided Planning Questions been fully completed and
do these responses appropriately reflect available
information?
The pale orange bar graph shows the percentage of compliance with this question
from January to June 2021. That is guided planning questions are fully completed
and reflect the information on the participant record. The bar graphs shows that we
are achieving about 70%.
These results have not quite reached the good range of 75 to 85%.
Question 2 – If there has been a change in guided planning, is there sufficient
evidence to justify this change?
The light green bar graph shows the percentage compliance where guided planning
questions are changed and whether there is sufficient evidence on the participant
record to justify the change. The bar graphs show that we have crept up to 80% over
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
6
Page 423 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
the last few months. This tells us that for about 20 of 100 approved plans, the
evidence available in the participant record does not support the change to the
guided planning questions.
These results have reached the good range of 75 to 85%.
Question 3 – Is the participant’s level of function supported by appropriate
evidence?
The dark orange bar graph shows whether the participant’s level of function is
supported by appropriate evidence. These bar graphs directly relate to the Update
the WHODAS and the Update Severity Tools task – that the severity tool chosen is
correct, the score is recorded correctly and information in in the severity tool is
consistent across the participant record. The results show about 60% compliance,
meaning that about 40 out of 100 plans for participants 7 years and older have a
level of function recorded that is not supported by appropriate evidence.
These results have not reached the good range of 75 to 85%.
Question 4 – Has the primary disability been recorded correctly based on
available evidence?
The dark green bar graph shows whether the primary disability is recorded correctly
based on the available evidence. In the last CI Connect module about
sustainability, we mentioned this result in relation to Rules for Participants 5.1b –
supports are related to the participant’s disability. The graphs show that we are
consistently at about 90% compliance, indicating that about 10 of every 100 plans
does not have a correct primary disability recorded.
This result is in the better range of 85 to 95%. There is opportunity for improvement
to reach the best range for this question.
Further analysis of June data
Further analysis of the June data to explore whether compliance with the Update the
WHODAS and Update Severity Tools task (Question 3) influenced KPI 5a - the % of
plans where Section 34.1 of the NDIS Act is satisfied, demonstrated that:
•
Correct completion of the Update the WHODAS or Update the Severity Tool
task resulted in funding decisions that met Section 34.1 in 87% of plans – 5%
above the national result for KPI 5a.
•
Incorrect completion of the Update the WHODAS or Update the Severity Tool
task resulted in funding decisions that met Section 34.1 only 74% of the time,
well below the national result of 82% for KPI 5a in June 2021.
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
7
Page 424 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
What does it mean?
It means that there is an opportunity to improve the Update the WHODAS and
Update the Severity Tools task by:
•
Paying closer attention to the chosen severity tool
•
Carefully considering evidence
•
Scoring and recording the tool correctly
•
Substantiating and justifying all changes in an interaction - General - Update
Severity Tools.
The data tells us that correct evidence based scoring in the Update Severity Tool
task (and the WHODAS when appropriate) and the Update the Guided Planning
Questions task results in better Reasonable and Necessary decision -making.
Better decision-making ensures a sustainable scheme now and into the
future.
Severity Indicator – Video Transcript
See Appendix
Lesson 4 of 6
Overview - Video
A short introduction and overview of the use of the Severity Tools and their
importance to the participant's journey and the planning process.
https://youtu.be/oZQfOzTwMsw
Resources - Things to read before the discussion
Lesson 5 of 6
Resources
The following resources examine the Severity tools in more detail and include SOPs
and documents. of interest.
Complete the Update Severity Tools task
Complete the WHODAS
Complete the Guided Planning Questions
Tools
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
8
Page 425 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
Cerebral Palsy Severity Tool: Gross Motor Functional Classification
Hearing Severity Tool:Functional Impact of Hearing Loss
Multiple Sclerosis Severity Tool:Patient Determined Disease Steps
Stroke Severity Tool:Modified Rankin Scale
Hearing Severity Tool:Functional Impact of Hearing Loss
Vision Severity Tool:Functional Impact of Vision Loss
Conversation Style Guide
Interaction Template
Interaction templates - General - Severity indicator updated, Request to change
primary disability and Primary disability change complete.
