Cross-sectional survey reveals inconsistent practitioner competency and access barriers in disability care, highlighting the need for systemic workforce reforms.
This study examines informal supporters' experiences and views of NDIS behaviour support practitioners, including engagement, information needed to support selection, and perceptions of practitioners' knowledge, skill, and practice. It reports data from a cross‐sectional online survey of 123 informal support providers of participants receiving NDIS behaviour support services, capturing quantitative ratings (descriptive statistics) and qualitative insights (thematic analysis). Most supporters (64%) understood practitioner roles but reported insufficient information and support in engaging suitable practitioners, with access barriers for regional participants. Confidence in practitioner skills varied greatly: moderate overall (32%), but low skills in participant engagement (42%), plans reflecting participant values (42%), implementation support (42%), and fade out planning for restrictive practices (52%). Reported strengths included collaboration and communication skills, but gaps revealed a lack of skills in stakeholder engagement, disability‐specific knowledge, compliance‐focus over outcomes, and limited hands‐on support. Supporters prioritised relevant qualifications plus lived experience and disability‐specific knowledge. Findings suggest variability in supporters' confidence in practitioners' knowledge, skills and practice, raising questions about what to prioritise when selecting a practitioner. Systemic reforms are needed to support more consistent and rights‐based behaviour support provision, including transparency in practitioner information, increased involvement of participants and informal supporters, and workforce capabilities emphasising disability expertise.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fisher et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: