Assess the participant critical incident risk level | FOI document library

DOCUMENT 2 FOI 24/25-1367 - DISCLOSURE LOG

Assess the participant critical incident risk level SGP KP Publishing

         Exported on 2025-05-20 06:37:55

                 Page 2 of 498

Table of Contents

1 Recent updates …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 2 Before you start …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 3 Assess the participant critical incident risk level ……………………………………………………. 6 4 Assess the consequence level and likelihood ………………………………………………………… 7 4.1 Severe ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7 4.2 Major ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7 4.3 Moderate…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7 4.4 Minor ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 4.5 Insignificant …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 5 Assess the tolerance and threshold ………………………………………………………………………. 9 5.1 Red ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 5.2 Amber ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 5.3 Green …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 6 Next steps …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10

                        Page 3 of 498

This article provides guidance for a participant critical incident officer to:

•   assess the participant critical incident risk level
•   assess the consequence level and likelihood
•   assess the tolerance and threshold.

                        Page 4 of 498

1 Recent updates

10 February 2025 Updates to Red Rated Incident criteria.

                        Page 5 of 498

2 Before you start

You have:

•   read and understood article Understand participant critical incidents
•   received a participant critical incident case to review and triage using article Review and
     triage a submitted participant critical incident case.

                        Page 6 of 498

3 Assess the participant critical incident risk level

To assess the participant critical incident (PCI) risk level, you should consider:

• how likely it is to occur again

• the potential consequence if it does occur again?

Use the risk matrix below to help you assess the risk of reported PCIs.

	Low	Medium	High	Extreme
Rare 1	Low Accept the risk — Routine management	Low Accept the risk — Routine management	High Urgent response and treatment — Refer to SES	High Urgent response and treatment — Refer to SES
Unlikely 2	Low Accept the risk — Routine management	Low Accept the risk — Routine management	High Urgent response and treatment — Refer to SES	High Urgent response and treatment — Refer to SES
Possible 3	Low Accept the risk — Routine management	Medium Specific response and treatment — Refer to EL	High Urgent response and treatment — Refer to SES	High Urgent response and treatment — Refer to SES
Likely 4	Low Accept the risk — Routine management	Medium Specific response and treatment — Refer to EL	High Urgent response and treatment — Refer to SES	Extreme Urgent major incident response — Escalate to SES/ELT
Almost Certain 5	Medium Specific response and treatment — Refer to EL	Medium Specific response and treatment — Refer to EL	Extreme Urgent major incident response — Escalate to SES/ELT	Extreme Urgent major incident response — Escalate to SES/ELT

Page 7 of 498

4 Assess the consequence level and likelihood

Use the factors below to help you determine the appropriate consequence level.

4.1 Severe

Safety – would cause loss of life.
Quality of service – significant impact on the quality of National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) services. For example the plan has expired, or funds have run out, so that the participant needs critical supports immediately but can’t access them.
Reputation – external reputation irrevocably destroyed or damaged. For example, where the Minister or National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) will engage with the media.
Environment – no longer had shelter (homeless) due to leaving a home where there is severe or criminal abuse.
Legal – more than one major litigation or breach of the NDIS Act or Australian Public Service (APS) Code of conduct. For example, an NDIA breach causing the participant serious harm.

4.2 Major

Safety – would cause serious harm resulting in long-term physical impairment.
Quality of service – considerable impact on the quality of NDIS services. For example the plan is about to expire within a week. Or funds have run out, so that the participant needs critical supports immediately but can’t access them. This results in a sizable impact on the participant’s day-to-day life.
Reputation – external reputation severely damaged. Has been escalated for Ministerial or Media involvement.
Environment – unable to be removed from a house where there is severe or criminal abuse.
Legal – single major litigation or number of moderate litigations or breaches of the NDIS Act or APS Code of conduct. The participant has been harmed as a result.

4.3 Moderate

Safety – would cause harm that requires hospitalisation with no long-term effects.
Quality of service – some impact on the quality of services provided by the Scheme. For example the plan will expire or funds will run out within a month.
Reputation – external reputation damaged. There is some effort or expense required to recover. High risk of escalating to a complaint or significant risk to Agency reputation if escalated.
Environment – unable to be removed from a house where there is moderate abuse.
Legal – single moderate litigation or number of minor litigations or breaches of the NDIS Act or APS Code of conduct. Risk to serious harm of the participant.
```
                      Page 8 of 498
```

4.4 Minor

Safety – would cause minor harm requiring medical attention with no long-term effects.
Quality of service – minor impact on the quality of NDIS services.
Reputation – external reputation minimally affected. Little effort/expense required to recover.
Environment – unable to be removed from a house where conditions were less than ideal.
Legal – single minor litigation or breach of the NDIS Act or APS Code of conduct. Risk to harm of the participant.

4.5 Insignificant

Safety – would cause insignificant harm that requires minor or no treatment and has no long-term effects.
Quality of service – no impact on the quality of NDIS services.
Reputation – external reputation not affected. No effort or expense required to recover.
Environment – no environmental impact.
Legal – no litigation or risk to harm for the participant.
```
                      Page 9 of 498
```

5 Assess the tolerance and threshold

Use the below criteria to assess the PCI tolerance and thresholds.

5.1 Red

Risk to participant remains extreme after Agency mitigation strategies applied/in place.
Serious harm resulting in long-term physical impairment or death of a participant – related to allegations of misconduct by the Agency or NDIA provider.
Extreme risk of reputational damage to the Agency (other – catch all for strange/unusual circumstances or cases).
Although relevant authorities involved, unable to be removed from a house where there are concerns of severe/criminal abuse.

5.2 Amber

Would cause serious harm/hospitalisation, but no long-term physical impairment.
External reputation severely damaged.
Although relevant authorities involved, unable to be removed from a house where there are concerns of abuse.

5.3 Green

Would cause minor harm requiring medical attention with no long-term effects.
Minor impact on the quality of services provided by the Scheme resulting in an increase in complaints.
Although relevant authorities involved, unable to be removed from a house, however low risk of abuse.
```
                     Page 10 of 498
```

6 Next steps

To record the risk level and triage a PCI case, go to article Review and triage a submitted participant critical incident case.
To escalate an extreme or high risk PCI, go to article Escalate an extreme or high risk participant critical incident.
```
                    Page 11 of 498
```