We Asked, You Said, We Did

Between November and December 2024, we sought your feedback on how Star Ratings are calculated and other proposed improvements.

We received feedback from residential aged care providers, workers, peak bodies, older people and their support networks.

Approximately 271 people participated in the consultation through in-person and virtual sessions, online surveys and written submissions.

We heard support for:

• changing the way the Compliance and Staffing ratings are calculated and displayed –providing more clarity on the quality of care in aged care homes
• the introduction of half stars to the Overall Star Rating – helping people to make more informed choices about residential aged care
• the display and explanation of environmental restraint policies alongside the Quality Measures rating – providing greater transparency around the use of these practices in aged care homes.

We developed a report of findings. You can access the summary report here.

Star Ratings will transition to a re-designed Compliance rating from commencement of the new Aged Care Act on 1 July 2025.

From 1 October 2025, aged care homes need to meet care minute targets to achieve 3 or more stars for their Staffing rating.

We appreciate all those who provided input to the consultation – your feedback will help to ensure Star Ratings continues to be a valuable resource for all.

Australia’s National Gene Technology Scheme for the regulation of genetically modified organisms is comprised of the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 and Gene Technology Regulations 2001 (the Regulations), and corresponding State and Territory laws.

The Gene Technology Regulator sought the views of anyone likely to be affected by proposed minor and technical amendments to the Regulations.

A consultation paper was published online to assist interested stakeholders in addressing the consultation questions.

During the 4-week consultation period, a total of 15 submissions were received from the research sector (universities, research institutes and researchers), agriculture-related peak bodies, government agencies, one company and one non-government organisation.

Submitters generally indicated they would benefit from improved clarity in the legislation.

Submitters that are regulated under the Act indicated that their regulatory burden would be either unchanged or reduced as a result of the amendments, for example, through improved clarity of regulatory requirements.

Although the amendment proposals received varying degrees of support from submitters, the issues raised by submitters did not warrant changes to the proposals.

We analysed the feedback provided during the public consultation process and took into account submitter suggestions to improve clarity in finalising the Gene Technology Amendment (Minor Measures) Regulations 2025.

Following approval by the Gene Technology Ministers’ Meeting, the amendments to the Regulations were made by the Governor-General and commenced on 26 February 2025.

We sought your feedback via the Consultation Hub followed by a stakeholder workshop about the proposed new format for Prescribed List billing codes.

Our initial proposal was a 5-digit ANNNN format.

You raised concerns that the ANNNN format did not allow for sponsor-specific prefixes.

You raised concerns about system changes and implementation timeframes.

You suggested alternative formats:

• a 6-digit format
• using the same format as Part B billing codes (AAANN)
• remapping billing codes
• reusing previously deleted billing codes
• using AANAN format

Other parameters or matters we all identified:

• preference to retain a sponsor-specific prefix
• the format must clearly distinguish between PL and MBS and ARTG codes
• the format must clearly distinguish between medical devices (Part A, C and D) and human tissue products (Part B)
• remapping would require substantial resources
• reusing billing codes would risk losing or mixing historical data between devices and/or sponsors

We reviewed all suggestions, feedback and parameters and decided on the following format:

AXNNN, with AX remaining as a sponsor-specific prefix.

This format addresses all risks and parameters.

There are over 80 previously deleted billing codes that have used this AXNNN format. We will ensure that these billing codes are not reused or reallocated by the Health Products Portal (our online application system for the PL) in the future.

***YOU CAN FIND A TEST XML FILE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IN THE 'RELATED' SECTION BELOW***

***PLEASE NOTE THERE WILL BE NO FORMAT CHANGES TO PART B BILLING CODES***

The Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth) (the Act) forms the basis of a nationally consistent scheme for the regulation of genetically modified organisms, known as the National Gene Technology Scheme (the Scheme).

The Department of Health and Aged Care (Department) asked for your views and input on proposed amendments to the Act through submissions to the Consultation Hub.

A consultation paper, fact sheets and compilation draft of the draft Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2024 (the Amendment Bill) were published online alongside the Amendment Bill to assist all interested stakeholders in addressing the consultation questions.

Additionally, a public information webinar, and a one-day information workshop with targeted stakeholders, were also held to further support understanding of the proposed changes to Australia’s gene technology legislation. 

