Duty of care and dignity of risk are cornerstones of quality disability support, but they’re also some of the most misunderstood. When these ideas are misinterpreted, the impact can be serious, from limiting a person’s independence and rights, to putting providers at risk of non-compliance. Understanding them clearly is the first step to balancing safety with real choice.
What They Mean in NDIS Practice
Duty of care – Your legal obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to a participant or their property. This is about protecting people from unsafe practices within service delivery — for example, ensuring staff are trained before performing a hoist transfer.
Dignity of risk – The legal right for individuals to make decisions that involve risk. This supports personal growth, independence, and choice — even when a decision isn’t the one we would make. It’s closely linked to supported decision-making, where providers offer tools, guidance, and alternatives without removing the person’s autonomy.
10 Common Myths — Debunked
- Duty of care means avoiding all risks
Not possible — and not the goal. Duty of care is about minimising foreseeable harm, not eliminating a participant’s independence. - Dignity of risk means always saying ‘yes’
It means informed choice. Providers should explore options, implications, and safeguards — not automatically agree or refuse. - Duty of care means delivering supports even after funds run out
NDIS Practice Standards expect proactive budget discussions before a crisis, involving participants in all decisions about limits and service changes. - NDIA and NDIS Commission aren’t interested in dignity of risk
Incorrect — it’s embedded in the NDIS Practice Standards and NDIA’s Supported Decision-Making policy. - Dignity of risk only applies to people without cognitive impairments
Everyone has this right unless it’s removed through a formal legal process like a Guardianship Order. - Workplace Health & Safety overrides dignity of risk
Both obligations must coexist. Providers must keep workplaces safe and support participant choice. - Providers are always liable if a risky choice goes wrong
Liability usually arises from failing to identify risks, offer safeguards, or document the process — not from the existence of risk itself. - Past negative outcomes mean stopping someone from trying again
Repetition is part of learning. Only restrictive practice authorisations limit repeated risk-taking, and these are rare. - Plan Nominees have the ultimate say in risky decisions
Nominees must still follow the person’s wishes and help build their decision-making capacity. - Policies can cover every dignity of risk scenario
No policy can capture every nuance. Providers must combine human rights principles with professional judgement on the ground.
Putting Dignity of Risk into Practice — and Staying Compliant
- Discuss both concepts with participants, in their preferred language and communication style, linking them to NDIS Plan goals.
- Shift from compliance-only thinking to a human rights-first approach.
- Use trial and error — refine approaches based on experience, not just risk avoidance.
- Engage advocates, circles of support, or formal decision-making tools when needed.
- Co-develop a dignity of risk plan outlining autonomy areas, acceptable risks, and safeguards.
- Document everything — conversations, decisions, alternatives considered, and follow-ups.
How CareVision Helps
CareVision’s NDIS Compliance and Quality Management tools make it easier to:
- Record and track dignity of risk discussions.
- Maintain clear, transparent documentation for audits.
- Link decisions to participant goals and NDIS Practice Standards.
- Provide staff with easy access to resources and policies in one central hub.
Want to dive deeper? Read the full original article on Duty of Care and Dignity of Risk for more examples, insights, and practical tips.