Accessible participant feedback: reviews and service quality

Clickability on Tour: Public review as a means of quality assurance

By Tristram Peters · Originally published 3 August 2016

People talking in groups in a conference room

Original article and dated context

Tristram Peters is a writer, editor, and disability advocate with a keen passion for sport. He’s represented Australia in powerchair football and sits on the sport’s executive board for the Asia Pacific Oceania zone. You can see Tristram’s first Clickablog article, On Disability and Sport, by clicking here.

Unsurprisingly, we love reviews. We believe they go hand in hand with the NDIS’s notion of choice and control, allowing people with disabilities to make informed decisions about what’s best for them. We also believe that they help people with disabilities, such as myself, remain part of the feedback process. For us, reviews are quality assurance.

We took this thinking on tour last week, with part of our team attending the Australian Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Association (ARATA) conference on the Gold Coast. It was an engaging look at how assistive technologies can help people become more independent, with allied health professionals swapping stories and learning about new ways to help their consumers. (They were pretty amazing, by the way.)

Quite simply, we were fascinated by the way that such experts get feedback. What do they do to review their own practice? We posed this question to a range of allied health professionals, including occupational therapists and speech pathologists, plus medical practitioners and consumers. Their answers were varied, but they provided an interesting insight into the world of reviews and feedback:

Parents and consumers are often bombarded with requests for feedback, to the point that they suffer from feedback fatigue. One of our occupational therapists said they had much greater success when they asked less than three questions – participants were less likely to think that it was time-consuming.
One of the allied health professionals said that people needed to be approached for feedback at the most opportune time. He found that, if consumers were asked too early, things were still problematic; if they were asked too late, people forgot smaller issues. He suggested asking for feedback at the six month mark.
Targeted questions during feedback sessions can be helpful, but it’s important to reflect on what people want to share with the service providers. Are they comfortable talking about certain things with the person or organisation delivering their service? Also, targeted questions might not capture the full picture, and it’s important to open up an ongoing conversation.
One occupational therapist raised the difficulty in obtaining feedback when a consumer might be non-verbal. How do we engage people with (sometimes literally) no voice? In most instances, she said that carers and support workers would often communicate on the consumer’s behalf, but this was an unsatisfactory way in learning what the consumer _wanted _or needed.
All participants agreed that they needed to ensure the method of quality assurance was accessible and relevant to the consumer. They recommended seeking feedback from consumers on the actual feedback: was it useful? Was it written in a jargon-free, easy-to-understand way? Was it easy to access?

Although it was impossible to find solutions to all these problems in 90 minutes, the group offered the following key points:

Implementing feedback can prove costly and time consuming
Professional reflection is helpful to implement feedback
Using tools like the net promoter score (NPS) can be beneficial
Running forums with your consumers is a useful way to develop a dialogue

We do love reviews at Clickability, but quality assurance has many faces, and reflecting on each of them is a healthy and informative practice. As someone with a disability, it’s reassuring to know that so much thought goes into ensuring we’re kept front and centre in the NDIS’s planning. Let’s keep reviewing!

Clickability editorial update: October 2026

Ask how people want to give feedback

Offer ways to respond that suit communication preferences and explain what the feedback will be used for. Let people decline a request and avoid repeating surveys without showing what changed. A short form may help some people but will not meet every need.

Give people who use alternative communication time and appropriate assistance to express their own views. Commission rights standards support choice and responsive communication. Review themes alongside complaints and service evidence rather than treating a score as complete quality assurance.

Choose the route that lets you say what matters

You can provide feedback about something specific even if it is not on a survey. Ask for help in your preferred communication method and check that your intended meaning is retained. You can also ask what changed after earlier feedback.

For a concern about NDIS service safety or quality, Commission reporting information offers an external route. A review can share experience, but it should not be your only option or something you are pressured to provide.

Questions readers ask

Is six months the required time to ask for feedback?

No. It is an example from the historical discussion.

Can reviews replace the whole quality system?

No. They are one form of evidence and feedback.

Compare provider reviews alongside your own questions

Explore Clickability’s reviewed and rated profiles and ask how the service receives feedback, responds to concerns and supports your communication.

Find an NDIS provider · Browse the provider directory