Start with four records, not four versions of the same roster
Pick a completed week. Give it a single review reference, such as HOUSE-A / WEEK-01, and bring together four records: the agreed support arrangement, the planned week, the delivery record and the proposed invoice or claim. Keep their original versions. A later correction should explain a difference, rather than make the earlier record disappear.
Ask one person to prepare the comparison and another authorised person to resolve exceptions. In a small organisation that might mean the director performs the review, with a second check on unusual items. The useful output is a short list of explained differences, not a green spreadsheet with no supporting records.
A worked example: a plan changes during the week
| Fictional record | What the reviewer sees | Next step |
|---|---|---|
| Planned support | An agreed weekday activity appears in the weekly plan. | Identify the agreement and plan versions used. |
| Actual delivery | A contemporaneous note records that the activity changed. | Confirm what support occurred, when, and who recorded it. |
| Draft invoice | The original activity description still appears. | Refer the difference to the authorised claiming reviewer before submission. |
| Review outcome | The reviewer records the explanation and resulting correction. | Keep the original record, correction reason, reviewer and date together. |
This example demonstrates a record-checking method. It does not decide which item is claimable, a support ratio, a rate or an entitlement. Use the actual plan, agreement and current pricing and claiming rules for that decision.
Use an exception log that someone can finish
- Describe the mismatch precisely. “Tuesday’s support note and draft invoice describe different activities” is actionable. “Check billing” is not.
- Link the evidence. Record internal references rather than copying sensitive notes into an email thread.
- Name the decision owner. The person who notices the issue may not have authority to approve the claim.
- Record the outcome. Correct, confirm with explanation, or hold pending information. Keep the reason and review date.
- Check for recurrence. If the same template caused three errors, fix the template and check the affected records.
Check registration status separately from the roster
The 1 October 2026 application deadline has passed. The NDIA says unregistered SIL providers who did not apply by that date can only claim for services through 30 September 2026; a registration-related rejection should be raised with the Commission. Check the applicable pathway and your actual status, rather than assuming a complete roster authorises delivery. See NDIA: SIL claims and payment changes and NDIS Commission: SIL registration pathways.
Where ProviderQMS fits
Use your existing scheduling and billing tools to manage shifts and claims. ProviderQMS offers a separate place for documents, quality actions and supporting evidence. A reconciliation issue can become a named quality action with a review record. Check the workspace walkthrough against that task.
If the missing piece is an adaptable document starting point, inspect the SIL kit samples. Buying a template does not resolve a claim or establish registration. For system selection, use the SIL software buying guide.
Weekly support reconciliation worksheet
Use internal references in this public worksheet. It stays in this browser tab; print or save before leaving. No entries are sent or stored by this tool.
You can also use your browser’s Print command. Keep the saved copy in your own records system.
Source: https://providerqms.com.au/sil-guides/roster-of-care/ · Published 3 October 2026 · Weekly support reconciliation worksheet
Sources and editorial approach
Official guidance and product pages were checked on 3 October 2026. Regulatory summaries are linked above; worked examples and worksheets are our suggested methods. Research and drafting used AI assistance. Examples are fictional and should not be recorded as events that occurred.