Discussion and Examples
Lesson 6 of 6
Discussion Starter
Solution based questions for your team engagement session Use any or all of the questions below to help facilitate the Severity Tool task Team
Facilitation session.
You may decide to choose questions that you consider are more relevant to your
team/State or Region.
You can choose to discuss questions as a whole group, in small groups, in partners
or individually depending on the size of your team. Similarly, you can choose to use
the same questions or designate different questions to groups to promote further
discussion.
*Remember this session is an hour in duration and you need to allow time for a
debrief.
Severity Indicator Discussion Questions.docx
Debrief and Next Steps
Debrief meetings allow you to formally conclude a discussion, identify key learnings
and talk about next steps.
In concluding the team facilitation session, cover off expectations for weeks 2
- 4 as part of the CI Connect Program.
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
9
Page 426 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
2.
CI Connect – Severity Tools Knowledge
Check
Accessibility Options
Lesson 1 of 5
Accessibility options
•
To navigate through the course simply use the
previous or
next buttons at
the bottom of each screen. For screen reader keyboard navigation
instructions please follow this link.
•
All videos will use closed captions
•
All hyperlinks will open in a new browser
What You Will Need
Lesson 2 of 5
Before you begin
•
Take your time to answer the questions and refer to all available material via
Intranet.
•
The knowledge check is found in the next block. They are presented as true
or false, multi choice, multi answer questions and match responses.
•
You are required to correctly answer all questions to complete the module.
You will be provided with a statement that your answer is either correct or
incorrect. You must get a correct feedback statement on each question to
proceed to the next question.
•
Where you receive any incorrect feedback you will have the option to either
review the module section or to take the question again. You can undertake
the question as many times as you need until you get a correct feedback
statement.
Knowledge Check- Severity Tools
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
10
Page 427 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
Lesson 3 of 5
https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=ZYt3zS11SkWHz7mZD-
WJk3-inbY1Qx1Iti3MIgjtkndUQ01QREo5VjBST1JVRVo1SlJSWlZJVkRMRy4u
Click the button to go to a survey form. When you are finished return here to
complete the rest of the knowledge check.
Knowledge Check
According to this module, which two of the five engagement principles are
particularly important in the application of the content in this module?
Transparent & Respectful
Empowering & Connected
Respectful & Empowering
Responsive & Respectful
SUBMIT
TAKE AGAIN
According to this module, the Update the Severity Tools task is one of two Pre-
Planning tasks that contribute to the generation of the Typical Support Package
(TSP). The other task is...
Update the Guided Planning Questions
Update the WHODAS
Update the Typical Support Package
Update the Percentage of Compliance
SUBMIT
TAKE AGAIN
Look at the following image
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
11
Page 428 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
Which of these results have consistently reached the
good range (ie.
not the better
or best range)
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
SUBMIT
TAKE AGAIN
The Standard Operating Procedure - Update the Severity Tools Task contains
information about when plan developers are required to complete the Update the
Severity Tools task. Here are some of the circumstances.
Which one of these is
not one of the circumstances listed in the module?
The participant provides you with an updated functional capacity assessment
You are completing a plan review for a participant who is 0-6 years of age
The participant has a physical disability which has consistent outcomes over a period
of time.
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
12
Page 429 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
A severity score was not entered as part of the access process.
SUBMIT
General Survey
Lesson 4 of 5
Before you begin
Below is a general Survey about CI Connect.
•
Take your time to answer the questions and think about your responses.
•
The questions are multi choice, multi answer questions and free text
responses. If you wish to change your responses then do so before clicking
submit.
•
There are no incorrect answers. Please be honest. The survey is anonymous.
Survey Link
Survey Click this link to go to the survey
General Survey
Exit
Lesson 5 of 5
Course Completed.
