If you’ve ever stared at a blank progress note wondering what to include, you’re not alone. Most NDIS support workers are handed a template on their first day and told to “just write what happened.” Nobody teaches you what an audit-ready note actually looks like.
There are a few different note-writing frameworks out there. SOAP and DARE are the most common ones you’ll hear about. The CLIO Framework is newer and was designed from the ground up for NDIS. Each one organises information differently, and each one has trade-offs.
This post breaks down all three so you can see what fits your work — and what your provider or auditor actually expects.
The CLIO Framework
The CLIO Framework was designed specifically for NDIS documentation. It’s built from six primary NDIS source documents: the Practice Standards, Code of Conduct, Incident Management Rules, Privacy Act, Restrictive Practices Rules, and Pricing Arrangements. Every section exists because the legislation requires the information to be recorded.
What makes CLIO different
CLIO doesn’t have an Assessment or Evaluation section. That’s deliberate. Support workers aren’t clinicians, and NDIS documentation shouldn’t ask them to interpret behaviour or make clinical judgments. Instead, CLIO separates the participant’s experience from the worker’s actions and puts all safety and compliance information in a dedicated section where it’s immediately visible.
The Oversight section is where CLIO pulls ahead. If an incident occurred, it’s documented with the correct reportable incident category and notification timeframe. If a restrictive practice was used, there’s a full Section 15(2) record. If there’s a follow-up action, it’s flagged. None of this has a natural home in SOAP or DARE.
The SOAP Method
SOAP stands for Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan. It was developed in the 1960s by a physician named Lawrence Weed for medical records. It’s been the standard note structure in hospitals, GP clinics, and allied health practices for decades.
Excellent for clinical settings. When a physiotherapist assesses range of motion or a psychologist tracks treatment progress, the Assessment section makes sense — clinical interpretation is part of their job.
The “Assessment” section is the problem. The NDIS Code of Conduct requires support workers to act with integrity, honesty, and transparency — documenting what you observed, not your interpretation of it. When a worker writes “reduced participation likely due to fatigue,” they’re making a clinical judgment they’re not qualified to make. SOAP also has no natural home for incident documentation, restrictive practice records, or NDIS goal linking.
The DARE Method
DARE stands for Description, Action, Response, and Evaluation. It’s more common in aged care and disability settings than SOAP, and it’s closer to what support workers actually need.
More practical than SOAP for support workers. It keeps the focus on what was done and how the participant responded, without asking for clinical interpretation. The Description and Action sections naturally capture the session.
No dedicated space for safety, incidents, or compliance. If a participant fell, where does that go? Description? Action? The Evaluation section also invites the same problem as SOAP’s Assessment — subjective interpretation. “Sarah responded positively” is an evaluation, not an observation. What did Sarah actually do?
Side-by-side comparison
Here’s where each framework puts the key information an NDIS auditor would look for:
| What auditors look for | CLIO | SOAP | DARE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Session details (date, time, location) | Context | No structure | No structure |
| Participant’s voice and choices | Lived Experience | Subjective | Response |
| Activities and supports provided | Interventions & Impact | Objective | Description + Action |
| NDIS goal linking | Auto-linked in I&I | No prompt | No prompt |
| Incident classification (RI1–RI6) | Oversight | No prompt | No prompt |
| Restrictive practice records | Oversight | No prompt | No prompt |
| Privacy filtering | Built-in | No prompt | No prompt |
| Clinical interpretation | Not included (by design) | Assessment (required) | Evaluation (encouraged) |
| Follow-up and handover | Oversight | Plan | Evaluation |
| Audit-ready structure | Yes | No | No |
If you’re used to SOAP or DARE
Switching frameworks can feel disorienting. Here’s where your familiar sections land in CLIO:
Here’s the thing — you don’t need to learn any of this
If you’ve read this far and your brain is swimming with acronyms, that’s exactly the point. SOAP, DARE, CLIO — they’re all frameworks designed to organise information. But you shouldn’t need a framework certification to write about your shift.
With Clio Care, you never think about the structure at all. You answer three plain questions: How were they?, What did you do?, and Anything to flag? That’s it. You talk about your shift the way you’d describe it to a colleague. Clio takes your words and applies the CLIO Framework automatically — structuring the sections, linking goals, flagging incidents, filtering private details, and formatting everything for audit readiness.
The worker who uses SOAP needs to know the framework to use it correctly. The worker who uses DARE needs to understand which section gets which information. The worker who uses Clio just talks about their day. The compliance framework happens in the background, invisibly, every time.
That’s the real advantage of CLIO over SOAP and DARE. It’s not just a better structure — it’s a structure you never have to think about.
So which one should you use?
It depends on your role. If you’re an allied health professional working in a clinical setting, SOAP still makes sense — clinical assessment is part of your scope. If you’re an NDIS support worker writing notes after your shifts, CLIO was built for you.
The NDIS Practice Standards don’t mandate a specific note structure. But they do require that notes are accurate, person-centred, linked to plan goals, and that incidents and safety concerns are documented with specific detail. CLIO is the only framework that structurally guarantees all of this is captured — not because the worker remembered to include it, but because the framework itself prompts for it.
SOAP and DARE are general-purpose tools. They work across many industries because they don’t commit to any one regulatory context. CLIO is purpose-built for NDIS. It knows what an auditor is looking for because it was designed around the audit.
Try the CLIO Framework — free, always
Answer three simple questions about your shift. Clio applies the CLIO Framework automatically — goal linking, incident detection, privacy filtering, and full NDIS compliance. No framework knowledge needed.
Start for free →