Staff Ratios – Royal Commission Research Paper

I have read with interest late last week the very freshly released Royal Commission research paper (1) into aged care staffing requirements, and the shortfall in funding needed to raise the staffing mix and levels to appropriately care for the average residential aged care service consumer.  

The following excerpt from the recommendations paints a picture of what residents, families, advocates, and indeed some providers have been saying for some time – the level of service provision (staffing) in residential aged care in Australia is substandard.  

My conclusion is that because that level of provision is so strongly associated with the operating funding mechanism, the funding mechanism for care is equally substandard:

“more than half (57.6%) of Australian residents receive care in aged care homes that have unacceptable levels of staffing (1 and 2 stars).

To bring staffing levels up to 3 stars would require an increase of 37.3% more staff hours in those facilities. This translates into an additional of 20% in total care staff hours across Australia.

We have not limited our analysis to determining the additional resources required to bring facilities up to an acceptable level. We have also provided an indication of the additional resource requirements that are required to deliver staffing levels consistent with good practice and best practice care.

For all residents to receive at least 4 stars (what we consider good practice) requires an overall increase of 37.2% in total care staffing while 5 stars (best practice) care would require an overall increase of 49.4% in total care staffing.” (2)

As you are probably well aware, I am the CEO of Braemar Presbyterian Care (“Braemar”). To put our services into perspective, since I joined Braemar in March 2017 we have been increasing hours per resident per day to a level that is close to the current national average as recorded by the StewartBrown benchmarking service (3) reporting.  And, as far as is reasonable, we have been improving our subsidy income to match the staffing.  But that recurrent income is not enough.  

According to this research paper, prepared for the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, less than 3 star level of staffing is unacceptable, while a 4 star staffing is good practice, and 5 star staffing is best practice.  Yet 57.6% of residents receive less than 3 star (unacceptable) staffing and only 1.4% receive best practice staffing.

How is this translated into the care of our elders? 

Continue reading “Staff Ratios – Royal Commission Research Paper”

The Truth Is Out There!

Over the past several years I have written often on how much funding I believe the aged care sector has been short-changed by a range of political and bureaucratic decisions over.  Aged care funding is not adequate to meet the health care needs of Australia’s frail elderly, vulnerable, care recipients.  My comments apply across residential aged care funding and home/community care package funding alike.  You can review some of my previous articles in the footnotes below. [1] [2]

Patricia Sparrow, Chief Executive of the not-profit aged care peak body Aged and Community Services Australia (ACSA), commentating recently on home care packages, lamented the lack of preparedness and capability of our aged care system, saying “Until we see adequate long-term planning for the structural and funding issues, Australia won’t be able to fully address the needs of older Australians”.[3]  Sean Rooney, Chief Executive of Leading Aged Services Australia, similarly recently commented that the “aged care system needs adequate funding to be sustainable and meet the needs of seniors” and called for an additional $3 billion to “improve the viability of the sector”.[4]

Just this week I was briefed about the outcomes of a very recent Faster Horses Inside Aged Care Report (2019) of perceptions around aged care in Australia. I recommend this review to all readers of this blog. Reviewing response from over 1,500 people from a cross section of metropolitan centres, the response to two specific questions piqued my interest.

Only 17% of all respondents felt that the pricing model used by aged care providers is straightforward, and a high 63% of respondents agreed with the statement “There is not enough funding given to the aged care industry”. For respondents who currently have a family member receiving aged care services, the response rate for each question increases to 31% and 71% respectively. It is clear that even among those active in the industry, there is a poor understanding of pricing models, and there is a heightened need for additional funding in the industry.

The truth is out there, speaking loudly!  More funding is required – urgently and significantly – for viability, and to begin to fund an appropriate level and mix of well-trained staff.

Our elected Members and Senators, and career bureaucrats should listen closely.  Australia gets it that the burgeoning wave of frail elderly is going to hungrily devour scarce national fiscal resources.  But having an ineffective aged care system is injurious to these same people.  Let’s actively change the funding system that better reflects our overall capacity to pay from our own resources where we can, to care services that add value and quality to our lives, rather than a system that is building distrust, poor quality, decreased value of older persons’ lives, and, in some cases, harm and injury.