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
13
Page 430 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
Appendix
Video Transcript
The Update the Severity Tools task or Update the WHODAS task is one of the
essential building blocks of planning and supports the integrity of funding decisions.
Understanding the functional impact of disability and a participant’s individual
circumstances are integral to the way the NDIA approaches planning. The severity
tool choice and scoring represents a participant’s level of function. The scoring must
be evidence based as it contributes to the Typical Support Package, guides
decision-making and is the basis of the justification of funded supports included in a
participant’s plan.
For most participants the Update Severity Tools task is informed entirely by
standardised functional assessments, scores and reports completed externally by a
participant’s treating health professional/s. They are submitted to the NDIA and
attached to the participant’s record.
These assessments constitute evidence for the planning process. The scores
demonstrate the level of impact a participant’s disability has on their everyday
activities. Your conversation with a participant builds from these scores so that you
fully understand what a participant can do and how they live their life.
When do you need to complete the Pre-Planning task Update Severity Tools?
The Standard Operating Procedure - Update the Severity Tools Task contains
information about when plan developers are required to complete the Update the
Severity Tools task. Here are the circumstances:
• There is a change in the participant’s functional capacity
• The participant provides you with an updated functional capacity
assessment
• You are completing a plan review for an adult or child who has met
access based on disability or early intervention
• You are completing a plan review for a participant who is 0-6 years of
age
• The participant has a degenerative disability such as motor neurone
disease or an fluctuating disability like psychosocial disability where
functional capacity may change
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
14
Page 431 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
• A severity score was not entered as part of the access process.
Twelve of the most common disabilities and the NDIA preferred Severity Tool and a
second or third option if the first severity tool option is not available is explained in
the SOP - Update the Severity Tools task. It explains when to use the WHODAS and
it outlines how to enter the score correctly in the NDIA Business System.
What is evidence?
Information taken from an external or internal assessment and recorded in the
Update the Severity Tools task constitutes evidence. Severity Indicator information
comes from three sources. In order of preference for plan development purposes
these are:
• Disability specific assessments
• Internal disability specific Severity Tools
• Assessments not specific to a disability type.
Disability specific assessments:
• Treating health professionals complete these assessments
• Partner or NDIA staff
cannot complete these assessments
Includes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth edition
(DSM-5) for Intellectual Disability and Autism
Internal disability specific severity tools:
• Partner and Agency staff can complete these assessments
Includes the Gross Motor Function Classification Scale (GMFCS) for Cerebral Palsy,
Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) for Stroke, Disease Steps for Multiple Sclerosis,
Hearing and Vision tools
Assessments not specific to a disability type:
• Partner and Agency staff can complete these assessments
Includes the PEDI-CAT – Paediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory Computer
Adaptive Test and WHODAS 2.0 World Health Organisation Disability Assessment
Schedule
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
15
Page 432 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
When collecting functional capacity assessment information the score of an
external
assessment needs to be provided by the participant, their nominee, their child
representative or their treating health professional.
Plan developers must:
• Sight a copy of the assessment report before the score is entered into the
Update Severity Tools section of the NDIS Business System
• Attach the evidence in the NDIA Business System
Plan developers can complete the WHODAS assessment if an external functional
capacity assessment is not available in the participant’s record or if there is no other
preferred NDIA severity tool.
What are the evidence requirements if there is no preferred external
assessment tool and plan developers apply or change an internal disability
specific severity tool? (This can include the WHODAS, PEDI-CAT, Gross Motor
Function Classification Scale (GMFCS) for cerebral palsy, the Modified Rankin Scale
for stroke, the Disease Steps for multiple sclerosis and hearing and vision tools)
There are four points for plan developers to note:
• You must sight evidence of the impact of a participant’s disability or sight
evidence of a change in function.
• Changes to severity scores must be justified in an Interaction General –
Severity indicator updated
• Scoring information must be consistent across the participant record,
including provider reports, Guided Planning Questions and the Planning
Conversation Tool
• All evidence of function must be attached to the participant’s record.