In total, over 700 subscribers to the National Gene Technology Scheme were directly engaged to participate in the consultation, not including other announcements shared by state and territories and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

58 submissions were received from regulated organisations, peak bodies, interest groups, universities and researchers, government agencies and members of the public.

A majority of the submissions indicated broad support for the proposed amendments to the Act. However, some submissions asked for more information and clarity on the changes planned for the Gene Technology Regulations 2001 and proposed Rules. Submissions offered a range of suggestions to refine or clarify the operation of specific provisions, including for example certain definitions and in relation to the expanded compliance enforcement and monitoring provisions.

We note that a small number of submissions provided feedback that was outside the scope of this phase of consultation, was general in nature, or which had been considered through earlier consultation phases for these reforms.

We have analysed the feedback provided during the public consultation process, and are working with the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, the Gene Technology Standing Committee and relevant government agencies to develop a final draft of the Amendment Bill for consideration and approval by Commonwealth, State and Territory gene technology ministers, before its introduction into the Federal Parliament.

The draft National Nursing Workforce Strategy (strategy) was released for public consultation between 11 September to 20 October of 2024. Public consultation provided stakeholders and interested members of the public an opportunity to share their views and feedback on the draft strategy before its finalisation.   

Feedback was sought on the vision, outcomes, and priority actions. Stakeholders were asked if they could see how the strategy’s actions can be applied or implemented to their sector or area of work. Stakeholders were also asked if they could see the link between the actions and the strategy’s vision to improve the health and wellbeing of all Australians. 

A total of 1,210 stakeholders were engaged throughout the consultation period. This included 487 stakeholders engaged in workshops, meetings and focus groups, 661 engaged with the online survey and 62 provided a written submission.

The high response rate from stakeholders providing feedback on the draft strategy was welcomed. The mix of responses from consumers, nurses, other health professionals and organisations provided a comprehensive picture of how the vision, outcomes, and actions of the strategy were received.  

The feedback heard through this round of consultation has been summarised into a report.

In November 2024, the strategy project team undertook analysis of the feedback received during consultation.  

The qualitative data collected from the survey and written submissions was simultaneously analysed with the feedback heard from the stakeholders that engaged in other consultation activities. The data was synthesised into an analysis framework. This involved coding the qualitative responses for feedback on key themes and the creation of analysis notes to further refine the draft strategy. 

Suggestions proposed during this round of consultation will be considered by the National Nursing Workforce Strategy Steering Committee and Strategy Advisory Group and utilised to refine a final draft of the strategy. 

We thank all those who took part in this consultation. Stakeholders’ willingness to share ideas and provide constructive feedback demonstrates the genuine care for the future of nursing in Australia. 

As part of a broader review, we sought feedback on proposed changes to the Stoma Appliance Scheme (SAS) clinical eligibility, maximum quantities, Group 9 products and product pricing.

We received 438 submissions from ostomates and carers of ostomates, stomal therapy nurses and other key SAS stakeholders including product sponsors and system administrators.

We reviewed the submissions and prepared a summary report of key themes and feedback. This feedback is being used to refine proposed changes to the SAS and the SAS Schedule.

The Stoma Product Assessment Panel has considered feedback from the consultation. Together with the work already completed in the Review of the SAS Schedule, this feedback will inform final recommendations for approval by Government.

We appreciate the interest in the consultation and the views and expertise shared through the consultation, and thank all stakeholders who participated.

We asked you to provide views, suggestions, and ideas on how to implement the MSAC advice about the cost of technical support services (TSS) for CIED.

We asked you to raise any matters of concern or negative implications for your organisation, you and/or your sector.

This was stage 1 of consultations on this matter.

We received over 30 submissions across sectors including clinicians, technicians, consumers, hospitals and state government, insurers and sponsors with differing issues, suggestions and views.

• There is not a single funding model/model of care for CIED across sectors or even within a sector
• There are issues and benefits with the current funding models/models of care
• Changes may have impact on service delivery and may increase load on public hospitals
• There were suggestions on alternative models or changes to the current model of care.

We published a high-level summary of submissions to stage 1 and released individual submissions.

We will use the information and learnings gathered in stage 1 to guide stage 2 discussions with each stakeholder group.

The review team, led by Professor John McMillan AO developed an Issues Paper to seek your views on the Australian Sports Commission Act 1989 (the Act).

