Plan Reassessment Drafter
Turns a participant's file into a first-draft plan reassessment report your coordinator edits down, instead of starting from a blank page.
The live demo, running on fabricated data. Open it to step through the full flow — every output is shown for a person to approve before anything happens.
Reads the participant file and therapy reports, drafts the reassessment narrative with every figure traced to its source, then hands it to a coordinator to check and approve before it goes near the NDIA.
It makes the transcription disappear and hands the coordinator an editable draft instead of a blank page.
- Best for support coordinators and LACs carrying a queue of reassessments with reasonably structured files.
- Earns its keep when the goal, its progress and the supporting report are all findable: the draft is mostly right and the work becomes checking, not typing.
- At a queue of reassessments a month, the recaptured hours go back into the participant conversation, not the paperwork.
It is confidently wrong when the file is stale — and a clean draft looks more trustworthy than the records behind it.
- Weak where the file is the problem — a scanned-image OT report, free-text notes that never separate a goal from an observation, last year's utilisation.
- Wrong tool for the genuinely contested reassessment — a change-of-circumstances case or an unusual support argued for the first time, where the value is the conversation, not the draft.
If you'd struggle to point at the report that justifies a recommended support, the draft can't justify it either.
It drafts. The coordinator approves. The NDIA delegate decides. That boundary is deliberate.
A reassessment shapes a real person's supports for the next plan period, and the recommendation carries obligations under the NDIS Code of Conduct. A wrong number lands on the participant, and the NDIA delegate — not the tool — makes the funding decision. The accountable person stays on the decision because the consequence is theirs.
A participant file where goals, current therapy evidence and a recent per-category utilisation snapshot are all retrievable.
Most providers have some of this and not all of it in good shape — goals recorded once and never tracked, notes that don't separate a goal from an observation, utilisation living in a portal export nobody has pulled. Getting that into a consistent, current, findable state is usually the real first job, and it's about how information is captured at the point of support — larger and more valuable than the drafting layer on top of it.
The worried-buyer questions, answered straight
Fixed scope, fixed price, fixed dates.
Considering this for your participants?
The honest place to start is a bite-sized first piece — one contained change, low risk. Tell us where the reassessment queue hurts; we'll play it back, scope it, and show you what's possible.