NDIS Case Notes Examples for Support Coordinators: What Good Documentation Looks Like

"Date: 6 April 2026, 10:00–11:15. Activity: Initial telephone contact with participant and mother.

Participant: Anika (DOB [date]). Plan period: [date] to [date]. Funding: Support Coordination ($X), Capacity Building Supports ($X), Core Supports ($X). Plan managed by: NDIA (agency managed).

Attendees: Anika (participant), [Mother's name] (carer/parent, present at Anika's request). Support coordinator: [Name].

Key information gathered:
— Anika is 23 years old and lives at home with her mother. She has autism spectrum disorder (Level 2, based on plan information). No previous NDIS plan — this is her first plan.
— Anika's primary plan goals as per the plan document: (1) To develop skills to live more independently; (2) To increase social participation with peers; (3) To develop skills for part-time employment.
— Anika's current situation: No supports in place yet. She recently finished secondary school and is at home full-time. She is keen to start attending a social group and exploring employment options.
— Anika expressed preference for female support workers. This has been noted and will be actioned when sourcing providers.
— Anika's mother expressed concern about Anika's level of anxiety about meeting new people — this will be factored into provider selection (providers with experience in autism and anxiety preferred).

Coordination priorities identified:
1. Identify support worker provider for daily living/skill building support (high priority — no supports currently in place)
2. Research social/community participation groups suitable for Anika's interests (music, art)
3. Connect with Disability Employment Services (DES) provider for employment pathway

Next steps:
— SC to send shortlist of 3 direct support providers to Anika by [date]
— SC to research local DES providers by [date]
— Follow-up call scheduled: [date] at 10:00

Conflict of interest disclosure: [Organisation name] also delivers direct support services. This was disclosed to Anika and her mother. See separate conflict of interest disclosure note. Anika confirmed she understands and wished to proceed."

"Date: 6 April 2026, 14:00–15:30. Activity: Provider sourcing and linkage — Direct Support Worker.

Context: Following initial contact on [date], SC sourced direct support worker options aligned with Michael's expressed preferences (male worker, experience with cerebral palsy, availability Tuesdays and Thursdays 9am–2pm).

Providers contacted:
1. [Provider A]: Confirmed vacancy and matching worker available. Rate: $67.50/hr (within NDIS price guide). Discussed services with intake coordinator [Name]. Provider registered with NDIS Commission (Registration No. [XXXXX] verified).
2. [Provider B]: No suitable male workers with CP experience available at present.
3. [Provider C]: Rate above NDIS price guide limit — unable to proceed.

Provider presented to Michael:
SC called Michael at 15:00 and presented [Provider A] as the recommended option, explaining the worker's experience and availability. Michael agreed to proceed with [Provider A]. SC emailed [Provider A] intake coordinator to confirm engagement and requested a service agreement be sent to Michael within 5 business days.

Service agreement status: Pending — expected by [date].
First support date confirmed: [date] at 09:00.
Introductory meeting: Arranged for [date] at Michael's home — SC to attend first 30 minutes.

NDIS Plan Manager (agency managed) notified of new provider via myplace portal service booking.

Next step: Confirm receipt of service agreement by [date]. Review after first 4 weeks of support."

"Date: 6 April 2026, 16:45. Activity: Crisis support coordination — urgent participant contact.

Nature of crisis: SC received telephone call from Rebecca at 16:45. Rebecca was distressed and reported that her current SIL provider has given her notice of vacancy closure — the house she lives in will close in 6 weeks due to the provider exiting the market. Rebecca stated she has nowhere else to go and is extremely anxious about housing. She has no family in the area.

Immediate response:
16:50 — SC contacted Rebecca's plan manager to flag the urgent need for alternative SIL funding to be activated. Plan manager confirmed existing SIL funding can be redirected. Spoke with [Name] at plan management company — action noted.

17:00 — SC contacted Rebecca's current provider to obtain written confirmation of the closure notice and the specific closure date ([date]). Confirmed: closure date is 6 weeks from today. Provider agreed to provide a transition plan by [date].

