Guide

Behaviour support audit readiness: follow the evidence through the work

Last reviewed 2026-10-21 against the official sources cited on this page.

In short: For a specialist behaviour support practice, audit preparation starts by identifying its registration scope and tracing sampled work from the relevant obligation to the responsible person, dated action and retrievable evidence. A dashboard status alone does not establish compliance. Keep specialist-provider duties, implementing-provider duties and jurisdictional authorisation processes distinct.

A Director needs to know whether the practice can explain its work when the person who normally remembers it is unavailable. A useful review follows a record from the applicable requirement through the action taken, the person responsible and the evidence that supports the outcome.

This guide is written by NDPRO, a commercial software provider. It is a practical review method, not an official audit instrument or a claim that using software guarantees an audit outcome. Start with the Commission's initial scope of audit and your registration scope, then confirm the applicable standards, scope and timing with your Approved Quality Auditor. See the Commission's audit process.

Start with the provider's role

Specialist behaviour support providers develop behaviour support plans. Implementing providers put plans into practice and have their own obligations. A practice may have more than one role, but it should not use the evidence requirements of one role as a substitute for the other.

For specialist services, check the applicable Specialist Behaviour Support Practice Standards. Module 2A addresses implementing behaviour support plans; a Module 2A checklist alone is not a complete specialist-provider audit checklist. The current Quality Indicators Guidelines, sections 37 and 46, separate these roles. The Commission's Practice Standards and specialist-provider guidance are the starting points.

Review a small sample across different workflows

Choose records that exercise different questions, including an unresolved item. The following is a proposed internal review method, not a prescribed audit sampling rule.

Workflow	Ask the reviewer to find	What a status alone cannot prove
BSP development	Applicable trigger, original dates, plan version, responsible practitioner and development evidence	That an internal target extended an obligation
Lodgement	The relevant plan and official receipt in the applicable portal	That a locally completed task was accepted externally
Authorisation coordination	Jurisdiction, decision reference, conditions, dates and responsible implementing provider	That plan lodgement granted state authorisation
Supervision	Agreed arrangement, dated session and follow-up record	That an invitation was attended or every note may be disclosed
Capability	Self-assessment, supporting evidence references, review status and development actions	That a PDF is a suitability decision or complete evidence portfolio
Handover	Named new owner, open actions and accessible evidence	That a departing practitioner's personal knowledge transferred

Download the Director review worksheet. Keep any real information in your practice's approved environment and share only what the review requires.

A synthetic NSW handover example

A fictional practice has ten practitioners and a clinical lead taking leave. An interim plan milestone needs follow-up, a proposed plan change requires an authorisation check, and a supervision action remains open. No real participant or practitioner is represented in this example.

The incoming owner should be able to answer four questions for each item:

What specific action or decision is outstanding?
What source date, document or agreed arrangement supports it?
Who is responsible for acting, and when will it next be reviewed?
What evidence will justify closing it?

For the authorisation item, the old decision stays attached to its context while the responsible provider checks the proposed change. For the plan item, the original due date stays visible alongside any recovery target. For supervision, the incoming reviewer receives appropriate oversight information without automatically receiving confidential notes.

If an answer requires an email, record the gap and assign the next action. The useful result is a resolved evidence question, not a higher dashboard score.

Keep official actions separate from internal tracking

The October 2026 Commission portal transition makes the location of the official record important. Identify the plan and task before choosing a portal. New plan work and some ongoing work use different systems; use the Commission's current Which portal do I use? guidance.

A software status does not itself lodge a plan, obtain authorisation, report an incident or confirm that an external submission was accepted. Keep the actual receipt or decision reference beside the internal task where appropriate.

Evaluate NDPRO against the same evidence questions

NDPRO is intended to help behaviour support practices organise dates, responsibilities and evidence for operational oversight. In a walkthrough, ask to see the current participant pathway, authorisation record, supervision review and capability export against the synthetic example above. Confirm the available permissions and exactly what any export includes.

A workforce credentials PDF, an audit-events CSV and an individual capability assessment PDF serve different purposes. None should be represented as a complete clinical audit pack without inspecting its contents and matching them to your needs.

Book a 30-minute Director walkthrough, or use the software evaluation worksheet with any supplier you are considering.

Continue with the record you need

Sources checked 20 October 2026: the Commission pages linked above and the PBS Capability Framework. Requirements and guidance can change; consult the current source for your practice's role and jurisdiction.