How do providers judge participant risk?
I'm a participant and just had my plan go in for review. My plan is for a physical condition, but I have psychosocial as secondary. My support coordinator wrote a progress review and a section caught my eye, about "crises avoided". It said that no points of crisis had been identified. Only issue is, there's been two balked and one unsuccessful attempt at suicide during my plan.
I don't see a point in hiding these sorts of details from my NDIS providers, and my OT's report for example covered self harm risk, but even that was worded vaguely and in the past tense. It occurred to me that I usually answer questions as they're put to me, and I've only been asked about the self harm once, last year. I have no clue if she is aware that's an ongoing problem. I've never been asked about suicidality or attempts. And it just hasn't occurred to me to volunteer that information because there's not many circumstances where one does volunteer it, and outside of my psychiatrist's office I don't know how one is meant to flag it.
I hadn't even really considered it part of the NDIS purview until I read the report, I kind of thought everything was about my physical disability and if it wasn't putting me in the wheelchair they didn't really have it in their scope to think about. But it confused me to see a section about averting crisis be listed in the negative given what the last year has looked like for me. So I'm curious now about what the system in that kind of situation actually is, especially given it might come up again in the future.
My main questions really are:
- Should my OT and support coordinator have had that information in one/both of their reports?
- If yes, how are they meant to get it? I wouldn't think it's reliable to always expect participants to tell providers outright when that happens, both because participants may feel uncomfortable and providers probably shouldn't rely solely on participant word for incident reporting, right?
- If no, is there another way these reports define "crisis" that excludes crises not directly related to a participant's primary disability?
- In the future, is there a way this information is supposed to get to an OT who may not be paying attention to that aspect of health since it isn't related to primary disability?