Stakeholders engaged during the consultation period included:

• National Sporting Organisations and National Sporting Organisations for people with Disability
• Commonwealth sports portfolio agencies
• state and territory sport portfolio agencies, and sporting institutes and academies
• Olympic-based bodies and other peak sporting bodies; and
• academic and legal experts.

The review team received 47 written submissions from individuals, organisations and groups.

Submissions have been published where respondents provided consent for this to occur.

As part of the consultation process, the review team also conducted 5 workshops and 16 interviews. We thank all stakeholders for contributing their time and insights.

The review team has developed a Consultation Summary of key themes arising from consultation. 

Input from the consultation process will inform the review report to the Minister for Sport, with recommendations on changes to the Act.

Between June and July 2024, we sought your views on national standards for counsellors and psychotherapists. This included feedback on the experience, capabilities, and behaviours expected in these professions.

We received feedback from counsellors, psychotherapists, peak bodies, service providers, consumers, carers, and other interested parties.

From over 30 interviews and 315 written submissions, we heard:

• Broad support for mandatory national standards to ensure high-quality services.
• General support for including education and training, supervision, and CPD in the national standards.
• Strong interest in providing feedback on the draft national standards, once available.

We developed draft national standards based on your feedback and research.

A second round of consultation is now open to gather your views on the draft standards.

You can find a copy of the draft standards and information on how to get involved in consultation here.

We asked for views on after hours primary care policies and programs, including the need for primary care after hours services, the current state of after hours service provision and successful models of primary care after hours service provision. While the consultation was open to the public, we sought input in particular from primary care providers.

The Discussion Paper Allen + Clarke Consulting – After Hours Review evaluation report | Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care provides further details on the consultation.

The online survey received a total of 457 responses, including:
• 253 from practice owners/managers and primary health practitioners
• 51 from Primary Health Networks
• 58 from peak bodies, colleges, or other organisations
• 95 from others, primarily members of the public.

42 written submissions were also received from organisations and individuals.
As part of the review, focus groups and interviews were also held with more than 34 key stakeholder organisations, and workshops with 61 healthcare consumers. We thank all stakeholders and consumers who provided input into the Review for contributing their time and insights.

We reviewed all submissions, alongside other consultation feedback and data. The Findings Report of the evaluation to support the review of primary care after hours programs and policy provides an analysis of all stakeholder input. The Findings Report will be made available on the Department of Health and Aged Care’s webpage A better after-hours system – Review of After-hours Primary Care Programs and Policy | Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care

The Department will continue to address key concerns and issues while we consider options for improving the after hours primary care system. We will continue to keep stakeholders informed of the reform process and will provide opportunities for engagement wherever practical.

The Department of Health and Aged Care asked for feedback on the draft Impact Analysis for the Review of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (FSANZ Act Review). The Impact Analysis outlined the cumulative costs and benefits of concepts identified through the FSANZ Act Review. We asked stakeholders to give feedback on the Impact Analysis and proposed concepts.

The Department received 78 submissions across government, industry, public health, consumer and other stakeholders. Stakeholders had diverse views:

• Public health and consumer groups focused on FSANZ protecting short- and long-term public health. They were also concerned about industry capture of FSANZ, and the timeframes for proposals.
• Industry reiterated their frustration with the time applications take for processing. They also raised how important FSANZ is in making timely decisions for innovation, international trade and the consumer.
• Government highlighted the importance of consultation on the risk-based framework, and FSANZ being resourced appropriately to complete its core functions. They also raised concerns about a cost recovery levy.
• Other stakeholders (including individuals, academics, research organisations and ‘other’ groups) raised similar issues to public health and consumer groups. This included the risk-based framework and the importance of further engagement to develop it.

The Department reviewed and analysed all submissions received. Feedback will inform a revised Impact Analysis, which we will publish online once finalised. The Department will also publish submissions on the Consultation Hub (where respondents granted their consent to publish).

The Department of Health and Aged Care, in partnership with the Australian Digital Health Agency, sought feedback to inform implementation of two changes to improve sharing of pathology and diagnostic imaging reports to My Health Record:

• better access: introducing requirements for pathology and diagnostic imaging providers to share reports to My Health Record by default
• faster access: removing the 7-day delay so consumers can see most pathology and diagnostic imaging results as soon as they have been uploaded to My Health Record.

