Author: Sarah Russell

We should be talking about aged care during the election campaign

29 April 2019

Our democracy depends on the robust contest of policies. Yet so far the federal election campaign has been dominated by personal insults, pork barrelling and heated discussions about preference deals. I’ve hardly heard a whisper from candidates about their party’s aged care policies.

I am standing as a candidate for Reason Australia in my local electorate (Cooper in inner city Melbourne) so I can put aged care in the election spotlight. Reason brings an evidence-based approach to all its policies, including aged care policies.

Aged care needs evidence-based, not opinion-based, policies. It also needs kindness. Rather than listen to the opinions of the usual suspects who are part of the broken system that has failed older Australians, we need new thinking. To quote Albert Einstein: “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them”.

Reason Australia’s policies “Respecting older people” are:

  • Implement strategies to combat ageism
  • Establish a national framework of Healthy Ageing
  • Support the aged care diversity framework and action plans to ensure equality in care for elder Australians
  • Create age and dementia friendly environments within communities
  • Re-write the Aged Care Act 1997 from a human rights perspective
  • Transparency about how aged care providers spend government subsidies
  • Mandatory reporting of elder abuse

ALP and Greens also released new policies on ageing and aged care. The Liberal Party has not announced any new aged care election policies. Perhaps they consider their track record speaks for itself.

Consistent with LNP’s focus on the ‘top end of town’, the government recently gave $320 million to aged care providers without any obligation that this money will improve services for older people. The Reason Party disagrees with giving providers a one off cash injection without any strings attached. Taxpayers’ moneyshould be used to improve the quality of life of older people not the pockets of providers.

The numerous aged care inquiries, reviews, consultations, think-tanks and task forces over the past decade have resulted in a large number of recommendations. Both LNP and ALP governments have ignored most of these recommendations. In fact, the 2013 aged care reforms that have marketised residential and in-home aged care have bipartisan support. This may explain why ALP is not talking about aged care.

The Greens’ policies on aged care are much more progressive than either mainstream party. The Greens are the only political party to address the low salaries of aged care workers. They also support staff ratios in aged care homes though curiously their policy does not require a registered nurse to be on site 24 hours per day. When there is no registered nurse on site, elderly residents, particularly those who are uncommunicative, do not receive timely treatment when their condition changes. In some cases, this is a form of neglect.

The Greens’ policies include the government spending a further $8.5 billion – $3 billion on aged care homes and $5.5 billion on home care packages. They sensibly include a cap on the percentage of the funding given to service providers that can be used for administration rather than direct resident care.

Although more staff, better pay and releasing more home care packages are important, we do not support the government giving more money to aged care providers until providers are transparent about how they spend this money. There must be transparency about how aged care providers spend government subsidies.

Both the ALP and Greens have policies to address elder abuse. The ALP policy states: “Labor will address the prevalence of elder abuse”. 
The Greens’ policy on elder abuse is slightly stronger, but not strong enough. The Greens state: “Measures to prevent and respond to elder abuse”. In contrast, Reason’s policy makes it mandatory to report elder abuse.

According to the Aged Care Act (1997), providers must “maintain an adequate number of appropriately skilled staff to ensure that the care needs of care recipients are met”. Although 51 ALP candidates support staff ratios in aged care homes, the ALP policy on staffing in aged care homes states: “adequate staffing levels with the 
appropriate mix of skills”. The ALP policy does not rock the boat.

Reason not only rocks the boat, we tip the boat over. Our policy is a game changer. We don’t tinker with The Act (e.g. mandate ratios), our policy is to re-write the Act from scratch.

Reason Australia envisages an Aged Care Act that focuses on the human rights of older Australians not the profits of providers. This new Aged Care Act will include transparency about staffing levels/training and data about quality indicators. Every aged care home will be required to publish data on quality indicators such as pressure sores, medication errors, weight loss, falls, infection rates admissions to hospitals. They will also need to disclose complaints and how these complaints were resolved. Finally, the new Aged Care Act will require the registration of all workers.

Reason Australia recognises that current policies on ageing and aged care are underpinned by ageism. To achieve justice for older people, we have inclusive policies to combat ageism, homophobia and racism. Our policies also focus on healthy ageing and age and dementia friendly environments within our communities. If older people choose to live in their own home, a retirement village or an aged care home, they deserve respect, kindness and love.

 

Aged Care Matters: Solutions Through Evidence And Dialogue

26 March 2019

Last week I published an article about a vigilante group of aged care advocates who bully and harass aged care providers, staff and other aged care advocates. Stewart Johnston responded to this article with his personal experience of being targeted by this group. He demonstrated forgiveness and compassion for those who had abused him.

I have known about this vigilante group for some time. My impression is members of this group are angry, irrational and mostly illiterate. The few times I visited the leader of this group’s Facebook page, I was shocked by her venom towards providers, peak bodies and government. My response has been to ignore this group.

I know there are some wonderful aged care homes because my parents lived in one. I also know some providers of in-home care deliver high standards of care and support. Yesterday I met the leadership team of one of these providers.

I do not agree with the leader of this vigilante group that aged care is “like the holocaust.”  Instead, my position is we must get the unscrupulous providers out of the sector so we only have providers who deliver high standards of care.

I have been a voluntary aged care advocate for several years. Unlike this vigilante group, my advocacy has focused on finding solutions, not screaming abuse on Facebook and Twitter.

I began analysing systemic issues in the aged care sector after my mother and father moved into an aged care home in 2010. They were both very happy living in the aged care home. Most staff treated them with kindness, respect and love. They loved the food, the activities and they made many new friends, both residents and staff. After Dad’s death in January 2012, I stopped work so I could visit Mum most days for about 3 years until her death in September 2015.

With my background as a public health researcher and a registered nurse who worked in intensive care units, I was able to analyse the aged care sector through a critical and clinical lens. Rather than writing Facebook posts and Tweeting, I began writing regular letters to the editor of The Age. I wrote letters about staffing, accreditation, aged care funding instrument, complaints scheme, living wills and polypharmacy in older people.

After Mum died, I was asked to write an Opinion Piece. The Aged Care Gravy Train catapulted me into aged care advocacy. Soon afterwards, I began a voluntary advocacy group Aged Care Matters. In addition to writing numerous opinion pieces and submissions to inquiries/Royal Commission, I met with government, peak bodies and providers. I have also undertaken a research project on aged care homes and in-home care.

Shouting abuse and sharing memes on a Facebook or Twitter does nothing to help older people. It may make the poster/tweeter feel powerful, but it is just loud noise. In my view, the aged care sector will improve when residents, relatives, staff, providers, bureaucrats and politicians collaborate to ensure older people in aged care homes and in-home care have the best possible quality of life. Engaging respectfully with key stakeholders is an opportunity to learn about different perspectives.

Over the past few years, I have received numerous phone calls from residents and relatives wanting advice and help. Yesterday, a woman contacted me. She was extremely distressed because the aged care home had resuscitated her 94-year-old mother who had a Do Not Resuscitate order in her Advance Care Plan.

It was a heart-breaking story. Rather than die peacefully after breakfast, the family watched their mother and grandmother die a slow and seemingly painful death in a hospital palliative care unit. With better systems in place, this would not have happened. With my focus on solutions, perhaps all residents in an aged care home with a Not For Resuscitation order should wear an identifying bracelet.

It has been difficult for me to step aside from aged care advocacy when there is still so much that needs to be done. However, 20-30 hours a week of voluntary work was not sustainable.

Recently, I was a victim of Internet abuse by a member of the Facebook group Actioning Change for Aged Care. This is the same group who abused Stewart Johnston, Maria Berry and Charli Maree Darragh Matterson. A member of this group said: “People are sceptical and think you are captured because you have lunches with peak bodies.”

