AHPRA Occupational Therapy Advertising: 82 Sites Checked

AHPRA occupational therapy advertising rules apply to every OT website, whoever pays for the therapy. On 29 September 2026 I read 82 Australian OT practice websites. 18 call their OTs or services specialist, a title no OT can hold. 11 show client or parent quotes about therapy progress. 8 use NDIS wording that promises a funding result or says “NDIS approved”. Only 4 say plainly that funding is not guaranteed. Here is each line, the rule behind it, and what to write instead.

What did 82 occupational therapy websites say?

Most of them were careful. A large minority were not.

I read the websites of 82 practices that sell occupational therapy in Australia. That was 369 pages and 276,388 words. The sites came from neutral searches across capital cities and regional centres, from Darwin to Hobart. I looked for four things: titles, NDIS wording, patient quotes and outcome claims.

35 of the 82 sites tripped at least one flag. The other 47 were clean on everything I checked. So this is a fixable problem, and most OT practices already get it right.

The NDIS runs through nearly all of it. 69 of the 82 sites mention the scheme. That matters because two sets of rules meet on an OT website. Ahpra's rules cover the therapy. Consumer law covers what you say about NDIS funding. My post on NDIS providers and AHPRA explains why the funding stream does not switch Ahpra's rules off. This post shows where OT sites actually slip.

Can an occupational therapist call themselves a specialist?

No. This was the most common flag, on 18 of the 82 sites.

Ahpra's FAQ for occupational therapists on protected titles answers the question directly: "No, as an occupational therapist you cannot call yourself a specialist practitioner, or hold yourself out to be one." It explains why. "To date, Ministerial Council has approved specialties for the medical, dental and podiatry professions only." It also says you cannot "advertise specialist occupational therapy services."

Ahpra's advertising guidelines add that this covers "the name of the business or other advertising to the public". So a practice name counts too. One site in the sample used the word in its business name.

Some lines from the other sites, word for word:

• "Our team of NDIS OT specialists".
• "Specialist Occupational Therapy Support Services".
• "get more from life with the expert care of a specialist OT".
• "We're a small, specialist, occupational therapy practice".

Only 3 of those 18 sites named Ahpra or the OT Board anywhere on the pages I read. Across all 82 sites, 17 did.

The fix is simple, because describing your focus is allowed. Ahpra's guidance on titles says a descriptive term can help "So long as the descriptive term does not imply a specialist registration or endorsement". I did not count "specialises in" or "specialised equipment" for that reason. "Our OTs work mainly with children" is a fact. "Specialist paediatric OT" sounds like a register that does not exist for OTs.

Why does “NDIS approved” cross the line?

Because nothing in the NDIS is "approved" in that sense.

The NDIA said so in December 2025: "The NDIA does not endorse or approve any products or services." It went on: "However, there are businesses that promote their offerings as 'NDIS approved', 'NDIS permitted' or '100% NDIS funded'. Those who do so are likely breaching Australian Consumer Law."

Two sites in the sample used that exact phrase about their own staff:

• "NDIS Approved Occupational Therapist".
• "NDIS Approved Occupational Therapists".

A third used it about the suppliers it works with.

The ACCC's guidance for NDIS participants says: "It's illegal under consumer law to make false or misleading claims about a product or service, including claims a product or service is approved or endorsed by a third party."

There is a correct version. The NDIA's news release says: "Registered NDIS providers are permitted to use the 'I/we heart NDIS' and 'I/we support NDIS' logos with the tagline, 'Registered Provider'." If your practice is registered, say it is a registered NDIS provider. If it is not, say you see self-managed and plan-managed participants.

Can an OT report promise NDIS funding?

No. The NDIA decides what a plan funds, and a report is evidence for that decision.

The NDIA's page on functional capacity assessments puts it this way: "We use the information from your functional capacity assessment to determine what kinds of NDIS supports you need in your plan." The ACCC adds: "No product or service is automatically NDIS approved or funded for all participants. Whether products and services will be funded generally depends on the needs and goals in a participant's plan."

Six sites promised a funding result anyway. Some lines, word for word:

• "reports are guaranteed to address the reasonable and necessary criteria required by the NDIA when they are making decisions about funding".
• "offers NDIS therapy services nationwide to maximise funding".
• "ensuring accurate documentation and successful funding applications".
• "help you secure funding tailored to your specific needs".

A promise of "successful" funding sets an expectation the practice cannot control. The ACCC names the harm: "The NDIA can reject claims for non-eligible products and services. This can leave NDIS participants with debts they can't afford to repay."

