There were a lot of media headlines this week on the latest research paper released by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety – and it’s easy to see why.
The huge 249-page report looked at over 50 quality indicators about residential aged care including hospital admissions, falls, fractures, pressure injuries, premature death, weight loss, complaints, food quality, staffing minutes, use of chemical and physical restraints, and the reporting of assaults.
The information – which has not been previously made available to researchers before according to the Royal Commission and sourced from various parts of the aged care system – showed that For Profit providers performed the worst on quality.
Private operators rate last for quality
Private operators rated the best for just one indicator, despite making up 34% of the 2,700 aged care homes in Australia.
Not For Profits (57% of the sector) also did poorly, coming out on top for only two indicators.
Government-run facilities were the clear winner, rating first on 31 indicators, despite only making up just 9% of facilities.
But is the data so clear-cut?
Some data dated or skewed
We noted that some of the figures date from 2016/17 – around the time that the Federal Government massively decreased funding to the sector.
With the new Quality Standards and Charter of Rights introduced last year and the increasing focus on compliance by the regulator in recent years, the data may not be an accurate representation of today’s care environment.
The report itself acknowledges that some of the data may be skewed or influenced by factors outside the control of facilities, for example, that a facility submitting a low number of reports may not be meeting its Compulsory Reporting requirements or that a low number of missing residents may indicate a higher use of physical restraints.
Government-run facilities can receive up to 50% more funding
The data also doesn’t take into account the extra cash that the State and Territory Governments tip in to fund their aged care facilities – in many cases, up to 50% more than what is provided to Federally-funded aged care homes.
In particular, some states including Victoria and Queensland provide funding to ensure staffing ratios.
With staffing making up 70% of providers’ costs, this is a significant boost.
More data is needed for residents and their families
Many of the figures presented in the report are shocking – and indicate that all aged care providers do need to lift their game.
But is it fair to call out operators – whose staff continue to work hard this year to keep providing care during the pandemic – without taking these factors into account?
There is no doubt that more publicly available data is needed to deliver more transparency for consumers and their families as well as drive improvement in the system.
But with private and Not For Profit operators caring for thousands of older Australians every day, it needs to be a fair discussion.