I am not captured by anyone. I have meetings with CEOs of peak bodies because I know they are focused on finding ways to deliver the best care to older people. Although I often disagree with peak bodies, we listen respectfully to each other’s opinion. Indeed, I have much more respect for the CEOs of LASA, ACSA and Aged Care Guild than I do for those who shout abuse on Facebook and Twitter.

Yesterday, I was asked if I felt like “doing some pro-bono time for Elder Rights Advocacy”. This financial year Elders Rights Advocacy received over $1.3 million from the National Aged Care Advocacy Program (NACAP) grant. It seems that it may take some time to change people’s expectations. I am no longer a volunteer!

 

Bullying and abuse among aged care advocates must stop

19 March 2019

There are a large number of voluntary aged care advocacy groups. Aged Care Crisis, Elder Care Watch, Aged Care Matters, Stop Elder Abuse, Angels for the Elderly, to name a few. Representatives of these voluntary groups spend hours upon hours talking with residents of aged care homes, recipients of in-home care, family members and staff.

The emergence of these voluntary advocacy groups raises an important question about the role of ‘consumer’ organisations funded by the federal government. Why are people seeking help from volunteers rather than COTA, National Seniors and OPAN?

The most common complaint about OPAN in Victoria is ‘the answering machine’. This financial year Elders Rights Advocacy received over $1.3 million from the National Aged Care Advocacy Program (NACAP) grant. Yet, when people phone Elders Rights Advocacy for advice/help, people say they are often greeted with an answering machine. Not surprisingly, these people go elsewhere for help.

Most voluntary aged care advocacy groups are extremely well intentioned. However, in recent years, some vigilante type aged care advocacy groups have emerged. Unlike Aged Care Crisis that rigorously contests claims made by governments and providers, these vigilante groups viciously attack individuals.

One of these vigilante groups operates under the name of Actioning Change for Aged Care. Some members of this group use Facebook in an attempt to destroy the reputations of people working in the aged care sector. In the beginning, they focused their attention primarily on providers. TriCare in Bundaberg was their first target. Next was Opal.

The most recent attack is focused on an aged care home in a small town in Queensland. Over the past 18 months, this vigilante group has conducted a relentless and vicious campaign against administration, staff and volunteers of Millmerran aged care home. With the use of out-dated records, they have raised multiple vexatious complaints with the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner. They have also posted hateful remarks about aged care workers and their family and made numerous threats. The reasons for this ongoing attack can be attributed to personal grudges and the fact the community dared to contradict their claims and fight back.

This vigilante group bases its attacks on anecdotes not evidence. Members of this group claim naming and shaming is in the “public’s interest”, irrespective of whether there is any substance to their attacks. Fortunately journalism’s code of ethics requires an independent investigation of claims of neglect in an aged care home before such claims are reported.

This document  demonstrates the ongoing atrocious, vulgar, bullying and harassing behaviour from those who claim to be aged care advocates. As you will see, their abuse is not limited to individual aged care providers. They also attack individual aged care workers and even volunteers.

This vigilante group also attack other aged care advocates. Stewart Johnston (Oakden whistle blower), Charli Maree Darragh Matterson (Angels for the Elderly), Maria Berry and me (Aged Care Matters) have all been victims of online abuse. There are others who prefer not to be named.

The Internet has enabled a small group of women to disrupt many people’s lives. Take Stewart Johnston for example. Since his mother was abused in Oakden, Stewart has worked tirelessly to help reform the aged care system. Yet members of this vigilante group attacked and ridiculed him.

I have also had the misfortune to read some abusive Facebook posts directed at Charli Maree Darragh Matterson. After Charli’s mother was murdered in an aged care home, these sadists chose to bully and intimidate her by posting repugnant images and hateful comments on Facebook. This ongoing abuse made Charli feel suicidal.

Unfortunately, Facebook turns a blind eye to trolls and bullies whose relentless abuse has caused suicides, depression and other mental health issues. By not adequately controlling trolling, Facebook is condoning sadists’ despicable behaviour.

