The laws and regulations that govern retirement villages specify that village residents must be ‘independent’, meaning they must be able to manage all aspects of life on their own.
When the resident can no longer support themselves and is no longer ‘independent’, what happens then? Think of an elderly, single woman.
And now the Federal Government wants us to stay in home as long as possible, hopefully up to a ‘respectable death’. So where do retirement villages stand?
What is ‘independent’?
Specialist retirement village solicitor Mark Eagleston tells us that the laws are ‘non prescriptive’, meaning the term ‘independent’ is not spelt out. The operator can adapt services to fit.
It is likely the small village owners will be sticking by the spirit of the established laws and urging people to contact home care at the first signs of frailty, followed by increasing pressure to move into residential care – an aged care home – when problem signs move to a ‘risk’ status.
That is a legal risk for the operator as much as a physical risk for the resident.
A ‘respectable death’
Larger operators, particularly the not-for-profits (and Aveo), however are bucking the system and building philosophies and services to support village residents dying in their own home, achieving a ‘respectable death’.
And being in a retirement village could be considered the very best place to be, especially if you are on your own.
There is an experienced management structure that understands the ageing journey and the support mechanisms available. Villages are true communities of people who are aware of neighbours. The homes are designed to support ageing in place.
From the Australian Bureau of Statistics graph above, it is plain to see that the most popular age of death for men is between 80 and 90, while women are 85 to 95. Around 70% of residents in villages are single women. They are the most likely to be alone at death.
Dying at home not an option for most
David Panter, CEO of South Australian Not For Profit village operator ECH told us last week that we also have one of the worst records of people aged over 70 dying in our own home at just 10%. He says 50% of us die in hospital and 40% in an aged care home.
ECH is passionate about moving this closer to the Scandinavian rates of 40-45% at home, the same in hospitals and just 10% in aged care homes.
To achieve this ECH is redesigning the mix of its villages, with more serviced apartments where residents who are no longer fully independent can receive domestic as well as home care services.
They are boosting their allied services like physiotherapists.
Bethanie in WA is adding new serviced apartments to existing villages. Aveo is expanding its Freedom Aged Care Plan across 28 of its villages.
Villages are in an ideal position to establish the standards for what we all want: a respectable death.
Discussion1 Comment
Hi Chris
I really have been pondering David Panter’s statistics since you recently wrote about them and again above.
I cant doubt the 2013 ABS data which record about 148,000 deaths in 2013 of whom I calculate from the ABS graph that there were roughly about 110,000 to 120,000 over 70 deaths. However, in 2013 there were around 2,000,000 people actually over 70; so about 1,880,000 people over 70 didn’t die that year.
With an aged care planning ratio of 80 places per 1000, there are approaching 200,000 residential places. We know that deaths occur more in 80+ years than close to 70 and this is also the age of people in residential care.
Its good to see ECH giving it a go but I just don’t see the relevance of the data and how a few (or even a lot of) serviced apartments will move the at home death rate from the quoted 10% to 40-45% even in the SA market where ECH operates.
Its going to require much more investment in community care, the solution to the dementia “epidemic” or perhaps the international comparisons David is using aren’t quite globally transferrable?