Run a small SIL continuity tabletop exercise for unexpected staff absence

A continuity plan may look complete until the person who normally organises replacement staff is also unavailable. A short tabletop exercise lets a small SIL team discover that gap before it becomes a live service problem.

In a tabletop, participants discuss a fictional situation using their existing plans. They explain what they would do, identify the information needed and record what could not be established. They do not remove workers from a real shift or reduce anyone's actual support to make the exercise realistic.

This guide uses an unexpected staff absence as the scenario. It provides a suggested exercise and fillable log, not an emergency response plan or authority to change staffing arrangements.

Know what the exercise can demonstrate

A tabletop can reveal unclear responsibilities, missing information and assumptions about backup arrangements. It cannot prove that a replacement worker will be available in a real disruption, or that every participant's needs would be met.

The Core continuity indicators address suitable arrangements during worker absence. Its emergency and disaster indicators include testing plans and adjusting them. This exercise can contribute evidence to that work, but it is not the whole continuity or emergency-management program. NDIS Commission: continuity and emergency management.

Plan a modest first session, such as forty minutes. That duration is a suggestion. Choose a scope small enough to explore properly rather than rushing through several unrelated disasters.

Set ground rules before starting

Label all materials EXERCISE — FICTIONAL SCENARIO. Agree who facilitates, who makes the simulated decisions and who records them. Include people who understand the actual operational arrangements, while limiting access to information they need.

Use fictional participant profiles in the session pack. They can represent the kinds of support dependencies you need to consider without copying personal health information. Do not assume a fictional profile is a substitute for current individual planning in a real incident.

State that no external call, roster change, participant message, expenditure or live system change will be made as part of the discussion. Any later practical test needs its own appropriate arrangements and authority.

If a real emergency occurs, stop the exercise and use the actual response procedure. Call 000 where emergency assistance is needed. If the discussion reveals a current unresolved safety concern, assign and escalate it immediately rather than leaving it in the exercise log until the next meeting.

Choose a scenario with a clear starting point

Here is an invented scenario you can adapt:

At 05:45, a worker due to start the morning shift at fictional Example House reports that they cannot attend. The person who usually coordinates replacements is unavailable. Two people living at the house have scheduled support needs described in fictional planning summaries. The first preferred backup worker has not yet responded.

Do not add clinical tasks, doses or treatment decisions to make the story more dramatic. The exercise question is whether the team can use the appropriate current plans, identify suitable cover and make timely, authorised decisions.

Keep the real arrangements as your reference point. If the team says “we would call the on-call manager,” ask where that responsibility and fallback contact are documented. Record whether the information was found; do not make an actual call during a discussion-only exercise.

Walk through four decisions

First, establish who takes control of coordination. Who receives the absence report? Who can act if the usual manager is unavailable? What triggers further escalation? Ask participants to identify the documented authority rather than relying on the most confident person in the room.

Second, identify the support dependencies. Which planned supports need attention, by when and according to which source? Who will check the individual arrangements and communicate appropriately with the people affected? Do not assume that residents have interchangeable needs or that one person can simply wait.

Third, assess the proposed cover. How would the responsible person verify availability, the relevant screening arrangements, participant-specific preparation and capability? How would they consider fatigue, working arrangements and any required supervision? The exercise does not authorise an exception or allow a vacancy to override those checks.

Fourth, confirm the arrangement and handover. What counts as confirmation rather than an unanswered request? Who would explain the change to each person, using their preferred communication approach? What information would the receiving worker need, and how would responsibility be acknowledged?

The SIL practice-governance standard includes coordinated emergency arrangements tailored to participants, with their involvement. A staff discussion should not replace that consultation. NDIS Commission: SIL practice governance.

Use a fillable exercise log

Copy this header into your approved record system:

Then complete one row for each meaningful decision:

Use actual elapsed exercise time if you measure it, and distinguish it from the fictional scenario clock. “Located the fallback instruction in four minutes during the exercise” does not mean replacement support arrived in four minutes.

A fictional completed log entry

At the first prompt, the team proposes contacting the alternate coordinator. The plan names the role, but the contact list contains only the usual coordinator's details.

The exercise record should say “contact route not found,” not “backup activated.” No one has actually been contacted or agreed to provide cover.

If the team identifies a possible second backup, record it as a proposal requiring verification. A name on a list is not proof of current availability or suitability for the support being considered.

Add one complication after the first response

Once the team has explained its initial approach, introduce a single additional fact: the first backup is unavailable, or the usual shared folder cannot be accessed.

Ask how the plan adapts. Which decisions remain with the same person? What information is essential? What is the approved alternative source or escalation route? Record the point where the team would need further help.

Do not reward improvisation that bypasses the current support plan or competence requirements. The useful outcome may be discovering that the fallback arrangement is insufficient and needs work.

Debrief the decisions, not the personalities

Ask what was clear, what was difficult to find and which assumptions need checking. Note where the written plan and the team's expectations differed.

Separate a document update from a readiness claim. Adding a contact field might fix an omission, but availability, access and the person's actual authority may still need confirmation. Agree evidence for each follow-up before closing it.

Record participant consultation or other input that should inform the revised arrangements. Do not claim that participants were involved if the exercise involved staff only. Keep any subsequent consultation separate and accurately dated.

Turn findings into a retest

Give each finding an owner, priority, due date and verification method. If there is a current risk, deal with it through the actual service process while the improvement work continues.

At the retest, check the particular gap. For the missing contact route, an authorised person might locate it from the intended access point and confirm that the recorded delegation is current. If a live communication test is later authorised, record what was actually tested and its limits.

Before filing the exercise, confirm that the log distinguishes fictional events, observed exercise results, proposed changes and verified follow-up. That distinction makes the record useful without overstating preparedness.

Start with one scenario and one clear question: can someone other than the usual coordinator find and follow the current continuity arrangements? Use the answer to choose the next improvement.

To see how a finding can remain connected to its next action and evidence, watch the ProviderQMS walkthrough.

Official sources reviewed 14 September 2026. This discussion exercise does not prove replacement capacity, authorise support changes or delay a real emergency response.