Evidence can be supplied in the form of a signed letter or a letter on formal
letterhead from the participant’s treating health professional. Evidence of the severity
of the disability should include:
• type of disability
• date disability diagnosed
• how long the disability will last
• available treatments
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
16
Page 433 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
• how the disability impacts the participant’s everyday life. For example,
mobility/movement skills, communication, social interaction, learning,
self-care, self-management.
When competing the Update Severity Tools task or the Update the WHODAS task in
Pre-Planning plan developers can ask themselves: Is the participant’s level of
function recorded in the severity tool supported by appropriate evidence? That is:
Is the chosen severity tool correct?
Is the score recorded correctly?
Is the information in in the severity tool consistent with other information in the
participant record such as the Planning Conversation Tool, Guided Planning
Questions, the Participant Statement or provider reports?
In addition, check that the primary disability is correct, that there is evidence
attached to the participant record that confirms the primary disability (and secondary
disability), that responses to the Guided Planning Questions are correct and that all
information is consistent across the participant’s record.
Pre-Planning tasks require careful attention to scores, evidence and participant
information. They are the foundation of plan development. It is equally important that
your information gathering conversation with a participant, their carer or nominee is
dynamic and strength-based, uses open-ended and probing questions to focus on
what the participant can do and how they live their day-to-day life.
This is quality Pre-Planning and leads to sound and sustainable funding decisions
and a good participant experience.
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
17
Page 434 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
DOCUMENT 36
OFFICIAL
CI Connect – Severity
Tools: Team
Facilitation Discussion
Questions
The contents of this document are OFFICIAL.
Please note, this security marking also appears in the header and
footer of this document.
Make sure protective markings and instructional text are removed
before external publication.
ndis.gov.au
Page 435 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
CI Connect – Severity Tools: Team Facilitation Discussion Questions
1
1.
Improving Participant Experience
3
2.
Pre-Planning Update the Severity Tools Task
4
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
2
Page 436 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
1.
Improving Participant Experience
As a team,
how might we prevent the issues outlined below affecting decision -
making, sustainability and the participant's experience?
• The WHODAS has captured information related to conditions other than the
eligible primary and secondary impairments.
• An Agency administered assessment was completed but the results are not
consistent with other information about function in the participant’s record.
• An internal disability specific severity tool was used and the score has been
recorded incorrectly in the NDIA Business System
• The WHODAS has been used when a disability-specific assessment is
available.
• An external assessment report does not match the score entered into the
Severity Indicator tool.
• A child (0 -16 years of age) where a suitable functional capacity assessment
is attached or referenced but has not been recorded, with only the PEDICAT
completed.
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
3
Page 437 of 438
OFFICIAL
FOI 24/25-0756 - DISCLOSURE LOG
OFFICIAL
2.
Pre-Planning Update the Severity Tools
Task
Let’s start thinking about opportunities for improvement. Think about:
• Standard Operating Procedures and Tools
• Internal assessment tools to choose from
• How to use the internal assessment tools correctly
• The human element (operator error)
• How can we support each other to get this right?
• Innovations or enhancements
What might we change, modify or build to ensure that we complete this task
correctly and that is it is evidence based?
• How do we ensure that scores entered or changed for internal severity tools
can be justified by appropriate evidence? Where do you record your decision
to change scores?
• When responses to guided planning questions are changed how can you
ensure you have appropriate evidence to justify the change.
• When circumstances require a change to the Severity tool, what does
‘sufficient evidence’ look like in order to justify this change?
• If the Severity Tool has not been updated in line with the primary disability but
rather in line with the associated impairments, what are the consequences for
the participant? Section 34.1 a-f? Sustainability?
• What are the consequences for the participant when the WHODAS is used
but a more specific assessment tool is more appropriate?
ndis.gov.au
January 2025 | eLearning Adaptation FOI
4
Page 438 of 438
OFFICIAL
