NDIS Changes: What Does Good Evidence Look Like?

NDIS Changes -What Does Good Evidence Actually Look Like in Community Access?

21 September, 2026

NDIS Changes: What Does Good Evidence Look Like?

Turning everyday support into meaningful functional evidence

In our previous article, we explored why functional capacity and evidence are becoming increasingly important across the NDIS.

Understanding why evidence matters, however, leads to an equally important question:

What does good evidence actually look like in everyday support?

Community Access can provide valuable opportunities to observe how a participant manages everyday activities within real-world environments.

However, the value of these observations depends considerably on the quality of the information captured.

There is an important distinction between documenting what activity took place and documenting how the participant functioned while undertaking that activity.

That distinction can begin with something as routine as a progress note.

Documenting an activity vs documenting functional observations

Consider the following progress note:

“Participant prepared lunch during Community Access and completed the activity.”

This tells us what the participant did.

However, it provides limited information about how the participant managed the activity, the level of independence demonstrated, or whether assistance was required.

Now compare it with:

“Participant independently selected the ingredients needed to prepare lunch. They required two verbal prompts to follow the correct preparation sequence and one reminder to check that the stovetop had been turned off. The participant completed plating and cleaned the workspace independently.”

The activity remains the same, but the quality and functional relevance of the information captured are substantially different.

The second note provides observable information across several areas:

Independence: The participant independently selected ingredients, plated the meal and cleaned the workspace.
Prompting: Two verbal prompts were required to support task sequencing.
Safety: A reminder was required to check the stovetop.
Task completion: Several stages were completed independently, while specific stages required support.
Support requirements: The observation identifies more precisely where assistance was and was not required.

This distinction is relevant because current NDIA guidance considers functional evidence in relation to the tasks a person can complete, where support is required, the nature of that support and, where relevant, how frequently assistance is needed.

The purpose, therefore, is not simply to record that an activity occurred.

It is to capture objective information about how the participant engaged with and completed the activity.

What should we actually be observing?

Everyday activities can involve multiple aspects of functional capacity.

Preparing a meal, for example, may involve:

making choices
recalling and following instructions
sequencing tasks
safely using equipment
problem-solving
communicating
initiating different stages of an activity
recognising when something has gone wrong
seeking assistance when required
completing tasks independently.

A community-based activity may provide opportunities to observe different aspects of functioning.

A participant may need to navigate an unfamiliar environment, communicate with an unfamiliar person, manage money, follow directions, make decisions or respond to an unexpected change.

Current NDIA information describes functional capacity across six broad areas: communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care and self-management.

The purpose of Community Access documentation is not to transform every support session into a formal assessment.

Rather, it is to recognise when meaningful functional observations naturally occur and ensure those observations are documented objectively and within the appropriate context.

One observation provides information. Consistency can reveal a pattern.

A single observation can provide useful information about functional performance at a particular point in time.

When comparable observations are documented consistently, they can begin to provide a longitudinal picture of how capacity and support requirements present over time.

Consider the meal-preparation example.

Instead of repeatedly documenting:

“Participant prepared lunch.”

documentation across several supports might show:

Week 1: Two verbal prompts required to complete the preparation sequence.

Week 4: One verbal prompt required to complete the sequence.

Week 8: Preparation sequence completed independently within the familiar environment.

This creates a baseline against which subsequent observations can be compared.

However, functional performance may also vary according to the activity or environment.

The same participant may independently prepare a familiar meal but require additional prompting when following an unfamiliar recipe.

They may demonstrate independence within a familiar kitchen but require additional assistance when undertaking a similar task in a different environment.

Their support requirements may decrease, remain relatively stable or increase over time.

Each of these observations may contribute relevant information.

Importantly, the purpose of functional documentation is not to demonstrate improvement in every instance. It is to accurately record capacity, support requirements, stability, change and emerging barriers as they are observed.

Context matters

Functional performance does not occur in isolation.

The environment, familiarity of the activity, complexity of the task and presence of unexpected changes may all influence what is observed.

For example:

“Participant completed the activity independently.”

This statement may appear useful, but additional context can substantially change its meaning.

Was the environment familiar?
Had the participant completed the activity many times previously?
Were instructions or visual supports available?
Was supervision present?
What occurred when the usual routine changed?

Consider another example:

“Participant used public transport independently.”

A more functionally informative observation might state:

“Participant independently identified and boarded their usual bus. When the usual stop was temporarily closed, the participant required verbal prompting to identify the alternative stop and reassurance before continuing the journey.”

This provides observable information about both independence within a familiar routine and the support required when an unexpected environmental change occurred.

Documenting relevant context can therefore contribute to a more accurate understanding of functional performance.

From individual progress notes to longitudinal evidence

The value of consistent documentation becomes increasingly apparent when observations can be considered across weeks or months.

