When should I write an NDIS plan review report?

You should write a plan review report when the participant's NDIS plan is approaching its end date and a new plan will be developed, when the participant has requested a plan reassessment (also called a 'change of circumstances' review), or when the support coordinator or NDIA planner has specifically requested updated evidence from treating providers. Ideally, submit your report at least four to six weeks before the plan end date to ensure it is available for the planning meeting.

How is a plan review report different from the initial NDIS assessment?

The initial assessment establishes eligibility, provides a comprehensive diagnostic picture, and describes baseline functional capacity. A plan review report focuses on what has happened during the current plan period — progress against goals, how funded supports were used, what worked, what did not, and what is needed going forward. You do not need to re-establish the diagnosis or re-describe the full clinical history unless there has been a significant change.

What if the participant has not made progress during the plan period?

Document this honestly. Lack of progress does not mean supports should be withdrawn — it may indicate that the current level of support is insufficient, that the participant experienced setbacks (hospitalisation, life events, provider gaps), or that the goals were unrealistic. Explain the reasons for limited progress and use this to justify modified or increased supports in the next plan. The NDIA does not expect linear improvement for permanent disabilities.

Should I recommend the same supports or different ones?

Base your recommendations on the evidence from the current plan period. If supports were effective and ongoing need exists, recommend continuation with justification. If supports were insufficient, recommend increases. If certain supports were not used or were ineffective, explain why and recommend alternatives. Every recommendation should be evidence-based and linked to the participant's current goals.

NDIS Plan Review Report Template for Psychologists

International|10 min read|Updated 2026-03-20|Clinically reviewed

What Is an NDIS Plan Review Report?

An NDIS plan review report is a clinical document prepared by a treating psychologist to inform the development of a participant's next NDIS plan. It summarises the psychological services delivered during the current plan period, evaluates the participant's progress toward their stated NDIS goals, and provides evidence-based recommendations for supports in the upcoming plan.

Plan reviews are a critical touchpoint in the NDIS cycle. The quality of evidence provided by treating professionals directly influences the level of funding a participant receives. A vague or poorly structured plan review report can result in reduced funding — even when the participant's needs have not changed or have increased. Conversely, a well-written report that clearly documents functional need, links progress to specific supports, and justifies ongoing or increased funding gives the NDIA planner the evidence they need to build an appropriate plan.

Your report serves as a bridge between what has happened and what needs to happen next. It is not a progress note compilation — it is a structured argument supported by clinical evidence.

When You Need It

You will write a plan review report in these circumstances:

Scheduled plan reviews — NDIS plans typically last 12 to 24 months. Before the plan end date, participants undergo a review where updated evidence informs the next plan.
Participant-requested reviews — a participant can request a plan reassessment at any time if their circumstances have changed. Your report provides the clinical evidence supporting the request.
Section 100 reviews — when the NDIA initiates a review, often due to concerns about plan utilisation or changed circumstances.
Following significant life events — hospitalisation, family breakdown, loss of informal supports, or functional deterioration may prompt a mid-plan review requiring updated clinical evidence.
AAT appeals — when a participant is challenging their current plan, a detailed review report from treating providers is often requested as evidence.

Key Components / Requirements

Participant and Plan Details

Include the participant's name, date of birth, NDIS number, current plan dates, and your provider details. Reference the specific NDIS goals from the current plan — you should have these from the participant's plan document.

Services Delivered Summary

Provide a clear summary of the psychological services delivered during the plan period. Include the number of sessions attended, the dates of service, the type of intervention provided, and the funding category used. Note any sessions that were not utilised and explain why (waitlists, participant disengagement, insufficient funding, provider gaps).

Progress Against NDIS Goals

Address each NDIS goal individually. For each goal, describe the participant's baseline at the start of the plan, the interventions used to work toward the goal, measurable progress made, and the current status. Use concrete, functional language — not clinical jargon. Where possible, include standardised outcome measures administered at the start and end of the plan period.

Current Functional Capacity

Provide an updated description of the participant's functional capacity across relevant domains. This is not a full reassessment but an updated clinical picture. Highlight areas of improvement, areas of stability, and areas of decline.

