How to use this checklist
Take your most recent shift note and read through each item below. Be honest. If you can’t confidently say your note includes that element, it’s a gap an auditor would flag. You don’t need to hit every item on every note (some only apply when specific things happened during the session) but the core items should be present in every shift note you write.
Tally your score at the end. There are 12 questions. Your score is the bar between a note that survives an audit and one that doesn’t.
The 12-point checklist
Structure and basics (3)
1. Does the note include the date, time, duration, and location?These are minimum identifying information requirements. Every claim must be supported by a note that matches these details. Missing or inconsistent session details are one of the first things auditors check.
2. Does the note identify the service type and the worker?The note should clearly state what type of support was delivered and who delivered it. This connects the documentation to the claim.
3. Is the note structured with clear sections?Auditors expect to find information in a logical structure, not buried in a wall of text. A structured note with distinct sections for context, participant presentation, activities, and oversight is significantly easier to audit than an unstructured paragraph.
Participant voice and choice (2)
4. Does the note mention what the participant chose, preferred, or decided?The NDIS Practice Standards require evidence that the participant’s rights to choice and decision-making were respected. Even a simple “she chose to go to the park” or “he asked if we could have lunch first” meets this requirement.
5. Does the note describe how the participant presented?Mood, engagement, energy level, communication. These observations show person-centred documentation. A note that only describes what the worker did, without any mention of the participant’s experience, fails this standard.
Goal linking (2)
6. Does the note connect the session to at least one NDIS plan goal?Not every session needs multiple goals, but if the activities were relevant to a plan goal, the connection should be documented. This is how the NDIS justifies that supports are reasonable and necessary.
7. Are the goals listed the participant’s actual plan goals, not paraphrased or invented?Auditors may cross-reference your note with the participant’s plan. Goals should be quoted accurately from the plan, not reworded or abbreviated. AI tools that “link goals” by inventing plausible-sounding wording will fail this check.
Incidents and safety (3)
8. If something happened, was it documented with enough detail?Falls, injuries, behavioural incidents, near-misses. All need documentation that includes what happened, when, what action was taken, and whether it constitutes a reportable incident. Vague incident documentation is a common audit failure.
9. If a restrictive practice was used, is there a full legal record?Section 15(2) of the NDIS Restrictive Practices Rules requires documentation of the type, who authorised it, start and end times, the behaviour that led to it, less restrictive alternatives tried, and whether it was in accordance with the BSP. This is a legal requirement, not optional detail.
10. If nothing happened, does the note say so?A brief “no incidents or safety concerns were identified during this session” closes the loop for an auditor. A note that simply doesn’t mention safety leaves the auditor wondering whether something was missed.
Privacy (1)
11. Does the note only contain information relevant to the support?Personal details about relationships, family conflicts, finances, religion, or legal matters should not be in a shift note unless they directly affect how support is delivered. The Privacy Act requires collection to be limited to what’s reasonably necessary.
Accuracy (1)
12. Does the note accurately reflect what happened, without embellishment or invention?The NDIS Code of Conduct requires integrity and honesty. Notes should describe what the worker observed, not inflated clinical interpretations. “She did the dishes” not “she demonstrated proactive engagement with domestic task management.” This is also where AI-generated notes fail hardest. If the AI invented content you didn’t observe, the note isn’t accurate, even if it reads well.
Score yourself
10 to 12 confidently met: your notes are likely audit-ready. Keep doing what you’re doing and focus on consistency across every session.
6 to 9 met: you’re close but have gaps an auditor would notice. The most common missing elements are goal linking, participant voice, and incident documentation structure. These are structural problems, not content problems. You probably have the information, it’s just not organised in a way auditors can easily find.
Fewer than 6 met: your notes would likely fail an audit in their current form. This doesn’t mean you’re a bad worker. It means your documentation hasn’t been built for the compliance environment mandatory registration creates. The gap between what you’re doing and what’s required is structural, and it’s fixable.
The trap workers fall into when trying to close the gaps
The instinct when you score yourself low is to look for an AI tool that “handles all 12 items for you.” That instinct is reasonable, and that’s exactly the trap.
Some AI documentation tools will generate a full note that appears to tick every item on this checklist. The participant voice, the goal links, the incident descriptions, all there. But the AI invented most of it. You didn’t observe what’s in the note, and you can’t defend it to an auditor who asks. Under mandatory registration, a note in your name describing things you didn’t see is not a passing audit. It’s a Code of Conduct breach. We’ve covered the real risk this creates for workers.
The line that matters: if you can’t walk an auditor through your note point by point and explain what happened, the AI wrote it, not you. That fails item 12 regardless of how clean the other 11 look.
Closing the gaps the right way
The right way to use AI for documentation is structure and prompting, not authorship. You describe what happened in your own words. The AI organises the writing, checks it against the 12 items above, and flags anything missing so you can fill it in. The worker stays the author. The AI stays the tool.
That’s how Clio Care works. Describe your shift in plain English. Clio reads what you wrote and inserts coloured placeholders inside the note wherever an item on this checklist is missing. You can’t sign the note until you address them. Every line is yours, and you can defend every item to an auditor because you wrote it. This is the Note Integrity Standard, and it’s the principle Clio is built on.
Close every gap, without crossing the line
Describe your shift in your own words. Clio prompts you on every checklist item, flags any gaps with coloured placeholders, and gives you Smart Tips on every note so you learn as you go. Built on the Note Integrity Standard. Every line is yours.
Start for free →