I am the most recent victim of Internet abuse by a member of the Facebook group Actioning Change for Aged Care. Rather than call this person a troll, I call her “an abuser” because the abuse was sent via private messages.

Soon after I left Aged Care Matters’ Facebook group, the Internet abuse began: “Fancy telling people in Aged Care Matters Facebook group that you’re broke! You own your house and a beach shack. Yep, you’re struggling! That’s so offensive to people who are broke.”

The conventional wisdom of the Internet is to ignore abusive messages. However, I chose to engage with humour. “I can’t eat my house”. The abuser then replied: “Sell a house”.

The next message was directed at my approach to aged care advocacy: “People are sceptical and think you are captured because you have lunches with providers and peak bodies. You think [they] are decent people.“

The abuser continued: “Like every other advocate, your advocacy has not been affective.  Meetings with ministers, aged care providers and peak body groups have amounted to pretty much nothing. It was 4 Corners who where (sic) instrumental in forcing a Royal Commission, not you. No advocates are taken seriously. And as much as you talk and write, nothing has changed. So perhaps try a different tact (sic).”

I engaged: “Do you suggest I adopt your tactic and spew meaningless insulting Facebook posts?”

The abuser would not be silenced: “Not in a million years would I have lunch with people who have knowingly protected organisations that have neglected and abused the elderly for years. When are you having lunch with George Pell?”

I could not resist replying: “George Pell is a convicted paedophile. [The people you refer to] are not paedophiles. They are simply people with whom you disagree.”

I had clearly stated that people who work in industry are people with whom these abusers disagreed. Yet the abuser quickly shot back an absurd reply: “Misleading of you to suggest I think your mates [in industry] are paedophiles.”

The next message was equally nonsensical: “Pell knew about the abuse in the church and did nothing about it. Same as your mates have known about the abuse in aged care for years and have done what?”

At this point, I stop engaging. Instead I took a screen shot of the private messages and shared them on social media.

Then the threats began:  “You’re a complete and utter moll. Take that down at once or I will truly expose you for the person you are… I will be filing for an intervention order on Monday.”

I continued to use humour: “Monday is a public holiday. Best to do it on Tuesday.”

Calling me a moll and making threats (e.g. to call the police, apply for an intervention order or sue for defamation) are tactics frequently used by this group. These threats have no substance. A month later, I am still waiting for the intervention order!

Most vicious messages are rants that can easily be ignored. However, some posts are deadly serious. The registered nurse in the group posted advice about how to commit murder undetected.

The women in this small cabal claim to be whistle-blowers and aged care advocates. However, their Facebook posts show they are more interested in conducting campaigns of abuse than aged care reform. It is ironic that members of this group post memes denouncing those who bully. It is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

These women call for respect of older people in aged care homes while they demonstrate disrespect towards anyone who disagrees with them.  For example, a man who volunteers by taking Millmerran’s aged care residents on bus excursions questioned the claims made by these vigilantes. He then became the subject of their abuse. They ridiculed and bullied him, describing him as the “Old Bus Driver”.

A recent petition collected over 300,000 signatures from people who are concerned about standards of care in aged care homes. Under normal circumstances, this petition would cause the government to sit up and take notice. However, its association with a toxic, abusive group of women seriously undermines the petition’s credibility.

It is clearly not only unscrupulous providers who need to leave the aged care sector. Immoral people who abuse and threaten on the Internet have no place in aged care advocacy.

 

Open disclosure is needed in all aged care homes

18 April 2019

How often does an incident in an aged care home escalate because management is afraid of litigation?

When a mistake occurs in a public health service, the person who has been affected and/or their legal representative must be informed about the ‘adverse event’. This is known as ‘open disclosure’.

Open disclosure is defined as “the open communication that takes place between health practitioners and patients after an adverse event”.  An open disclosure process includes: An apology or expression of regret; a factual explanation of what occurred; an opportunity for the affected patient to relate their experience; and the steps taken to manage the event and prevent its recurrence.

