As the Department of Health and Aged Care moves forward with expanding its data collection tools under the National Aged Care Mandatory Quality Indicator Program (QI Program), frustrations are mounting from both residential and home care providers.
Criticism focuses on the flawed assessment tools designed to collect quality data, which some say fail to capture meaningful insights or reduce the burden on providers.
Key to the controversy are two survey tools—the Quality of Life-Aged Care Consumers (QOL-ACC) and the Quality of Care Experience-Aged Care Consumers (QCE-ACC)—developed by the Caring Futures Institute at Flinders University.
These tools are already in use for residential aged care and will play a significant role in data collection during a new 12-week pilot for home care services. However, early feedback suggests the tools are poorly received, with aged care managers describing them as “awful” and “not fit for purpose.”
One provider expressed concerns in a recent pilot webinar, saying,”the Flinders surveys are awful and not useful at all. Providers are already struggling with them in the residential setting, and I worry that home care clients will find the experience distressing too.”
Many stakeholders argue that the Department risks making the same mistakes again by using these tools without meaningful adjustments.
Providers highlighted that aged care recipients, particularly those in home care, are experiencing survey fatigue, which may affect the reliability of data.
“People are over-surveyed,” said one manager. “We’re not getting quality data, and I fear the same issues will plague the home care pilot if the tools remain unchanged.”
The pilot aims to explore seven new quality indicators, grouped under three domains: consumer experience, quality of life, and service delivery. These indicators will track everything from missed visits to clients’ involvement in care planning.
The data collected will eventually inform policy decisions and help families choose care services based on quality metrics. However, concerns linger that flawed tools may generate inaccurate data, undermining these goals.
HealthConsult, which manages the pilot in collaboration with the Registry of Senior Australians (ROSA), acknowledged the need to balance data collection with providers’ capacity to deliver care.
However, some participants in the pilot fear that the current framework will increase administrative burdens without adding value to service quality.
The Department insists that the pilot will offer an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the tools and adjust them if necessary.
Victoria Angel, Director of the Department’s Quality Indicator Section, reassured participants during the webinar:
“We are aware of the burden on providers, and the pilot will help determine the best survey method. If we find that the tools correlate, we could potentially reduce the survey length.”
Despite these reassurances, many providers remain sceptical. The same tools now being trialled in home care have already been criticised by residential aged care providers, with little evidence that their feedback has led to meaningful changes.
“We raised these concerns during the residential trials, but nothing has changed,” shared one frustrated manager. “The tools don’t work for the people we care for. It’s disheartening to see the same mistakes being made again.”
The Caring Futures Institute defends the tools, stating that they were developed in consultation with older Australians receiving care. They argue that the surveys shift the focus from clinical outcomes to consumer experience and quality of life, aligning with what matters most to care recipients and their families.
If clients cannot complete the surveys themselves, family members or carers can step in using a proxy version or conduct the survey in an interview format.
However, feedback from several webinars indicates widespread dissatisfaction among providers. Some fear that unless the tools are refined, the pilot could fail to generate meaningful data, setting the entire QI Program on the wrong track.
The backlash against the Department’s data collection tools highlights a broader issue within aged care: the need to balance quality metrics with practical realities on the ground.
With the new home care indicators set for full implementation in 2026, there is still time to address these issues. However, if concerns continue to go unaddressed, the QI Program may fail to achieve its intended transparency and quality improvements.
The Department must take the feedback seriously and consider adjustments before moving forward. As one aged care manager put it:
“Mistakes cannot be repeated. We need tools that provide real insights—not just tick boxes.”
Without meaningful change, the same flaws that plagued residential care could now jeopardise home care quality, putting both providers and clients at a disadvantage.
When are these people going to realise that paperwork and documentation doesn’t equal good care? Care staff in facilities used to say that documentation ate into their time spent with the resident. Bureaucrats are trying to do to aged care what they did to health with their DRG costings; each individual is unique, and individuals need varying levels of daily care and time spent with them. One size doesn’t fit all like the authorities would wish. Biology doesn’t know about bureacratic policies.
As a RACF provider we are subject to the same surveys. We also use Moving On Audits that have surveys across the year for every Outcome. Analysis of both sets of data, over the last two years, show the same trend. That is, the actual care recipients report high levels of satisfaction. Their SDM or proxies consistently report lower levels of satisfaction across every survey, yet are unable when more feedback is sought to provide the reasoning behind their responses. When you combine this with the Star Ratings we have processes, that in the real world, do not impact upon decisions made by people about choosing an aged care service or provider.
Why bother filling them out. Those who read them are not really interested. They do what they want to do. People actually know about Aged Care need to be included in decision making and I mean People who have hands on experience/knowledge. Too much time taken on these does not equal better care.