We received 416 submissions from a range of respondents including consumers and carers, healthcare providers and peak bodies.

Submissions have been published where respondents provided consent for this to occur.

We reviewed submissions and prepared a summary report of key themes and feedback. Feedback is informing implementation, noting we will be undertaking further consultation as implementation progresses.

We have also established a Clinical Reference Group to support implementation by providing strategic advice and clinical oversight.

The Intellectual Disability Capability Framework drafting group asked for feedback about the draft Intellectual Disability Health Capability Framework in an open consultation from 3 -27 October 2023. We asked for feedback about the overall draft framework and asked for specific feedback about the following areas of the draft framework document:

• learning outcomes
• implementation guidelines
• capacity assessment tools
• terms and language.

This was the second consultation for this project (the first open consultation asked for feedback about the core capabilities). 

Thirty-three submissions to the open consultation were received from a range of stakeholders including individuals, health services, peak bodies, education providers, First Nations organisations and groups representing and serving those with intellectual disabilities. A breakdown of responses is as follows:

• 9 responses from individuals/consumers
• 17 responses from organisations
• 7 responses from section/teams within an organisation

The results showed that overall, 91% of respondents agreed that the learning outcomes were appropriate, and 67% agreed that the learning outcomes were measurable. In relation to implementation guidelines, 58% of respondents agreed that the implementation guidance for accreditation authorities was appropriate, and 70% of respondents agreed that the implementation guidance for education providers was appropriate. 67% of respondents agreed that the assessment tools were useful, and 85% of respondents agreed that the language used in the framework was appropriate.

Free text comments identified areas for amendments or emphasis in the draft Framework. Main areas that were identified include:

• strengthening guidance around integrating intellectual disability into crowded curricula and accreditation standards.
• the need to provide students with the appropriate placements to prepare them to meet the needs of people with intellectual disability.
• disability awareness training for educators.
• the need to acknowledge self-regulating health professions within the framework.
• suggestions to simplify the capacity assessment tools.
• proposed changes to terminology and areas for emphasis in learning outcomes.

Feedback also identified areas that will be considered in the next phase of the project, including resource development, evaluation strategies and communities of practice. This feedback has been recorded and will be used in the next phase of the project.

All submissions were reviewed, and amendments have been made as appropriate. The following significant changes were made:

• strengthened guidance about how educational institutions and accreditation authorities can integrate intellectual disability into curricula and standards.  Flexible implementation options were provided and examples of ways that learning outcomes can be integrated into existing curricula were added.
• emphasised the need for appropriate placements to prepare students to meet the needs of people with intellectual disability and provided alternatives if no intellectual disability specific services.
• emphasised importance of disability awareness training for educators.
• acknowledged self-regulating health professions within the Framework.
• amended capacity assessment tools and made them modifiable, so they could be further revised to suit the needs of each organisation.
• updated terminology and glossary definitions as suggested. For example, diagnostic overshadowing was updated to a more contemporary definition.
• Added a new learning outcome to emphasise the need to limit diagnostic overshadowing. The new learning outcomes is: “Limit diagnostic overshadowing by evaluating when presentations are attributable to health and/or mental health concerns rather than intellectual disability”.

Next steps:

The next stage of the Intellectual Disability Health Curriculum Development Project, led by a team at UNSW Sydney, aims to curate and develop intellectual disability health resources to support the integration of the Framework into accreditation standards and health professional pre-registration education curricula. The project began in June 2023 and will run for two years, with resources released throughout this time. This phase involves significant consultation and co-design with people with intellectual disability, and consultation with key stakeholders including support networks of people with intellectual disability, accreditation authorities, and the higher education sector. The objectives of this next stage are to:

1. scope potential barriers and facilitators to implementation in accreditation standards and create a plan to support integration
2.  curate a list of existing foundational knowledge and teaching resources and provide guidance around their use
3.  identify and develop additional priority resources and tools to support education providers to implement the Framework. One such tool will support education providers to include people with intellectual disability and their support networks in the design and delivery of curriculum content.

We appreciate all the interest and expertise shared throughout the consultation phase and thank all stakeholders who prepared a submission.

We asked you for your experiences, views and perspectives of health practitioners working to full scope of practice in primary care.  

We received 686 online submissions from people representing a wide range of professions and roles in primary care.