Legislation mandates open disclosure in all public health services in Australia, though each state has different legislative requirements. In Victoria, for example, the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, requires health care practitioners to discuss an adverse event with the person who has been affected and/or their legal representative.

There are around 2,700 aged care homes in Australia. Only 5 per cent of these are government owned. The other 95 per cent are private or not for profit. Although government owned aged care homes require open disclosure, there is no legislative requirement for open disclosure in private or not for profit aged care homes.

When an adverse event occurs in an aged care home, some managers inform the resident’s legal representative. These managers also respond respectfully and in a timely manner to requests for information about the adverse event. In these cases, the situation rarely escalates.

In contrast, when a manager is not open about an adverse event and does not provide accurate information about what happened, the situation can quickly escalate. With the media’s insatiable appetite for horror stories about aged care homes, these stories often make headline news.

A month ago, a 94-year-old woman was resuscitated in an aged care home despite having an advanced care plan stipulating Do Not Resuscitate. The family watched their mother and grandmother die a slow and seemingly painful death in a hospital palliative care unit, rather than die peacefully after breakfast.

Despite numerous attempts to find out exactly what happened, a month later the daughter still did not know why/how/who resuscitated her mother.

The quest for information began two days after her mother was transferred to hospital. The manager of the aged care home phoned. He said to the daughter: “I heard your mum got resussed on Saturday”. This was the first time the daughter was told her mother had been resuscitated.

How did a woman with an Advanced Care Plan that clearly stated Do Not Resuscitate get resuscitated?

During a time when the daughter should be grieving, she instead tried to get information. Who made the decision to resuscitate her mother? Where was she resuscitated (in the lounge room or in her bedroom)? What did her doctor advise the staff to do? What did the Ambulance Victoria advise over the phone?

She phoned the aged care home’s head office. She left voice messages that were not returned. She sent emails that were not answered. Eventually she spoke with the District Manager who undertook to investigate what happened.

Aged care homes need to prepare themselves for open disclosure. Standard 6 of the new Aged Care Quality Standards states: “Appropriate action is taken in response to complaints and an open disclosure process is used when things go wrong”.

By the time the daughter contacted me, she had heard several different versions of the event. The Manager of the aged care home, the District Manager, the hospital doctors, the aged care home’s progress notes all provide different accounts about what happened that Saturday morning.

The daughter was so frustrated she was ready to tell her story to the media.

Instead, I suggested she lodge a complaint with the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and sought advice from Elders Rights Advocacy. I also suggested she requested an urgent face-to-face meeting with the District Manager.

The District Manager agreed to a meeting. She asked an employee of Elders Rights Advocacy to accompany her as a support person. However, this is not a service Elder Rights Advocacy provides after a resident has died.

I contacted the CEO, OPAN to ask where someone in her position should go for help. Although the National Aged Care Advocacy Framework focuses on the older person, the framework has recently been expanded to include families or representatives.

I agreed to be the support person in the meeting with the District Manager. Unfortunately, an hour before it was scheduled, the daughter received a phone call to inform her that the meeting had been cancelled. There were unforeseeable circumstances.

To prevent this escalating, I immediately phoned the aged care company. I left a message explaining the importance of the CEO returning my call. I did not feel confident that he would.

Much to my relief, the CEO phoned back. I told him the daughter simply wanted a factual explanation of what had occurred, a genuine apology and to know what steps have been taken to prevent its recurrence. She wanted ‘open disclosure.’

I arranged a meeting so the daughter could hear the truth about what happened to her mother. A month after her mother was resuscitated in an aged care home, the daughter now has a time-line to show exactly what happened. She also received a heart-felt apology. During the meeting, we discussed ways to prevent a similar tragedy.

This incident demonstrates an urgent need for aged care homes to have policies to ensure residents are not resuscitated against their wishes. Residents and their families are encouraged to make advanced directives to state their wishes for end-of-life medical care. These advanced directives are meaningless unless health care professionals respect an older person’s wishes.

