community visitor schemes that can make in-person visits either in response to particular complaints or with a view to identifying problems through a schedule of random visits. Table 2 summarises the arrangements that are currently in place by jurisdiction. Table 2: Complaints handling agencies by jurisdiction Jurisdiction Requirements for providers Funding/management agency for complaints handling External complaints investigation/dispute resolution bodies (for disability services) Commonwealth Funding agreements Complaints Resolution and Referral Service (outsourced by the Department of Social Services (DSS) Unresolved complaints can be escalated to the DSS complaints system or the Ombudsman if the complainant is not satisfied with the action of the Department New Wales Legislative requirements The Department of Family and Community Services — able to request copies of a provider’s complaints register and copies of all correspondence and other materials Official Visitors Ombudsman Victoria Legislative requirements and service agreements Complaints policy Public Advocate Community Visitors Disability Services Commissioner Ombudsman Department of Education and Childhood Development (statutory regulator for Children’s Services Act 1996) Some Early Childhood Intervention Services (ECIS) providers Queensland Certification requirements, legislative requirements and funding agreements Central Complaints and Review Unit for government and government-funded NGO services Community Visitors Scheme Office of the Public Guardian Office of the Queensland Ombudsman Western Australia Legislative requirements under s. 48 of the WA Disability Services Act and service agreements Review during independent quality evaluation and reporting through annual organisational self-assessment Council of Official Visitors (mental health) Health and Disability Services Complaints Office South Australia Funding agreements and legislative requirements Complaints/Incident Unit (with responsibility for quality compliance) and Care Concern Investigation unit in the Department for Communities Community Visitor Scheme (mental health and disability, residential facilities) Ombudsman
Considerations This option would provide a greater degree of independence and external scrutiny. This could, however, be a higher cost option. QUESTIONS How important is it to have an NDIS complaints system that is independent from providers of supports? Should an NDIS complaints system apply only to disability-related supports funded by the NDIS, to all funded supports, or to all disability services regardless of whether they are funded by the NDIS? What powers should a complaints body have? Should there be community visitor schemes in the NDIS and, if so, what should their role be?
Allow for the analysis of trends to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies and recognise where there may be an increased reliance on the use of restrictive practices. Measure success through a national picture (or stocktake) of the use and reduction of restrictive practices. Collaboration between service providers: A commitment to developing and maintaining stronger relationships across the health, allied health, aged care and disability sectors, including between physicians, nurses, mental and health professionals, and disability services staff to ensure a multidisciplinary approach to the monitoring, use and reduction of restrictive practices. Collaborative approaches across sectors for client assessment, planning and review should be encouraged by all service providers involved with implementing a person’s individual/behaviour support plan. Collaboration should enable a solid basis for individualised, person-centred approaches aimed at reducing the use of restrictive practices. Raising awareness, providing education and facilitating accessible information about restrictive practices: A commitment to raising awareness of issues relating to the use of restrictive practices, including amongst people with disability and their guardians or advocates as key stakeholders in decision making, and in the implementation of behaviour support strategies and plans. People with disability and their guardians or advocates should be made aware of the relevant rights within jurisdictions to complain or seek a review of the use of restrictive practices and to participate fully in formal complaint resolution or review processes. A commitment to building capacity and reducing barriers amongst people with disability and their guardians or advocates to utilise complaint or review mechanisms about restrictive practices. People with disability and their guardians or advocates are informed that restrictive practices may be used in the service(s) that they access, noting that restrictive practices are implemented on an individual basis. Core Strategies for a National Framework for Reducing and Eliminating the Use of Restrictive Practices in the Disability Service Sector Jurisdictions agree that, by 2018, all disability service providers for which they or the NDIA have funding responsibilities should implement the following set of key core strategies to reduce the use of restrictive practices in disability services. A comprehensive review of the research literature found evidence for six core strategies for reducing the use of restrictive practise (Rimland, 2011). The six core strategies are: Person-centred focus Including the perspectives and experiences of people with disability and their families, carers, guardians and advocates during restrictive practice incident debriefing, individualised behaviour support planning, staff education and training, and policy and practice development is a key element of restraint minimisation across sectors (Azeem et al., 2011). Key implementation areas are: