Compliance scores questioned

When it was highlighted that aged care homes deemed to be non-compliant for quality and safety reasons by the sector regulator were still awarded four or five stars for, er, compliance – the validity of the overall ratings system was brought into question.

Dr Rodney Jilek, managing director of Aged Care Consulting and Advisory Services Australia – which published a report highlighting the inconsistencies – told Australian Ageing Agenda the questionable scores were against the government’s own guidelines.

“To get a 5-star compliance rating you need to have no non-compliance for three years. For a 4-star rating you need to have no non-compliance for 12 months. Therefore, anyone on the non-compliance register can’t have a 4- or 5-star rating – not possible.”

Dr Jilek ­said the compliance scores led people to wrongly believe that they could use the star ratings to make informed decisions and comparisons about aged care facilities. “That’s not actually true – you can’t do that because the ratings are not correct,” he said.

In response, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner Janet Anderson told AAA: “The existence of non-compliance at a residential service does not reflect that service’s star rating unless the commission uses its regulatory powers … Our approach means that there will be times when a service on My Aged Care has a non-compliance recorded against it that has not influenced their overall star rating.”

While acknowledging that there may be “uncertainty or confusion” around the distinction between the commission finding non-compliance at a site and any regulatory action it may take, Ms Anderson said: “How and when we deploy our powers, and what powers we deploy, depends on the level of risk that the compliance is posing to people receiving care.”

When assessing risk, the commission factors in “a level of trust” in a provider, added Ms Anderson.

This prompted Dr Jilek to accuse the commission of attempting to “muddy the water”. “What is the sense of having minimum basic standards if the regulator can, through its internal opaque decision-making processes – their subjective trust in the provider – deem them to be not important enough to alert the community through a system designed to enhance transparency?”

Confidence around data accuracy and transparency in reporting is key

Craig Gear

Ms Anderson defended the commission’s approach when handling matters of non-compliance. She told AAA: “We want to create an environment where providers are incentivised to actively engage with us and demonstrate they are willing to take necessary action to self-correct as soon as possible when things go wrong.”

Bringing attention to the fact that a non-compliant provider’s actions are routinely monitored, Ms Anderson said: “If at any point this situation changes and we identify risk to the residents at a service, we will not hesitate to take further action – which could well include compliance enforcement action.”

Speaking on behalf of consumers, Patricia Sparrow – chief executive of advocacy organisation Council on the Ageing Australia – remained unconvinced. She told AAA: “It’s clear that the star rating system needs ongoing work to provide reliable information and restore community confidence.”

Chief executive officer of the Older Persons Advocacy Network Craig Gear said reports of flaws around non-compliance issues were “concerning”. He told AAA: “Confidence around data accuracy and transparency in reporting is key.”

In light of the findings, Dr Jilek suggested the government abandon the star rating system altogether. “It needs to pull the plug and they need to go back to the drawing board.”

We hope you enjoyed this article – please add your comments below
Visit our features portal for more in-depth stories