Aged care homes must ensure direct care staff on each shift know which residents are, and are not, for resuscitation. Each handover sheet should identify residents who have documented Do Not Resuscitate in their advance care plan. This is particularly important for agency staff.

I once arrived at an aged care home to find a fire truck, 2 Mobile Intensive Care Unit Ambulances (MICA), a paramedic motorcycle and an ordinary ambulance. All these flashing lights heralded the death of a 94-year-old resident. This may suggest that Ambulance Victoria needs some education when they receive a 000 call from an aged care home.

A doctor once told his colleagues that, when he reached a certain age, he would have “NOT FOR RESUSCITATION” tattooed on his chest. This would undoubtedly guarantee his wishes were respected.

Currently, residents in aged care home must ‘opt out’ of resuscitation. They do this by indicating Not for Resuscitation in their advanced care plan and advanced care directive. It may be better to make cardiopulmonary resuscitation an “opt in” for residents in all aged care homes. Only those residents who choose to be resuscitated will be. Others will be allowed a dignified death.

Google Translator Did Not Help Me Understand The Aged Care Workforce Strategy Taskforce Report

6 December 2018

According to the script of the TV series ‘Yes Minister’, there are two basic rules of government: Never look into anything you don’t have to. And never set up an enquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be.

During the past decade, there have been many inquiries, reviews, consultations, think tanks and a task force into aged care. These inquiries have resulted in a large number of recommendations, most of which have been ignored by successive governments.

The Aged Care Workforce Strategy Taskforce kicked off in December 2017 with a so-called “Summit”. As an attendee, I was given a lanyard with the slogan: “Think. Collaborate. Innovate”. The slogan, the free hug video and the break out sessions left me feeling discombobulated. However, the lunch was delicious.

With a $2 million dollar budget (courtesy of the Australian tax-payer), I expected the taskforce to answer the million-dollar question: Will standards of care be improved by the government mandating staffing ratios in aged care homes?

Everyone has an “opinion” about staffing ratios. Jane Seaholme’s change.org petition “Mandate aged care staff/resident ratios” has around 300,000 supporters. Staff, relatives, residents, aged care advocates and unions all support staffing ratios in aged care homes. In contrast, those with power – politicians, peak bodies and providers – oppose staffing ratios. They defend their position by citing the 2011 Productivity Commission Report.

To settle the disagreement about the value of ratios in aged care homes, the taskforce needed data about actual staffing levels and quality outcomes in Australian aged care homes. They also needed to compare this data with international data. This would have provided evidence to support or refute the following claim: ‘Aged care homes with a higher staff-to-resident ratio have higher standards of care’.

Several researchers, including those at the Australian Association of Gerontology, encouraged the Chair of the taskforce to undertake a systematic literature review on staffing. A rigorous review of the evidence would have been money well spent. Instead, an annotated bibliography that lacked any critical analysis was commissioned.

Rather than rely on evidence, the taskforce regurgitated industry “opinions” about staffing ratios cited in the Productivity Commission and Tune Reports. Not surprisingly, staffing ratios were once again dismissed.

What was surprising, however, is the Report of the Aged Care Workforce Strategy Taskforce dismissed staffing ratios with only one sentence. “Static models or set staffing ratios will not assist in meeting these expectations or necessarily result in better quality of care outcomes.”

Rather than focus on the evidence, the report provides a transformational ‘Belief Statement’: “We exist to inspire people to want to care, enable people to properly care and enhance life through care. Because how we care for our ageing is a reflection of who we are as a nation.”

This belief statement and the Unifying Vision of Care set the tone for this 40,000-word report. It is overflowing with jargon, modern management language and Don Watson’s so-called weasel words. This made the report difficult to read. The unifying vision of care (see Vision below) appears to follow the amusing instructions of “How to write a manifesto”.

A Unifying Vision of Care (Report of the Aged Care Workforce Strategy Taskforce, P 13)

Have you ever heard the laughter of a life fully lived?
Or been lost in the stories of someone who has traveled a million roads — and back?

We have.