The review analysts will now highlight the trends and key issues form the submissions. Together with the literature review, this will paint a comprehensive picture of the current state of scope of practice in primary care, to inform the next stages of the review.

We asked the Australian community and key stakeholders to provide their views on what they wanted to see in the new pandemic instrument and amended International Health Regulations (2005) to inform Australia's engagement in negotiations.

A total of 4,521 submissions were received from individuals and a range of stakeholder groups, including academic and research institutes; non-government and community organisations; peak bodies and unions; and private sector institutions. 

We have considered submissions received and identified key themes. A report containing a summary of the key themes and a Government response is available here. 

We asked you 25 questions about your views and input on the National Health and Climate Strategy consultation paper. The invitation for written submissions and an online survey were open to public response from 2 June to 24 July 2023. The department also held workshops and roundtables around Australia.

Over 300 stakeholders attended our workshops and roundtables and shared their views, concerns, and aspirations for the Strategy. The department received 270 submissions via the Consultation Hub. Participants included organisations and individuals from a diverse group of stakeholders including medical professionals, primary care, advocacy organisations, academia, industry, and medical societies and colleges. To read more about the consultation process please visit the Final Thematic Stakeholder Report. 

This consultation informed the development of the National Health and Climate Strategy, which was published on 3 December 2023 and is available for download here.

For your views on whether, and if so how, to reform the governance and administration of the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) and the National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC’s) Medical Research Endowment Account (MREA) to ensure the Australian community obtains the greatest benefit from this investment in health and medical research.

The Discussion Paper provides further details on the consultation.

We received 177 submissions from a broad, diverse and passionate range of stakeholders. There was a  prevailing view that the two funds should be brought together under a single managing structure/ agency, currently the NHMRC. However, stakeholders advised a staged, incremental approach should be taken to the reforms, with a focus on ensuring the benefits of the two funds are preserved and promoted.

We analysed and summarised your feedback in the Summary Report.

The Department and NHMRC are working together to address key concerns and issues while we consider options for implementation. This includes working together to better use existing advisory committees (e.g. MRFF will seek advice from NHMRC committees), developing and implementing policies together, and other efforts that better align the two funds without requiring formal governance reforms.

The government will continue to keep stakeholders informed of the reform process and will provide opportunities for engagement wherever practical.

For views from the Australian community on the Marketing in Australia of Infant Formulas: Manufacturers and Importers Agreement (MAIF Agreement). This included views on the current scope of the MAIF agreement, whether the current processes related to the MAIF Agreement and Committee are appropriate, if alternate regulatory approaches need to be considered and any benefits, costs and limitations of changes to the agreement.   

A total of 524 individuals and organisations participated in stakeholder consultation, including consumers and members of the public, infant formula industry (MAIF Agreement signatories and non-signatories), State and Territory government representatives, health sector representatives, breastfeeding and public health advocates, and academics. The online survey received 443 responses. Consultation also included 28 focus groups and interviews led by Allen + Clarke, and analysis of 11 written submissions provided by interested parties. The responses were detailed and diverse. We thank all of the respondents for their time and feedback.

Of the 443 responses to the online survey, 408 respondents provided consent to publish their responses. However, all responses were included in the analysis undertaken by Allen + Clarke.

The Consultation Report provides an analysis of all stakeholder consultation.

A Consultation Report and the MAIF Review report will be made available on the Department of Health and Aged Care’s Marketing Infant Formula in Australia webpage. Submissions have now been published on Consultation Hub (where consent to publish was granted by the respondent).

The Department of Health and Aged Care (Department) asked for your views and input on the draft aim, outcomes and actions in the consultation draft Nurse Practitioner Workforce Plan (the Plan). The draft Plan was released for stakeholder feedback from 19 December 2022 to 10 February 2023.

Targeted meetings were also held during this time to seek feedback from stakeholder organisations. Yarning circles and a consumer focus group were also held to test the actions within the draft Plan to ensure they are realistic, implementable and well received by both First Nations peoples and consumers.

Feedback received during the consultation process is being used to refine and inform the final Plan.

In total, 215 submissions were received, comprising of 172 online survey responses, 25 written submissions via email, 15 targeted stakeholder meetings, 1 consumer focus group and 2 yarning circles.