Barriers to Progress

Document any factors that limited progress during the plan period — insufficient funded hours, provider shortages, participant health events, changes in informal supports, environmental factors, or comorbid conditions.

Recommendations for Next Plan

Recommend specific supports for the next plan period. Justify each recommendation with evidence from the current plan. Frame recommendations using NDIS support categories and, where possible, reference the NDIS Price Guide line items.

NDIS Plan Review Report — Psychology Provider

NDIS Plan Review Report — Psychological Services

Participant: Amara Williams (she/her) Date of Birth: 22/07/1994 NDIS Number: 4XXXXXXXX Current Plan Period: 01/05/2025 — 30/04/2026 Report Date: 10/03/2026 Psychologist: James Chen, Registered Psychologist, AHPRA PSY0009876543

Referral and Background: Amara is a 31-year-old woman with a primary NDIS disability of psychosocial disability (Bipolar Affective Disorder Type I, Borderline Personality Disorder) and secondary disability of Specific Learning Disorder. She has been an NDIS participant since 2022. I have been providing psychological services to Amara since June 2025 under her current NDIS plan.

Services Delivered: Amara's current plan included 32 hours of Capacity Building — Improved Daily Living (psychology). I delivered 24 individual therapy sessions (24 hours) between 15/06/2025 and 28/02/2026, utilising Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) skills training adapted for individual delivery. The remaining 8 funded hours were not utilised due to two hospitalisations (August 2025, November 2025) during which sessions were paused, and one period of disengagement in January 2026 following a relationship breakdown.

Progress Against NDIS Goals:

Goal 1: "I want to manage my emotions better so I don't end up in hospital."

Baseline: At plan commencement, Amara was experiencing psychiatric hospitalisations approximately every 10 to 12 weeks, with admissions triggered by self-harm and suicidal ideation during emotional crises. She reported no distress tolerance strategies and described her emotional responses as "going from zero to ten in seconds."

Progress: Amara has learned and can now independently use three DBT distress tolerance skills (TIPP, STOP, ice diving). She identifies her emotional vulnerability factors with moderate consistency. Her hospitalisation frequency has decreased from approximately 5 admissions per year to 2 admissions in the current plan period. During her November 2025 admission, she utilised TIPP skills to reduce the duration of her crisis state, and hospital notes indicate a shorter admission (4 days compared to her previous average of 10 days).

Current status: Partially achieved — ongoing. Amara continues to require support to generalise distress tolerance skills to interpersonal conflict situations, which remain her primary crisis trigger. Emotion regulation module work has commenced but is in early stages.

Goal 2: "I want to do my own shopping and cooking so I can live more independently."

Baseline: Amara was unable to plan meals, create shopping lists, or shop independently due to executive functioning difficulties (related to her learning disorder) and avoidance of public spaces during mood episodes.

Progress: With support worker assistance, Amara can now follow a visual meal plan and prepare three simple meals independently. She has attended the supermarket with her support worker on 18 occasions during the plan period and completed the most recent four trips with the support worker waiting in the car rather than accompanying her through the store. She remains unable to manage budgeting for shopping independently.

Current status: Partially achieved — ongoing. Continued support worker and psychology input is required to consolidate gains and extend to budgeting skills.

Current Functional Capacity: Amara's functional capacity has improved in distress tolerance and basic daily living tasks but remains significantly impaired across all domains. She continues to require daily support worker contact, is unable to maintain employment, and has limited social connections outside her support team and mother. Her WHODAS 2.0 score has reduced from 52/100 (March 2025) to 44/100 (February 2026), indicating moderate improvement but ongoing severe disability. K10 scores remain in the "very high" distress range (mean K10 = 34 across the plan period).

