Response 805671192

Back to Response listing

Introduction

2. Do you give consent for your submission to be published in whole or in part?

Please select one item
(Required)
Ticked Yes
No

Details about you

3. Are you answering on behalf of an organisation?

Please select one item
Yes
Ticked No

4. Where do you live or where is your organisation based?

Please select one item
NSW
Ticked Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
ACT
NT
City/Town
Metropolitan Melbourne

More details about you

8. What role best describes you?

Please select one item
Aged care consumer
Family and/or carer for an aged care consumer
Aged care worker/professional
Aged care advocate
Clinician/geriatrician
Health worker/professional
Ticked Other
If other, please specify
Quality and Risk professional

Questions about accreditation and monitoring compliance of residential aged care services

11. Do you think that processes to accredit and monitor residential aged care services are effective?

Accreditation process
Please select one item
Yes, always Ticked Yes, mostly Yes, sometimes No Don’t know
Monitoring process
Please select one item
Yes, always Yes, mostly Ticked Yes, sometimes No Don’t know

12. Do you think processes to review and investigate non-compliance with the accreditation standards are effective?

Please select one item
Yes, always
Yes, mostly
Yes, sometimes
Ticked No
Don’t know

13. Are you aware that sanctions can be imposed on residential aged care services when they fail to comply with the accreditation standards?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

14. Do you think these sanctions are effective?

Please select one item
Yes, always
Yes, mostly
Yes, sometimes
Ticked No
Don’t know

15. What features of the existing assessment and monitoring process should be retained?

Retain assessment & monitoring processes
Unannounced assessment contacts (frequency informed by risk assessment), review assessments where risk is identified, re-accreditation audits not more than every 3 years. Legislation framework.

16. What features of the existing assessment and monitoring process should be changed?

Change assessment & monitoring
Remove the specific standards from legislation and include a requirement that provider's are to be accredited against standards that are established by the Secretary of the Department, with these Standards to be reviewed at least every 5 years. Accrediting any function or service against Standards that are more than 20 years old is not acceptable.

Questions about complaints

17. Have you made a complaint about a residential aged care service in the last 10 years?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

Details on your complaint

18. In what year did you make your complaint? Please specify the year or 'Don't remember'

Year of complaint
2016

19. Who did you make the complaint to?

Please select all that apply
Ticked Aged care staff
Ticked Management
Commonwealth department
State/territory department
Elected official
Aged Care Complaints Commissioner
State or territory health complaints entity
Police
Other

20. Did you experience difficulty finding information about:

Who to direct complaints to
Please select one item
Yes Ticked No
The complaints handling process
Please select one item
Yes Ticked No

21. Where did you go to find information about making a complaint?

Please select all that apply
Ticked Residential aged care service
My Aged Care website
Ticked Aged Care Complaints Commissioner
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Other

22. How satisfactorily was the complaint addressed in terms of the following:

Time taken to resolve
Please select one item
Completely satisfactory Ticked Mostly satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Clarity of process
Please select one item
Completely satisfactory Ticked Mostly satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Personnel handling the complaint
Please select one item
Completely satisfactory Ticked Mostly satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Clarity of communication
Please select one item
Completely satisfactory Ticked Mostly satisfactory Unsatisfactory
You are welcome to provide further details on your response
Letters from ACCC office should be simpler and easier to understand - plain English. A framework for assessing risk associated with complaints should be introduced. All complaints are important but a risk rating framework assists with comparisions of data. As the ACCC is encouraging greater transparency, it would be helpful if the Commissioner published data on what they were told and what the organisation did (deidentified) to share lessons learnt.

23. Describe the complaint and how it was handled.

Description of complaint handling
Complaint re care and failure to support independence - poor diabetes care, need for assertive communication to ensure equipment for care available, refusal to allow resident on outings as FPOA had not given consent to attend outings (not relevant to role of financial power of attorney which had not been enacted), despite not seeking (not required) consent. Internal investigation and response letter.

24. How could your complaint have been better handled?

Suggestions for improvement
Acceptable handling

Additional comments

27. Do you have anything else that you would like to contribute to the Review?

Additional comments
The Oakden report highlights failures from both the SA and Commonwealth governments. It was confronting to read this report in 2017 which shares aspects with the 1993 Burdekin Report. The Commonwealth should never have given approved provider status to the local healthcare network. This resulted in residents receiving inadequate treatment in an insufficiently funded and staffed environment. ACFI (and its predecessors and future proposals) will never provide sufficient funds for specialised services which will continue to be needed and top up funding will therefore be required - and older persons living with severe mental illness will have limited ability to contribute towards these costs. AACQA surveyors do not have the expertise or knowledge to assess specialist mental health services and AACQA should have acknowledged these deficits and sought to work in partnership with the Office of the Chief Psychiatrist. This was my experience as Quality Manager in 1999 in a Victorian psychogeriatric nursing home - disappointing this has not continued in Victoria and was an opportunity lost in SA. The CEO of the LHCN is to be commended for requesting the review and for taking action whilst it was occurring. The SA Office of the Chief Psychiatrist responded promptly but needs to reflect on its review of services. At this time of reform towards a market driven environment it is a timely remindernof the importance of ensuring protection of those with a limited voice and ability to pay.