Nice chatting,

Wayne L Belcher


Further Reading:

[1]     http:// https://wlbelcher.com/aged-care-indexation/

[2]     https://wlbelcher.com/aged-care-sector-financial-comparators/

[3]     ACSA, Home Care Funds welcome but won’t dent waiting lists for home care. Aged & Community Services Australia <https://www.acsa.asn.au/Media/2019/Home-Care-Funds-welcome-but-won-t-dent-waiting-lis>.  Accessed 12 September 2019.

[4] Natasha Egan, Provider CEO survey highlights impact of financial pressures. Australian Ageing Agenda <https://www.australianageingagenda.com.au/2019/09/06/provider-ceo-survey-highlights-impact-of-financial-pressures/>.  Accessed 9 September 2019.

What to do with a Royal Commission?

I am a person with no clinical or “care” background. But after almost forty years in senior management and executive roles across the spectrum of health and aged care – particularly aged care – I have gathered some insights into the nature of care being provided throughout our care services.

And before I suggest anything more, let me say this – my view is that if the major hospitals around Australia – public and private – were put under the same scrutiny and regulatory framework that residential aged care services are for the quality and accreditation of services that are provided in and through them, we would see hospitals falling into sanctions.

I am of the view that we have an aged care system that is too focused on beating the regulatory compliance framework as opposed to funding and providing appropriate levels of care and support to all clients.

On the one hand I am an incredibly strong advocate of high quality services accompanied with some form of accreditation. On the other hand, I believe we have an aged care accreditation system that we can really ill afford.

It underpins inadequate funding levels that cannot provide enough resources for many providers to meet the expressed needs of care for residents. In the same way, our community aged care system is creaking because we cannot provide enough funding for the community aged care packages assessed by the Australian Government as needed by our citizens.

I hear staff all over Australia clamouring, not always for more wages, but for more pairs of hands to do the work. To do more than the system underpins…To go the extra mile… To sit for a few minutes when that is what the client really wants, and really needs… To spend time hearing what the real story is…

To quote a UK study of its Home Help services from the early 1980s – “Too much Charring and not enough Chatting”.

I could ask the question – Which provides more care, the Chatting or the Charring? Neither is necessarily more correct, but often we cannot even get to the question. The bureaucratisation of aged care is with us and the paperwork must be done at our own peril.

I have colleagues that will not (at this time) support minimum staff ratios. Quite rightly they see them as an un-affordable cost under the current funding methodology. How sad that we do not all see them as providing perhaps the single greatest opportunity right now to see a reduction in abuse, and a reduction in short cuts in care. How sad that we do not see minimum staff ratios as an opportunity to support our staff and see a visual improvement in the increased in quality of care. But implementation of minimum staff ratios will be quite costly.

I am still of the view that in Australia we have one the best aged care systems in the world. But for a range of reasons it is creaking.

Let’s all is to consider how much of a cost is there to stop, take stock, and with the next round of changes, really consider the long term impact of where we are heading and fight more intensely to protect the rights of those who are dependent upon us, the general public, for their livelihoods?

And who knows – the Royal Commission might investigate several inter services aspects around care of our elderly folks? One matter that I have discussed for the past decade is how much more proactive care we can provide in our aged care facilities, that might actually have a positive, beneficial impact on our national health and hospital care services.

In the past twenty years we have missed the opportunity to think outside the square with respect to fixing major State based hospitals. As a “cohort” of patients, frail elderly people are significant and frequent users of hospital services. Perhaps if we reviewed the aged care sector and its inherent possibilities we might find better solutions to our hospital problems.

Chatfield’s cartoon below was first published by me in December 2010 in an article containing many of the words in the commentary above. Not much has changed it seems!

To fix hospitals, first fix aged care!

I get it… Do You?