Over time, it may become possible to examine questions such as:

Is the frequency of prompting increasing or decreasing?
Is the participant initiating tasks independently?
Does functional performance differ between familiar and unfamiliar environments?
Are agreed strategies being implemented, and what is objectively observed when they are used?
Are previously identified barriers changing?
Has the nature, frequency or intensity of assistance changed?

These observations may contribute to identifying patterns in functional performance and support requirements.

This does not mean every progress note needs to become lengthy or overly complex.

Better documentation does not necessarily mean more documentation.

It means capturing information that is objective, relevant, specific and useful.

What should good Community Access documentation capture?

A practical starting point is to consider seven questions.

1. What could the participant do independently?

Identify which components of the activity were completed without assistance.

Rather than:

“Participant did well making lunch.”

consider documenting the observable behaviour:

“Participant independently selected ingredients, prepared the sandwich and cleaned the workspace.”

The second statement records what occurred without relying on subjective interpretation.

2. Where was support required?

Identify the specific stage at which assistance became necessary.

For example:

“Participant independently located the bus stop but required verbal prompting to identify the correct service.”

This provides more functionally relevant information than:

“Participant needed help catching the bus.”

3. What type of support was provided?

Where relevant, identify the nature of the assistance provided.

This might include:

verbal prompting
visual prompting
demonstration
reassurance
supervision
physical assistance
another form of support.

Identifying the type of assistance provides greater context than simply recording that support was required.

4. What was the frequency or level of support required?

Where it can be recorded accurately, include objective information about the frequency or level of assistance.

For example:

“Three verbal prompts were required during the activity.”

This provides a clearer reference point for future comparison than:

“Participant needed some prompting.”

Where appropriate, repeated observations can then indicate whether the nature or frequency of support is changing over time.

5. What happened when the environment or activity changed?

Everyday environments are not always predictable.

A bus may be cancelled.

A shop may not have an expected item.

An activity may move to another location.

An unfamiliar person may initiate a conversation.

Where relevant, documenting the participant’s observable response and any support provided can offer useful information about functional performance when circumstances differ from the expected routine.

6. Were agreed strategies used?

Where an OT, Behaviour Support Practitioner or other relevant professional has developed an agreed strategy, documentation can record whether that strategy was implemented during support and what was objectively observed.

The distinction between observation and clinical interpretation is important.

For example:

“Staff followed the agreed visual schedule. Participant referred to the schedule before each stage of the activity and completed four of the five stages without verbal prompting.”

This records an observable outcome.

It does not attempt to draw a clinical conclusion beyond the support worker’s role or expertise.

7. What changed from previous observations?

Where comparable previous observations are available, consider whether there has been a change in functional performance or support requirements.

Has the frequency of prompting changed?
Has the participant begun initiating parts of the activity independently?
Is additional assistance now required?
Can a skill previously demonstrated in one environment also be demonstrated in another?
Have new environmental or functional barriers emerged?

Consistent observations over time can contribute to a clearer longitudinal picture of capacity, support requirements and change.

Everyday observations and professional assessments have different roles

Everyday support documentation should remain clearly distinguished from formal professional assessment.

The NDIA describes a Functional Capacity Assessment as an assessment undertaken by an appropriately qualified health professional to examine a person’s ability to undertake everyday activities.

Community Access observations and provider progress notes serve a different purpose.

Current NDIA guidance recognises that information about the impact of disability on everyday life may come from multiple sources. This can include participants, treating professionals, carers, support workers, community services and provider case notes.

Objective and consistent Community Access documentation can therefore contribute real-world contextual information to the broader evidence picture, while remaining distinct from formal clinical assessment and professional interpretation.

This distinction is important.

The purpose is not for support workers to make clinical conclusions.

It is to accurately document what they observe.

Putting this thinking into practice

This approach forms part of the thinking behind Evidence Based Community Access at Therapeutic Support.

Rather than beginning only with:

“What activity are we doing today?”

we want to understand the participant’s goals and, where relevant, the strategies they and their broader support team are working towards.

Community-based activities can then provide natural opportunities to practise skills, implement agreed strategies and observe functional performance within everyday environments.

The objective is not to turn every Community Access activity into an assessment.

It is to ensure that when meaningful functional observations naturally occur during support, they are not lost.

An individual observation provides information about a particular activity at a particular point in time.

When relevant observations are documented objectively and consistently, however, they can begin to provide a broader longitudinal picture of:

what the participant can do independently,

where support is required,

the nature and frequency of that support,

how functional performance presents across different environments,

and whether these patterns change over time.

That is where Community Access documentation can become more than a record of where someone went or what activity they completed.

It can contribute meaningful, real-world information about how a participant functions, what support they require and how that picture presents over time.

At Therapeutic Support, we are putting this approach into practice through our Evidence Based Community Access model, where everyday activities are connected to participant goals and supported by objective, consistent documentation. Our focus is to ensure that meaningful observations of functional capacity, support requirements and progress are captured over time, providing useful real-world context that can contribute to the participant’s broader evidence picture.