Supported Decision-Making
This domain addresses one of the most fundamental problems identified in SIL settings: that decisions about participants’ lives — their home, their routines, who they live with, how they spend their days — are routinely made by providers or families, not by participants themselves. The standard requires genuine choice and control, not documented compliance.
1. Genuine decisions about home, routines and support
What the standard requires: Participants make genuine decisions about their home, daily routines, relationships and support arrangements — with information and assistance to do so.
What auditors will look for: The auditor interviews the participant directly, asking questions such as: ‘Who decided where you live?’, ‘Can you change your support worker if you want to?’ and ‘What would happen if you disagreed with the provider?’ They observe whether the home environment reflects the participant’s choices or the organisation’s preferences.
Common gaps for in-home providers: Staff describe what ‘supported decision-making’ means as a procedural step (e.g. getting a signature on a form) rather than an ongoing, relational practice embedded in daily support.
2. Accessible information before decisions are made
What the standard requires: Participants receive information in accessible formats before making decisions — not after. Communication supports are in place and used consistently.
What auditors will look for: The auditor requests to see easy-read service agreements, visual schedules, and communication tools actually in use in the home, and checks whether communication plans from allied health are integrated into support practice.
Common gaps for in-home providers: Communication strategies exist in writing but are not observable in practice. Support workers cannot describe the participant’s communication needs or preferred decision-making process.
3. Choice of support workers
What the standard requires: Participants have a say in who their support workers are and can request changes. The provider has a documented process for managing these requests respectfully.
What auditors will look for: The auditor tests whether there is a functioning process for a participant to request a change of support worker — or to decline a worker — and whether participants know about it.
Common gaps for in-home providers: No documented process for managing support worker preferences. Workers are assigned based on rostering convenience rather than participant preference.
4. Dignity of risk
What the standard requires: Participants understand their right to make decisions that others may consider risky (dignity of risk). The provider supports informed risk, not risk elimination.
What auditors will look for: The auditor looks for evidence of risk support plans that build participant autonomy — not blanket restriction in the name of safety.
Common gaps for in-home providers: Risk management framed entirely around provider liability rather than participant rights. Restrictions applied without documented consideration of least-restrictive alternatives.