Are peak industry bodies hindering the progression of aged care? - A reflection on Part 1 of the Four Corners investigation

“The true measure of every society is how it treats its most vulnerable”

I’m sure like many of you within my network, I just finished watching Part 1 of the Four Corners investigation into aged care. As much as the sensationalist opening sequences of serious faces, arm crossing and short monologues nearly made me switch the channel, what followed didn’t make me exceptionally proud to work in the industry.

It's easy to get caught up in the current media hype and I’m hesitant to jump on board the industry bashing bandwagon. However, as I watched the heartbreaking story of the resident whose carers wouldn’t talk to her, hoping that somebody would fill her coffee cup, sitting next to her own faeces too scared to press her buzzer, it did make me reflect on some of my own poor experiences.

We should be careful to assume that this type of treatment is “typical” of aged care. I don’t believe that this is the case. But surely even one story of this nature is too many.

So where does the problem truly lie?

According to the Leading Aged Services Australia (LASA) website, they are the national peak body representing and supporting providers of aged services across residential care, home care and retirement living. I hate to say it, but as a health professional working within the industry, I didn’t feel overly well represented by LASA CEO - Sean Rooney. 

I progressively cringed as he bumbled through his answers. His questionable defence of mandated staff ratios initially sparked my concern. Culminating in a statement that timeframes of 5-6 minutes to assist high care residents from bed was justifiable as “it depends who the person is… everyone is different”. With the dichotomy of his reply, it was difficult to determine whether he was referring to the resident or the member of staff.

I could only laugh when he reacted in horror at the suggestion providers may be falsifying documents and placing pressure on ACFI coordinators in order to generate higher funding levels. As someone who claims to have spent a great deal of time visiting aged care homes and is the CEO of an organisation which represents aged care providers, I find it hard to believe that this is the first time he’s heard of this practice.

And then there was his alarming justification of the low dollar per day figures associated with meals. Suggesting that meals in aged care facilities “are prepared for people with a low nutritional requirement”. I suppose providers should just stick to the party pies and curry puffs.

As the unconvincing justifications to the reporters’ questions continued, I couldn’t help but think that this type of leadership was stifling the progression of residential aged care within Australia. If the national peak body truly believes that staff ratios are ok, is so detached from current practice that it is unaware of claiming pressures and is ok with residents being fed party pies, then how can we possibly expect change?

I read today that a provider facing sanctions across the majority of their homes reported $14million dollars in profit in the last financial year. So, as I sat and listened to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care – Ken Wyatt state “I haven’t mandated staff ratios because every aged care provider is a business in their own right”, it became abundantly clear that business is getting in the way of care. And it is likely that those representing the aged care industry, are a big part of that problem.