NDIS Support Worker Performance Review: Template and Best Practice Guide

Why Performance Reviews Matter for NDIS Compliance

NDIS Practice Standards Core Module Outcome 2.6 (Human Resource Management) requires that providers have systems in place to assess and improve worker performance and competency. The performance review is the primary mechanism through which this requirement is met.

For the NDIS Commission, performance reviews serve multiple purposes:

• Quality assurance: they provide a formal checkpoint to assess whether workers are delivering supports in accordance with participant support plans, the NDIS Code of Conduct, and organisational policies
• Competency verification: they confirm that workers maintain the skills and knowledge required for their role, including any mandatory competencies for medication administration, manual handling, or behaviour support
• Continuous improvement: they identify training needs, career development opportunities, and areas where the organisation's systems may need strengthening
• Risk management: they create an early warning system for identifying workers whose performance may put participants at risk, enabling intervention before a serious incident occurs
• Audit evidence: completed review documents in worker files demonstrate to auditors that the organisation has an active, systematic approach to workforce management

Review Frequency and Timing

The NDIS Practice Standards do not prescribe a specific frequency for performance reviews. However, best practice — and the standard most auditors expect — is:

For small providers with limited management capacity, the minimum expectation is an annual formal performance review with documentation. If you are conducting regular supervision and documenting it, auditors will generally view your performance management system favourably even if formal annual reviews are your only structured review mechanism.

Performance Criteria for Disability Support Workers

Performance criteria should be specific, observable, and linked to the worker's position description, the NDIS Code of Conduct, and the organisation's policies. Generic criteria like "does a good job" are not sufficient — auditors expect to see criteria that are meaningful and measurable in the context of disability support.

Recommended Performance Criteria

Rating Scale

A simple, clear rating scale makes reviews more consistent and objective. A four-point scale works well for disability support:

• Exceeds expectations: consistently performs above the standard expected for the role
• Meets expectations: consistently performs at the standard expected for the role
• Developing: performance is improving but has not yet reached the expected standard (common for new workers)
• Below expectations: performance is below the expected standard and requires a performance improvement plan

Avoid using a five-point scale with a "neutral" middle option, as it encourages evaluators to default to the middle. A four-point scale forces a clear assessment of whether performance meets or does not meet expectations.

Competency Assessment

Competency assessment goes beyond general performance evaluation — it assesses whether the worker has the specific skills and knowledge required to perform their role safely. This is particularly important for tasks that carry direct safety implications for participants.

Key Competencies to Assess

• Medication administration: the six rights of medication administration, using the MAR correctly, recognising and responding to medication errors, PRN medication protocols
• Manual handling: correct use of hoists and transfer equipment, participant-specific transfer techniques, recognising and reporting manual handling risks
• Infection control: hand hygiene, PPE use, standard precautions, managing blood and body fluid spills
• Emergency response: evacuation procedures, first aid response, calling emergency services, emergency equipment locations
• Behaviour support: understanding and implementing behaviour support plans, de-escalation techniques, use of authorised restrictive practices (where applicable)
• Documentation: writing NDIS-compliant progress notes, accurate medication recording, incident reporting

How to Assess Competency

Competency should be assessed through a combination of methods:

• Direct observation: the supervisor observes the worker performing the task and assesses against defined criteria
• Knowledge questions: verbal or written questions to assess the worker's understanding of procedures and protocols
• Scenario-based assessment: present the worker with a hypothetical scenario (e.g., "What would you do if you found a medication error?") and assess their response
• Document review: review the worker's documentation (progress notes, MARs, incident reports) for accuracy and completeness

Competency assessment results should be recorded on a competency assessment form and filed in the worker's personnel file. If a worker is assessed as not yet competent in a particular area, a plan for achieving competency (additional training, supervised practice) should be documented and followed up.

Linking Performance to Participant Outcomes

One of the most meaningful aspects of performance reviews in the disability sector is the connection between worker performance and participant outcomes. This is also an area that auditors increasingly focus on — not just whether workers are following procedures, but whether the support they provide is actually helping participants achieve their goals.

How to Incorporate Participant Outcomes

• Review participant progress: for each participant the worker regularly supports, review progress toward NDIS plan goals during the review period. Are participants making progress? If not, is the worker's support approach a contributing factor?
• Participant feedback: where possible, seek feedback from participants (or their representatives) about the quality of support they receive from the worker. This can be formal (questionnaires) or informal (verbal feedback during supervision).
• Progress note quality: review a sample of the worker's progress notes. Are they documenting participant engagement, choices, and progress toward goals? Or are they generic, task-focused records that say little about the participant's experience?
• Support plan alignment: assess whether the worker is delivering support in accordance with participant support plans, or whether their approach has drifted from the planned model of support.

Documentation Requirements for Audits

Auditors will request evidence of performance reviews during certification and mid-term audits. The minimum documentation they expect to see includes:

• A completed performance review form for each worker, dated within the last 12 months
• The worker's signature acknowledging the review and its outcomes
• The reviewer's signature and position
• Specific, documented feedback — not just ticked boxes
• A professional development plan identifying training needs and goals for the next period
• Evidence of follow-up on development goals from the previous review
• Where underperformance was identified, evidence of a performance improvement plan

Common Documentation Failures

The following are frequently identified as non-conformities or areas for improvement during audits:

• No reviews on file: the organisation says it conducts reviews but has no documentation to prove it
• Reviews without dates: making it impossible to determine when the review occurred or whether it was within the expected timeframe
• Generic feedback: all workers receive the same boilerplate feedback with no individualised assessment
• No follow-up on previous goals: the review identifies development goals but the next review shows no follow-up on whether they were achieved
• Missing signatures: the form is completed but not signed by the worker or the reviewer
• No link to supervision: the review exists in isolation with no connection to regular supervision records

Addressing Underperformance

When a performance review identifies that a worker is not meeting the expected standard, the provider has both a compliance obligation and an employment law obligation to manage the situation appropriately.

Performance Improvement Plan

A performance improvement plan (PIP) is a structured, documented process for helping a worker improve their performance. It should include:

1. Specific identification of the concern: what exactly is the performance issue? Be specific — "documentation quality is below standard" is better than "needs to improve."
2. Expected standard: what does acceptable performance look like in this area? Reference the position description and relevant policies.
3. Support and training: what will the organisation provide to help the worker improve? This might include additional training, mentoring, or modified duties.
4. Timeline: how long does the worker have to demonstrate improvement? Typically 4-8 weeks depending on the nature of the concern.
5. Review date: when will the worker's performance be formally reassessed?
6. Consequences: what happens if improvement does not occur? This may include further disciplinary action or termination.

Both the worker and the supervisor should sign the PIP. The worker should be given the opportunity to respond to the concerns and to have a support person present during performance management meetings.

When Immediate Action Is Required

Some performance issues are too serious to manage through a gradual improvement process. If a worker's performance puts participants at immediate risk — including suspected abuse, neglect, or serious breaches of the NDIS Code of Conduct — the provider must take immediate action, which may include:

• Suspending the worker (with pay) pending investigation
• Reporting the matter to the NDIS Commission if it constitutes a reportable incident
• Reporting to the relevant worker screening unit if the matter relates to the worker's suitability to hold a screening clearance
• Notifying police if criminal conduct is suspected

These obligations exist under the NDIS Act 2013 and the applicable state/territory worker screening legislation. Failure to take appropriate action when a worker poses a risk to participants can itself constitute a compliance breach and may jeopardise the provider's registration.

---

Performance Review Process Summary