Annotated examples of well-structured NDIS reports across allied health disciplines. See what good looks like, and where most reports fall short.
Reading other practitioners' reports is one of the fastest ways to improve your own. Most allied health training programmes spend minimal time on NDIS-specific report writing, and many practitioners learn by trial and error, getting feedback from plan managers or support coordinators after the report has already been submitted.
This guide provides annotated excerpts from well-structured NDIS reports across five disciplines. All examples use fictional participants and fictional data. The annotations explain what makes each excerpt effective and where most reports fall short on the same section.
Before looking at discipline-specific examples, here is what the best NDIS reports have in common. They use specific, functional language rather than clinical jargon. They compare current function to a documented baseline. They address every funded goal, including goals not yet commenced. They quantify every recommendation with hours, frequency, and NDIS line item codes. They explicitly link the participant's functional limitations to their disability. And they are structured clearly enough that a non-clinical planner can find what they need without reading every word. None of this is complex. Most of it is just discipline about including the right details in the right sections.
Weak version: 'Participant has shown improvement in self-care and is engaging well in OT sessions. Progress is being made toward independence goals.' This tells the planner nothing specific. What self-care tasks? How much improvement? Compared to what? Strong version: 'Goal 1: Participant will develop skills to independently manage personal hygiene tasks. Status: On track. At the start of the reporting period, Participant required full physical assistance for all components of showering, including transfers, washing, and drying. Following 12 fortnightly sessions focused on task sequencing and upper limb strengthening, Participant now completes washing and drying independently with a shower chair (provided) and verbal prompts for sequencing. Physical assistance is still required for transfers in and out of the shower recess. COPM performance score improved from 2.4 to 5.8 (reassessed 15 March 2026).' The second version gives the planner a baseline, a current state, the intervention, and an objective measure.
Weak version: 'Participant's communication skills have been assessed and show delays across several areas.' Strong version: 'Formal assessment using the CELF-5 (administered 22 February 2026) produced the following results: Core Language Score 62 (1st percentile, 95% CI 57-69), Receptive Language Index 65 (1st percentile), Expressive Language Index 63 (1st percentile). These scores indicate a severe language disorder affecting both understanding and expression. In practical terms, Participant follows single-step instructions reliably but loses track of two-step instructions in noisy environments. Expressive language is limited to three to four word sentences. Participant uses a combination of speech and Key Word Sign to communicate with familiar adults but is not understood by unfamiliar listeners approximately 60% of the time, based on parent report and clinic observation.' The second version presents the scores, interprets them, and connects them to daily communication.
Weak version: 'Assessment results indicate significant cognitive difficulties that impact Participant's daily functioning.' Strong version: 'WISC-V assessment (administered 10 January 2026) produced a Full-Scale IQ of 58 (95% CI 54-64), placing overall cognitive ability in the Extremely Low range (<0.3rd percentile). The Working Memory Index (55) and Processing Speed Index (60) were the most affected areas. In daily life, these results mean Participant cannot follow a sequence of more than two instructions without visual support. They require approximately three times longer than same-age peers to complete written schoolwork. They forget the beginning of a sentence by the time they reach the end, which affects their ability to participate in classroom discussions and follow teacher directions. Homework tasks that their classmates complete in 20 minutes take Participant over an hour, with frequent carer prompting required throughout.' The functional translation is what converts assessment data into a case for funding.
Weak version: 'Continued physiotherapy is recommended to maintain and improve mobility.' Strong version: 'Recommendations for the next plan period: 1. Individual physiotherapy: 26 x 60-minute sessions per year (fortnightly), under Improved Daily Living (07_004_0118_6_3). Focus: progressive lower limb strengthening, balance retraining, and community mobility practice. Justification: Participant's Berg Balance Scale score of 34/56 indicates moderate fall risk. Falls history (3 falls in the past 6 months, 1 requiring ED attendance) supports continued supervised balance and gait training. 2. Hydrotherapy: 12 x 45-minute sessions per year (monthly), under Improved Daily Living (07_004_0118_6_3). Focus: pain management and mobility in a low-impact environment. Participant reports pain levels of 7/10 (NRS) during land-based exercise, reducing to 3/10 in warm water. 3. Rollator walker replacement: current Invacare Rollite (purchased 2022) has worn brake cables and buckled front wheels. Recommend Hugo Elite rollator (product code HUG10272), estimated cost $289. Quote attached from Independent Living Centre.' Every recommendation is quantified, justified, and actionable.
Weak version: 'Participant has improved fitness and is engaging well in the exercise programme.' Strong version: 'Goal 2: Participant will develop physical capacity to walk independently to the bus stop (approximately 350m) for community access. Status: Achieved. Baseline 6-Minute Walk Test (conducted 12 July 2025): 210m, with two seated rest breaks. Current 6-Minute Walk Test (conducted 15 March 2026): 380m, no rest breaks required. Participant now walks to the bus stop independently three times per week and catches the bus to their day programme without carer support. This goal has been achieved. Recommended next goal: increase walking endurance to manage a return trip (700m total) with grocery shopping bags.' The outcome measure is directly linked to a real-world activity. The planner can see the change.
Across all disciplines, the same patterns separate weak reports from strong ones. 'Has improved' becomes 'Can now do X, compared to Y at baseline.' 'Engaging well' becomes 'Attended 22 of 24 scheduled sessions and completed all home exercise programme activities between sessions.' 'Continued therapy is recommended' becomes '26 hours per year under Improved Daily Living (07_004).' 'Participant faces challenges' becomes 'Participant was hospitalised for 3 weeks in November, which interrupted the exercise programme and required a 4-week reconditioning period.' Specific, measurable, and honest. That is the standard.
Adapt structure, not content
These examples show effective structure and language patterns. Every participant is different. Use the patterns as a guide for your own reports, not as text to copy and paste.
Focus on what the planner needs
The annotations highlight the specific elements planners look for: baseline comparisons, specific functional descriptions, quantified recommendations, and explicit disability-function links. If your report includes these elements in every section, it is doing its job.
Review your own recent report
After reading these examples, open the last report you submitted. Does it meet the same standard? If not, you now know what to change. Most practitioners find two or three consistent weaknesses they can fix across all future reports.
Set up your clinic in under 2 minutes. No credit card required.
Or email us at support@secondshift.com.au to book a personal onboarding call.