Barriers to Progress:

Two psychiatric hospitalisations disrupted therapy continuity (approximately 6 weeks of lost sessions)
Relationship breakdown in January 2026 caused significant functional deterioration and temporary disengagement from services
Insufficient funded psychology hours — 32 hours allowed only fortnightly sessions, whereas Amara's clinical presentation requires weekly DBT input to maintain momentum between sessions
No funded group DBT component — individual delivery of DBT skills is less effective than the standard group-plus-individual model

Recommendations for Next Plan:

Psychology — Capacity Building, Improved Daily Living: Increase to 50 hours per year (weekly sessions) of individual psychology. Amara's progress demonstrates that DBT is an effective intervention, but fortnightly sessions are insufficient for her level of need. Weekly sessions are reasonable and necessary to consolidate emotion regulation skills, reduce hospitalisation frequency, and support her goal of independent living. The reduced hospitalisation frequency during this plan period represents significant cost savings to the health system.
Support Worker — Core Supports: Continue 15 hours per week. Amara continues to require daily support worker contact for prompting with daily living tasks, community access support, and crisis safety planning. Without this support, she is at high risk of functional deterioration and increased hospitalisation.
Support Coordination — Capacity Building: Continue Level 2, 50 hours per year. Amara has multiple providers across health, mental health, and disability sectors. Coordination of these services is beyond her current capacity due to executive functioning difficulties and periods of acute illness.

Permanency Statement: Amara's psychosocial disability is permanent. Bipolar Affective Disorder Type I and Borderline Personality Disorder are chronic conditions that require lifelong management and support. While targeted psychological intervention can build her capacity and reduce crisis frequency, her need for NDIS-funded supports will continue indefinitely.

James Chen Registered Psychologist | AHPRA PSY0009876543

This is a sample for educational purposes only — not real patient data.

How to Write It

Step 1: Review the participant's NDIS plan. Before writing, re-read the participant's current plan document. Note their stated goals — you must address each one directly. Obtain this from the participant or their support coordinator if you do not have a copy.

Step 2: Compile your clinical data. Gather session attendance records, outcome measures (pre and post), clinical notes, and any correspondence with other providers. You need quantifiable data wherever possible — number of sessions, symptom measure scores, frequency of target behaviours, hospitalisations, or critical incidents.

Step 3: Write goal-by-goal progress summaries. For each NDIS goal, provide the baseline, intervention, progress, and current status. Use the participant's own language for goals (they are usually stated in first person in the NDIS plan) and clinical evidence for progress descriptions.

Step 4: Be honest about barriers. If progress was limited, explain why without being defensive. The NDIA understands that participants with complex presentations do not follow linear recovery trajectories. Document barriers factually — underfunding, hospitalisations, provider gaps, life events.

Step 5: Make evidence-based recommendations. Link every recommendation to evidence from the current plan. If you are requesting increased funding, provide the clinical rationale. If you are recommending a new support, explain what has changed to make it necessary.

Step 6: Submit on time. Plan review reports should be submitted four to six weeks before the plan end date. Late reports often miss the planning meeting entirely, resulting in rollover plans that do not reflect current needs.

Common Mistakes

Not referencing the participant's NDIS goals. The NDIA funds supports to help participants achieve their goals. If your report does not address these goals directly, it misses the fundamental purpose of the review.
Providing only session counts without progress analysis. Stating "Amara attended 24 sessions" tells the planner nothing about whether the funded support was effective. You must describe what happened in those sessions and what changed.
Failing to explain underutilisation. If funded hours were not fully used, explain why. Without an explanation, the NDIA may reduce funding in the next plan, assuming the participant did not need the full allocation.
Requesting increased funding without justification. "Client needs more hours" is not a justification. Explain what clinical evidence supports the increase — for example, that fortnightly sessions were demonstrably insufficient to maintain therapeutic gains between sessions.
Submitting the report too late. If your report arrives after the planning meeting, it cannot inform the new plan. The participant then faces an appeal process that could have been avoided with timely reporting.
Mixing clinical language with functional language inconsistently. Maintain the functional framing throughout. Every clinical observation should be translated into its functional consequence.

Writing a clinical document right now?

My Clinical Writer helps you generate clinical documents from your session details in under 60 seconds.

Try My Clinical Writer Free →

myclinicalwriter.ai