Aged Care Insite Issue 112 | Apr-May 2019 | Page 20

industry & reform Championing reform Reform in the aged care sector is a given. The question is, who will lead it? By Rebecca Wilson T he reputation of the aged care sector and individual providers will inevitably be damaged by the evidence presented at the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which started on 11 February. The sector faces significant reform, which has already been flagged, but the reputational damage to individual organisations will rest on their commitment to change before that change is defined. Providers that approach the commission and its outcomes with honesty, transparency and a focus on solutions before they are imposed can influence the future of an industry that is yet to align with consumer expectations. THE PROBLEM Given the aged care industry has generally deployed a strategy of avoidance to mitigate risk, the question is whether providers are adequately prepared for the conduct and aftermath of the royal commission. This inquiry will be more brutal than the banking royal commission as the vulnerability of Australia’s elderly and the inadequacies of the industry are laid bare. The fallout will be far worse because of the emotive nature of aged care and the almost universal community directly linked to an aged care experience through family, friend or self. No provider will escape the impact of the commission, and business and personal reputations will be at stake. 18 agedcareinsite.com.au Journalists will be reporting in real time, just as they did at the banking royal commission. Social media was the genesis of the wave of family discontent that led to the aged care royal commission, and it will again play a disproportionate role in the fury the inquiry will reveal. Families and residents will find the courage to speak up, spurred on by the personal stories that will lead this inquiry, creating a contagion force. Providers need to consider potential risks not just in terms of known clinical shortcomings but also where a misalignment in expectations has created an issue. The public’s expectation of the care environment can be at odds with the palliative nature of aged care and the experience of people at the bedside. An argument of clinical adherence or expected clinical consequences will fail to turn the tide of public opinion and serve only to fuel the growing sentiment of a sector that has lost touch with its purpose. Provider-led change is the only defence that has the power to influence consumer opinion and contribute to a positive future state. Providers need to show they care and are not only willing but already enforcing change, even where the clinical evidence is on their side. And while there are likely to be many positive stories that providers will want to share, they should remember the terms of the royal commission are about calling out the industry’s failings and misconduct. Telling a good story could backfire unless it is organically led by residents and families. That potentially exists, because the reputation of the aged care sector is also one that has been skewed. There are hundreds of stories of exceptional care and there will be a time and place to ensure these are heard. How each provider responds to all of this could temper the extent of reputational, operational and commercial damage.