The mix of responses from consumers, nurse practitioners, health professionals and organisations provided a comprehensive understanding of how the aim, outcomes and actions of the Plan were received. Feedback on improving the draft Plan was constructive with suggestions to refine language and review the action’s timeline. Whilst many responses were focused on the barriers to nurse practitioners providing care, the Department received useful suggestions for refining the draft Plan.

The Department undertook analysis of the online submissions (including survey and written responses) using the Citizen Space application in February 2023. The data from online and written submissions was further analysed simultaneously with stakeholder feedback from meetings, yarning circles and focus groups. This involved coding the qualitative responses for feedback on key themes and creation of analysis notes to further refine the consultation draft. 

Stakeholder feedback captured is being used to refine the Plan and ensure the actions address key nurse practitioner workforce challenges. Suggestions proposed during this round of consultation will be considered by the Nurse Practitioner Steering Committee and used to develop a final version of the Plan for approval by Government. 

The department asked for feedback about the core capabilities to support the Intellectual Disability Health Capability Framework (framework) in an open consultation from 22 November 2022 – 27 January 2023.  The proposed framework for consultation included the following capabilities:

• Intellectual Disability Awareness
• Communication
• Quality Evidence- Based Clinical Care
• Coordination and Collaboration
• Decision-Making and Consent
• Responsible, Safe and Ethical Practice.

We asked whether people thought the framework and the core capabilities address the key areas for health students’ knowledge and practice. We also asked people to comment on the content and detail covered by each of the six capabilities.

Ninety-three submissions to the open consultation were received from a range of stakeholders including individuals, health services, peak bodies, education providers, and groups representing and serving those with intellectual disabilities. A breakdown of responses is as follows:

• 22 responses from individuals/consumers
• 37 responses from organisations
• 34 responses from section/teams within an organisation

The results showed that overall, 77% of respondents agreed that the capability areas capture the key capabilities. The level of agreement by specific capability area ranged from 63% (Intellectual Disability Awareness) to 74% (Responsible, Safe and Ethical Practice). Submissions also proposed changes to terminology, and identified gaps in capabilities, areas where more emphasis was required, and clarification was needed. Feedback also identified potential learning outcomes and implementation ideas for the framework.

Feedback has been recorded and will be used to futher develop the framework. All submissions have been reviewed and amendments have been made to capabilities as appropriate. The following significant changes were made: 

The addition of two new capabilities 

• Appropriate assessment (Quality Evidence-Informed Health Care). Employ appropriate assessment procedures and tools to inform diagnosis of health conditions, with an awareness that modified diagnostic criteria and reasonable adjustments may be required for assessment of people with intellectual disability. 
• Safe and quality practices (Responsible, Safe and Ethical Practice). Provide a safe health care environment for people with intellectual disability and apply knowledge of the risks that may be associated with accessing health care to inform safe service provision.  

Key wording changes 

• ‘Adapt communication’ will replace ‘person’s preferred language and communication style and adapted communication’ to clarify the description and emphasise adaptation of communication. 
• ‘Communicate to reassure’ will replace ‘communicate about safety’ to clarify the intent of the description, which is focused on communicating to provide a sense of control and comfort. 
• ‘Evidence-informed practice’ will replace ‘evidence-based practice’ to recognise other types of evidence, including lived experience.  
• ‘Partnership’ rather than ‘inclusion’ in care will be used to describe respectful involvement where both parties are equal participants in care with a minimised power differential. 
• ‘Where at all possible, non-restrictive techniques’ will replace ‘least restrictive’ to highlight that any restrictive practice is a last resort.​ 
• ‘Responsible prescribing’ will replace ‘over prescribing’ to include inappropriate prescribing, lack of prescribing, or prescribing older drugs when newer ones should be used.​ 
• ‘Collaborate with other professionals’ will replace ‘intra- and interdisciplinary collaboration’ to simplify the capability and be inclusive of community and other service networks and providers. 
• ‘Continuity in care during transitions’ will replace ‘transitions in care’ to include continuity in care and emphasise the importance of effective handovers and collaboration between health professionals. 

Following the open consultation process, a modified Delphi method will be conducted with key stakeholders to reach consensus on the core capabilities. A futher public consultation will be undertaken in September 2023 to seek feedback on the draft framework document.

We appreciate all the interest and expertise shared throughout the consultation phase and thank all stakeholders who prepared a submission.