This page sets out Clio Care’s note integrity standard. It exists so that independent NDIS support workers, support coordinators, plan managers, educators, and allied health professionals can understand exactly what Clio commits to, and hold us to it.
This is not a marketing document. It is an accountability document. If anything on this page changes, we will say so here, with the date of the change.
What note integrity means
A case note has integrity when it contains only what the support worker observed, did, or was told during a shift. Nothing more.
A note does not have integrity when it contains clinical observations the worker did not make, participant states the worker did not describe, goal progress the worker did not report, or any other detail added by software to fill gaps or improve the appearance of the documentation.
The distinction matters because NDIS support workers are legally responsible for the accuracy of every note they sign. The software that assisted in producing the note carries no part of that responsibility. The worker does.
What Clio’s standard requires
Every note generated by Clio must meet the following requirements:
Content accuracy
The generated note must contain only information present in the worker’s input or the participant’s profile. Clio must not add clinical observations, behavioural descriptions, mood assessments, goal alignment statements, or any other participant specific detail that was not provided by the worker.
Gap identification, not gap filling
When a worker’s input is incomplete, Clio must identify what is missing and ask the worker to complete it. Clio must not generate plausible sounding content to fill the gap.
Sign-off enforcement
A note with identified gaps cannot be signed off. The worker must complete every identified gap before the note can be submitted. Clio must not allow a note containing unfilled gaps to be signed.
Worker voice
The note must reflect the worker’s own account of the shift. Clio must not reframe, embellish, or clinically elevate the worker’s language beyond what they described.
Participant specificity
The note must reflect what actually occurred with this participant on this day. Clio must not produce uniform language across sessions regardless of what the worker reported.
How the standard is enforced
Clio maintains a test suite that includes exhaustive anti-fabrication testing across a range of input types, from minimal to detailed.
Every scenario in the test suite must confirm that Clio’s output contains only what the worker provided. Anti-fabrication testing is a condition of every update to how Clio generates notes. If any test fails, the update does not go live.
This means every worker using Clio can be confident that the version of Clio they are using has passed anti-fabrication testing before it reached them.
What this standard does not cover
Clio’s note integrity standard governs the content of AI generated notes. It does not guarantee that a worker’s own input is accurate. A note is only as good as what the worker brings to it. More detail, more context, and more accurate observation always produces better documentation.
The standard also does not cover notes generated by any other product or platform. If you use multiple tools, apply the same scrutiny to each.
How to verify this standard yourself
You do not need to take our word for it. Run this test:
Open Clio. Create a participant. Write the following as your session description:
Generate the note.
If the note adds descriptions of the participant’s mood, engagement, goal progress, or anything else not present in your two sentences, the standard has not been met. Contact us immediately at hello@cliocare.com.au and we will investigate.
If the note identifies what is missing and asks you to complete it before signing, the standard is working as designed.
Our public commitment
Clio is the only NDIS note app with a publicly available note integrity standard and a test suite that enforces it before every update to note generation.
We publish this standard openly because we believe the NDIS sector deserves tools that can be held accountable. Support workers deserve to know exactly what their documentation software will and will not do. Coordinators and plan managers deserve confidence in the notes they receive. Educators and allied health professionals deserve a benchmark they can point to.
If this standard changes for any reason, we will update this page with the date and nature of the change. We will not remove previous versions. The history of this standard will remain visible.
Contact
Questions, references, or standard concerns
Questions about this standard, requests to use it as a reference in professional or educational contexts, or reports of standard failures:
hello@cliocare.com.auWe welcome scrutiny. It is how standards improve.