17:15 — SC contacted 3 SIL providers in Rebecca's local area to check for vacancies:
— Provider X: No vacancy
— Provider Y: Potential vacancy in 8 weeks — may not meet timeline. Requested to be added to waitlist.
— Provider Z: Vacancy available now. Spoke with intake coordinator [Name]. Rebecca's needs discussed — Provider Z confirmed they can support Rebecca's profile. SC to arrange site visit for Rebecca this week.

17:30 — SC called Rebecca to update her: one strong lead (Provider Z), site visit being arranged. Rebecca reported feeling less anxious after the update. SC provided Rebecca with crisis support line number in case of further distress overnight.

Next steps:
— Provider Z site visit arranged for [date] — Rebecca and SC to attend
— NDIA contact to request expedited plan variation if additional SIL capacity needed
— Review provider's transition plan when received
— Follow-up call with Rebecca tomorrow morning at 10:00

Total coordination time: 90 minutes. This contact is charged to SC funding."

"Date: 6 April 2026, 11:00–12:30. Activity: Plan review preparation — home visit with Daniel.

Daniel's plan is due for review on [date]. SC attended Daniel's home to support him to prepare for the review meeting. Daniel's mother was also present.

Progress review completed:
SC and Daniel reviewed each plan goal and current progress:
Goal 1 (Increase independence in daily living): Daniel has moved from requiring full support for morning routine to requiring prompts for only 2 of 7 steps. Support worker progress notes (from [Provider Name], reviewed today) document this progression. Evidence: progress notes file, to be provided to NDIA.
Goal 2 (Develop cooking skills): Daniel can prepare 4 meals independently (up from 0 at plan commencement). Evidence: cooking programme session notes.
Goal 3 (Increase community participation): Daniel is now attending 2 regular community activities per week independently (library and gym). Evidence: transport booking records and progress notes.

What Daniel is seeking in the next plan:
Daniel stated he wants: (1) Continued support coordination; (2) Continued support worker hours for remaining skill gaps; (3) Explore whether employment support would be appropriate. Daniel's mother agreed with these priorities.

Evidence package prepared:
SC compiled the following to submit to NDIA pre-review:
— Support coordinator progress summary report (to be finalised by [date])
— Progress notes excerpt (last 3 months) from support worker provider
— OT functional assessment summary
— Letter from employment service provider re: Daniel's readiness for employment support

SC explained the plan review process to Daniel in plain language. Daniel confirmed he understands. Plan review meeting confirmed for [date] at [location]. SC to attend and advocate on Daniel's behalf.

Next step: SC to finalise progress summary report by [date]."

"Date: 6 April 2026. Activity: Conflict of interest disclosure — initial intake documentation.

Nature of conflict: [Organisation Name] provides both Support Coordination services and direct support services (personal care, community access) registered under NDIS Registration Groups 0106 and 0120. The support coordinator assigned to [Participant Name] is employed by [Organisation Name]. This creates a potential conflict of interest where the SC could recommend the participant uses [Organisation Name]'s own direct support services, which would benefit the organisation financially.

Disclosure made to: [Participant Name] and [Guardian/Nominee name, if applicable] on [date] at initial contact. SC explained in plain language: (1) the nature of the conflict; (2) that [Participant Name] is not required to use [Organisation Name]'s direct support services; (3) that the SC will present all suitable provider options and the decision is entirely the participant's; (4) that the participant can request a different support coordinator or organisation at any time without penalty.

Participant's understanding confirmed: [Participant Name] confirmed they understood the conflict and wished to proceed with the current arrangement. [Guardian] also confirmed understanding.

Management of conflict: The SC will: (1) Always present at least 3 provider options when sourcing services, including options from outside [Organisation Name]; (2) Document the basis for any recommendation of [Organisation Name]'s own services, including the participant's specific reasons for selecting them; (3) Advise the participant of their right to change providers at any time.

Review: Conflict of interest disclosure to be re-confirmed at each plan review. This disclosure is retained on file and can be provided to the NDIA or NDIS Commission on request."

"Date: 6 April 2026, 09:30. Activity: Complaint/feedback received from participant — documented per complaints policy.