The careful sites said the opposite, in plain words. Only 4 of the 82 did:

• "It does not guarantee that the NDIA will approve a particular support or level of funding".
• "We cannot guarantee NDIS decisions or funding outcomes".
• "We cannot guarantee a particular outcome, but stronger, more specific evidence gives the NDIA a clearer basis for its decision".

That last line is the one to copy. It is honest about the decision, and it still tells a family why a good report matters. Other sites put a condition on every funding line, such as "The NDIS can fund occupational therapy when the supports are deemed reasonable and necessary". That works too.

Do Ahpra’s testimonial rules apply to NDIS clients?

Yes. The ban follows the service, whoever pays for it.

Section 133 of the National Law says a person must not advertise a regulated health service in a way that "uses testimonials or purported testimonials about the service or business". Occupational therapy is a regulated health service. NDIS funding does not change that.

11 of the 82 sites showed a client or parent quote about therapy progress. 10 of those 11 also mention the NDIS. Some lines, word for word:

• "His development in such a short period of time was amazing to see".
• "we witnessed marked improvement in both his motor skills and sensory behaviour".
• "which has enabled me to attend to my self-care/ hygiene independently".
• "I have seen such an amazing change in my son since he started with this organisation".

These quotes are warm, and they are almost certainly real. That does not help. Ahpra's testimonial guidance says: "Comments about clinical aspects of a regulated health service are considered a testimonial and cannot be used in advertising."

You can still show reviews. The same guidance says: "Comments that are not about clinical aspects (e.g. comments about customer service or communication style) are not considered testimonials and may be used in advertising." A parent who says the OT explained each step clearly is fine. A parent who says their son can now join in at the playground is not. My post on AHPRA and patient testimonials goes through the grey cases.

What about “life-changing” and “transform”?

They are promises, and six sites made them without any qualifier.

• "a long-standing reputation for delivering life-changing outcomes".
• "regain control of your life through the transformative power of Occupational Therapy".
• "solutions that transform the lives of children and youth in Tasmania".
• "Our proven 3-step process ensures you get the most from your NDIS occupational therapy journey".

Section 133 bans advertising that "creates an unreasonable expectation of beneficial treatment". Ahpra's guidelines also list advertising that "makes statements about the effectiveness of the treatment that are not supported by acceptable evidence" as likely to mislead.

OT is goal-based work. Progress depends on the person, the goal and the time. So describe the process. Leave the result to the conversation in the room.

What should an OT practice write instead?

Plain facts about your team, your process and your funding status.

Each line on the right is written to be used as it stands, once the facts are true for your practice.

Then check the pages people forget, such as the FAQ, the team bios and any review widget. For a broader view of allied health rules, see allied health marketing. For the NDIS side of marketing, see the NDIS marketing guide.

How did I measure this, and what can it not tell you?

The method is short, and every page read was kept so it can be checked.

Method. 99 first-party occupational therapy practice websites found through 18 neutral searches such as "occupational therapy clinic Sydney NDIS", "paediatric occupational therapist Melbourne" and "occupational therapist Hobart", on 29 September 2026. No compliance, funding or testimonial words were used in the searches. Directories, public hospitals, university clinics, job ads and non-OT practices were left out. For each site I read the entry page and up to five linked pages chosen by the same keyword rule, such as NDIS, about, FAQ and service pages. 82 sites could be read: 369 pages and 276,388 words. 17 could not, because they blocked me, failed to load or held too little text, and had no usable 2026 archive copy. For five sites that blocked me or timed out, I read their 2026 Internet Archive copy instead. Scripts found candidate sentences, and every flag was then read by hand in context and recorded with a verbatim quote. No practice is named here.

Now the limits.

• This is 82 sites on one day. A site can change tomorrow.
• I read up to six pages per site. A practice may say more on a page I did not read.
• I counted a testimonial only if it was about therapy progress or a clinical result. Quotes about booking, friendliness or enjoyment were not counted.
• "Specialises in" and "specialised equipment" were not counted as specialist claims.
• A flag is my reading of the law and the regulators' guidance. It is not a finding by a regulator.
• This is general information about advertising rules. It is not legal advice about your practice.

If you want a second reader on your whole site, that is what the All Clear Audit does. It quotes each flagged line, names the rule, and writes the replacement. If you need the pages rewritten, see website copy for OT practices. If you would rather talk first, book a call.

Prefer the short version? The findings are in an eight-slide web story.

Related reading:

• NDIS providers and AHPRA advertising rules
• AHPRA and patient testimonials
• Allied health marketing
• NDIS marketing guide
• AHPRA advertising for physiotherapists
• Pelvic health clinic marketing
• View all services →