Have you ever seen a person confined to a single room, whose only crime is to grow old?

We have.

Have you ever pondered why it is that being old is somehow being less?

We have.

In a world of youthful beauty, constant change and shortened use by dates, we have seen how
the simple act of stopping to learn, listen to and help our community’s older members,
has for many, become too hard.

We seek to change that.

We are the people who have the privilege to care for our ageing and we believe, deeply,
that access to good care must be easier and that the very notion of caring must change
from reactive and daunting — to proactive and inspiring.

We champion the simple ethos of a life well lived.

We want to inspire people to want to care; not feel the burden of having to.

And we strive to enable people to properly care — for their neighbours, friends or family.

Above all, we exist to enhance life through care —
from the moment the smallest help is needed to the moment the final breath is taken.

As aged care professionals we choose to care;
everyday, for every type of human in every type of condition.

Because ultimately, we believe how we care for our ageing
is a powerful reflection on who we are as a nation.

It is not my intention to be disrespectful, but I needed to use google translator to understand the taskforce’s approach to building the workforce strategy: “The taskforce recognised that the strategy must be disruptive in its thinking, transformational in its approach, pragmatic to implement, and supportive of immediate improvements”. Huh?

I also needed google translator to ‘look forward’: “Looking to the future, the aged care industry requires a coherent strategy and key enabling infrastructure to support the strategic investment, translation and uptake of innovations designed to improve workforce capability, care quality and effectiveness”. Goodness me.

I am also unfamiliar with this lingo: “touchpoints for consumers in their ageing journey”, “a well-supported research translation pipeline” and “the creation of a research translation ecosystem”. Touchpoints, pipelines and ecosystems. What planet are you on?

One thing, however, was clear: the strategy was “developed with the industry, for the industry”. The bias towards an ‘industry-led’ (i.e. not a ‘consumer-led’) strategy was explicit. The aim was “to develop an industry-led strategy focused on the consumer”. Having no union or genuine consumer representation on the taskforce committee was also an ominous sign.

Not surprisingly, given the report’s abstruse language, the taskforce developed complex processes to address staffing issues. The success of these recommendations depends, in part, on a voluntary code of conduct by industry. These codes only apply to those providers who sign up to them. Good luck with that.

Unfortunately google translator did not help me to understand the findings of The Annual Aged Care Survey. I did, however, understand Korn Ferry, a US corporate giant, was commissioned by the taskforce to undertake this staff survey. I certainly wish someone would offer me $90,750 for doing a tick-a-box survey and then running the responses through a statistical computer program.

According to the report: “Korn Ferry knows more about human performance in the workplace than any other organisation.” Apparently “in order to open up career pathways, there are well-established and research-backed corporate methodologies that can be utilised to enable interaction between job families and opportunities to move across job families”.

Without explaining who or what are “job families”, or indeed the “Job Family Framework” methodology, Korn Ferry produced a colourful report – one for all the family. However, the analysis is poorly explained. Even with my expertise as a researcher, I could not make head or tail of it. Who could?

Reading the taskforce report, I was again reminded of the TV series ‘Yes Minister’, specifically one of Sir Humphrey Appleby’s most memorable quotes: “ I do see that there is a real dilemma here. In that, while it has been government policy to regard policy as a responsibility of Ministers and administration as a responsibility of Officials, the questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the policy of administration and the administration of policy, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts, or overlaps with, responsibility for the policy of the administration of policy.”

Like Sir Humphrey Appleby, the taskforce report has a lot of words. But who understands them? And more importantly: who cares?

Staff who treat the aged with love and respect

Letter, The Age, 2 November 2019

After reading the Aged Care Royal Commissioner’s heart breaking interim report, I realise how lucky my parents were to find an aged care home where the staff treated them with kindness and respect – and who had time to care, chat/laugh with them and take an interest in their lives.

We found the aged care home by luck. It was the only aged care home in their area that allowed them to sleep together.

Could the good aged care home providers please stand up and be counted? Now more than ever, the public needs to know you exist.