Complaint received: SC received a telephone call from Sam at 09:30. Sam expressed significant dissatisfaction with his current support worker provider, [Provider Name]. Sam reported: (1) His regular support worker has been absent for the past 3 weeks with no explanation provided; (2) Three different 'fill-in' workers have been sent without introduction or briefing; (3) On one occasion (approx. [date]), a fill-in worker arrived and did not know Sam's support plan at all, which Sam found distressing and which resulted in his morning routine being completed incorrectly.

SC response:
09:45 — SC acknowledged Sam's concerns and validated his experience. SC confirmed with Sam that he wished the SC to raise these concerns with the provider directly. Sam agreed and stated he wants the original worker back or to discuss alternatives.

09:50 — SC telephoned [Provider Name] Operations Manager ([Name]) and communicated Sam's concerns. Operations Manager acknowledged the issue — confirmed the regular worker is on extended personal leave and that the fill-in worker coordination had been poorly managed. Operations Manager committed to: (1) Personally briefing the next fill-in worker on Sam's support plan before the next shift; (2) Contacting Sam directly to apologise and explain the situation; (3) Providing SC with a written response within 5 business days.

10:05 — SC called Sam to report back on the conversation with the provider, including the provider's commitments. Sam was satisfied with the response for now but stated he would consider changing providers if the situation recurred.

Documentation: Sam's complaint entered into the SC's complaints register. Follow-up review scheduled for [date]. If not resolved satisfactorily, SC will support Sam to explore alternative providers and, if warranted, make a complaint to the NDIS Commission."

"Date: 6 April 2026, 14:00–15:00. Activity: Monthly goal review — telephone call with Carmen.

Goal review:
Goal 1 (Increase social connections): Carmen reported she has made a friend at her weekly art group — they have exchanged phone numbers and texted three times this week. Carmen described this as "a big deal for me" and appeared emotionally positive. Progress: ahead of expectation.

Goal 2 (Improve cooking skills): Carmen reported she cooked a meal for her flatmate this week using the recipe from her cooking programme — first time cooking for another person. Reported significant confidence boost. Progress: on track.

Goal 3 (Explore part-time work): Carmen discussed this goal and indicated her priorities have shifted — she feels she is not yet ready for employment and would prefer to focus on the social connection and cooking goals for now. Carmen stated clearly: "I want to drop the work goal for now — I'll bring it back when I feel ready." SC discussed this with Carmen, confirmed it is her decision, and agreed the employment exploration support will be paused. Carmen confirmed she wants this change noted in her file. SC will advise her support workers of the updated priority.

Goal update documented: Goal 3 (employment) paused at participant's request. Carmen's file updated. Support workers to be notified of updated priorities via team leader at [Provider Name].

Next monthly review: [date]. SC will contact Carmen 2 days prior to confirm she still wishes to proceed with the paused employment goal or maintain the current focus."

"Date: 6 April 2026. Activity: Provider performance concern documented.

Nature of concern: SC has received two separate reports (from participant Jake and Jake's mother) over the past 3 weeks suggesting that [Provider Name]'s support workers are regularly arriving late — typically 15–30 minutes past the scheduled shift start time. On one occasion (approx. [date]) a worker did not arrive at all for a 2-hour shift and no contact was made by the provider to Jake or his family until Jake's mother called.

SC investigation: SC reviewed Jake's shift records for the past month (provided by Jake's mother): 7 of 12 documented shifts show arrival times 10–30 minutes late. One shift is noted as not attended.

Actions taken:
SC contacted [Provider Name] Operations Manager by telephone ([date]). SC presented the documented attendance pattern and outlined the impact on Jake (Jake becomes anxious when workers are late; the missed shift left Jake alone for 2 hours beyond his safe-to-be-alone tolerance).

Provider response: Operations Manager acknowledged the pattern was "not acceptable" and attributed it to recent staff shortages. Provider has agreed to: (1) Confirm shift attendance 30 minutes before start time going forward; (2) Ensure Jake is never left without a worker for more than 30 minutes before alternative arrangements are made; (3) Provide SC with a written improvement plan within 7 days.

SC informed Jake and his mother of the actions taken. They agreed to continue with the provider while monitoring improvement.

Review: SC to check attendance records in 4 weeks. If attendance pattern does not improve, SC will discuss provider transition options with Jake and his family, and will document the performance concerns in Jake's file as evidence for any plan variation request."