Practice Governance
This domain tests whether the organisation behind the SIL service is actually capable of sustaining safe, consistent delivery. It goes beyond frontline practice to examine whether governance structures, management systems, and workforce oversight are genuinely functional. This is the domain where smaller in-home providers most commonly have significant gaps.
1. Governance structures that support safe, consistent delivery
What the standard requires: Governance structures that actively support safe, consistent service delivery — not just an organisational chart and a board charter.
What auditors will look for: Evidence that governance bodies (board, management committee) receive and act on participant safety data, quality improvement reports, and incident trends. The auditor looks for minutes that reference SIL-specific risks.
Common gaps for in-home providers: Governance bodies receive financial reports but no quality or safety data. Board minutes contain no reference to participant outcomes, incidents, or practice quality.
2. Active, applied risk management
What the standard requires: Risk management that is active, reviewed, and applied to real operational decisions — not a static register that hasn’t been touched since it was written.
What auditors will look for: The auditor asks management to walk through a recent decision that was informed by the risk register, checks when the register was last reviewed, and checks whether it reflects actual current operational risks.
Common gaps for in-home providers: A risk register exists but has not been reviewed in 12+ months. Identified risks have no mitigating actions assigned to a responsible person with a completion date.
3. Workforce oversight
What the standard requires: Workforce oversight including supervision records, performance review, training records, and evidence that worker capability matches participant support needs.
What auditors will look for: The auditor checks supervision logs, asks workers when they last received supervision and what was discussed, and matches worker training records against the specific support needs of the participants they support.
Common gaps for in-home providers: Supervision is discussed but not consistently documented. Training records exist for mandatory onboarding but not for ongoing, role-specific training. Workers supporting participants with complex needs have no documentation of competency assessment.
4. Quality improvement systems that drive real change
What the standard requires: Quality improvement systems that use incident data, complaints, participant feedback, and audit findings to drive real change — not a quality framework that exists on paper.
What auditors will look for: The auditor asks to see an example where participant feedback or an incident trend changed a practice or policy, and checks whether complaints are documented and closed with evidence of resolution.
Common gaps for in-home providers: The complaints register is empty or contains only minor issues resolved informally. There is no mechanism for participant feedback to influence organisational practice. Quality meeting minutes reference compliance tasks rather than practice improvement.