Australia’s aged care star-rating system was initially touted as a one-stop-shop for prospective aged care residents looking to compare the quality of competing residential care services. However, despite promises of increased transparency for the general public, an upcoming story on the 7.30 report is set to shatter the illusion.
Dr Rodney Jilek, Managing Director of Community Home Australia and a seasoned aged care consultant with 30 years of experience, has been outspoken about the serious shortcomings of the current rating system.
The problem becomes even clearer with specific examples as Dr Jilek recounted an alarming case that he exposed on ABC’s 7.30 report.
“I logged into My Aged Care and went ‘show me all of the 5-Star homes within a 250-kilometer radius of Sydney’s CBD.’ There were only eight. So, I went through each of these 5-star homes and matched the star rating with their current level of compliance from their accreditation audit. Then I came across Wallsend Aged Care in Newcastle, which was rated five stars. They failed all 8 standards during their audit in November last year!”
According to Dr Jilek, this facility’s star rating was changed to 4-stars in January after he highlighted it in a report, before being changed to a 2-star rating in February this year. This means, that anyone who decided to send their loved one to this facility based on its 5-star rating from November 23 – January 24 actually placed them in a 2-star facility that failed to meet the basic standards of care across all 8 categories.
When asked how something like this happens, Dr Jilek was emphatic in his response.
“Because it’s a joke. The star-rating system manipulates outcomes by having a 3-month lag time in their data and the fact that the commission doesn’t take action in changing ratings if they have faith that the provider will resolve the non-compliance. Yes, faith. That’s what we are relying on because it allows them to have a greater number of 4 and 5-star-rated homes. It’s not a true reflection of the quality of care.”
“The Minister and Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission are saying that the compliance rating in the star-ratings is not actually related to the quality of the service, it is based on whether the Commission decides to take action or they have faith that a provider will fix things at some point.”
The real-world implications of these rating discrepancies are profound, as illustrated by the tragic case of Rodney Reed, featured in a recent ABC Radio report.
Reed faced the difficult decision of placing his wife, Cath, into a nursing home. Relying on the star rating system, he chose Charles Brownlow in Victoria, which was rated between four and five stars. Despite this, Cath’s care deteriorated significantly.
“Within a month, Cath Reed lost seven kilos… We brought in an independent geriatrician who suspected Cath Reed was suffering from sepsis,” Reed shared.
Despite his complaints and an investigation that revealed multiple failings in her care, Charles Brownlow’s rating was paradoxically increased from four to five stars shortly after the issues were brought to light.
While the star rating system was heralded by the Government as an example of increased transparency in the sector, Dr Jilek highlights the piecemeal nature of investigation that is now required to get a holistic idea of the quality of services.
“It used to be that you could go to the website, you could search your state and it would show you all the noncompliance. It’s now a quarterly report that’s in a Word document that you can’t search. So you’re dealing with data that is three months old and hard to search through.”
He continues, “Because of this, you have to download the report into Excel to be able to search it to see who was non-compliant and if there are homes that were found to be non-compliant just after a quarterly report had already gone out, they won’t appear until the next report three months later. It is beyond ridiculous.”
The stark contrast between the star ratings and the actual quality of care highlights a fundamental flaw in the system. Dr Jilek criticised the system’s design, stating, “When the Aged Care Minister says, ‘the star rating system is doing what it’s supposed to do,’ she’s right. It’s a facade brought to you by the Department of Health, the aged care minister, and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission that is supposed to make it seem like aged care has been improved.”
Since its implementation, the star-rating system has been a topic of discussion due to the administrative burden placed on providers and questions over the integrity of data that is collected through self-reporting.
The upcoming story on ABC’s 7.30 report is set to be yet another black eye on a sector that is continually plagued by improvement interventions that turn out to be window-dressing that put a smiley face over festering issues.
As Dr Jilek aptly puts it, “On the surface, it looks good. but when you put your finger on what is happening you will poke a hole through it, then it all crumbles. When you have a 3-month lag time for data and put your faith in providers to fix themselves, how can people possibly make an informed choice? They can’t. It sounds great for political spin though.”
any Nursing Home who does not meet all the standards should not be allowed to take new residents until the problem is fixed.
That makes more sense. Reality please. Ensure those not meeting standards are publicised. This system is not meant for government departments to meet their KPI’s.
Of greater use would be a quarterly list put online and searchable of those organisations/private owners who HAVENT met standards in previous quarter of auditing. They can be removed from that list as soon as are again compliant
Agreed 👍
Nursing homes, are there to make a profit for their shareholders , They choose to give the least amount of care in the cheapest way.Management do not care for the residents .All aged care should be connected to government hospitals and held accountable .
If only it was the case that Government run homes would offer higher quality. OAKDEN, was a SA state government operated facility and was one of the facilities that triggered the Royal Commission into the sector. This is an extremely complex sector with many challenges that must be addressed in an orderly manner (not with knee jerk reactions). I too have been working in the sector for more that 30 years and can say that both political parties, when in power, have made tremendous progress in what was formerly a ‘cottage industry’, with little or no scrutiny.
A large proportion of aged care homes do not have shareholders. They are not-for-profit, which means that any money they make has to be spent on the home and residents.
Please don’t paint all homes with a generalised statement which is incorrect.
True, I have always found that the NFP “care” factor is higher.
The home I work for had 16 issues that needed sorting over a period of 2yrs, how come do they get the 5 star rating.. BEGGARS BELIEF….
After working in senior positions in the aged care industry for 15+ years, last year I decided enough was enough. There were many unkept promises about ‘how everything was going to get better’. With every positive approach came more regulation. Were the forthcoming changes what the residents’ wanted? Who would know as rarely would the consumer be part of the consultation process? I agree that the star rating was a joke as well as the quality indicator program and benchmarking process. Algorithms would never be correct – as advised by the quality commission. Lag times would be a daily occurrence in processing data because, and I quote, ‘we are understaffed in the commission so can only do our best’. If a regulator were to appear at a residential home for an audit and this comment was made, a non-compliance would be issued.
If the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission cannot demonstrate the standard of service and support required to provide the appropriate data and guidance to the industry, it is no wonder the industry is where it is. I believe the Commissioner should be held more accountable than they have been as the service is only as good as its leader.
The Commissioner has always been hamstrung by the regulation set by the age care act.
Brilliant description of yet another issue with our current Aged Care system. Thanks Dr Jilek.
Homer Simpson says, “You can do anything with statistics. 98% of people will tell you that.”
Sadly, this is what I think is happening right now in the Aged Care sector where numbers are being manipulated, whilst our dear elderly folk bear the brunt of the lack of proper care.
We can and should be doing better!
It would have been good for someone to fact check this article before publishing it. The Compliance rating component of the overall star ratings for each residential aged care service is refreshed daily in response to regulatory notice changes and weekly in response to accreditation decisions by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. The false claim in this article of a so-called “3-month lag time” is plain wrong and should be ignored.
facilitates. Can. And if. Possible. Fool the government. When. Facilities play the system they need to. Be sanctioned no more playing games with them. Sanction and. Put a hold on there funding. And they must prove they have done what’s need to get there fund back. And actual. Monitoring of the facility by a independent group with teeth