Aged Care Insite Issue 118 | Apr-May 2020 | Page 11

royal commission Aged & Community Services Australia (ACSA) agrees that workforce levels need to be addressed and said that the sector will need additional resources to raise overall numbers. “ACSA supports a star rating system in principle, provided it doesn’t create a two‑tiered system,” said ACSA chief executive Pat Sparrow. “The proposed system includes a range of staff and occupations and acknowledges that residents have different needs which require different levels of support and skill combinations, which will also better reflect and support the increasing acuity of residents.” ACSA said that were the aged care sector to implement a star rating system, for residents to receive at least a four-star level of care would mean an increase of 37.2 per cent in total staffing. “ACSA strongly supports comments that additional resourcing is required to achieve this increase in staffing,” Sparrow said. “What we know now is that aged care simply isn’t funded to provide the level of care people expect and deserve. “A new direction like this could be exactly what we need to force a rethink and set up Australia for our ageing population and the decades to come.” Leading Aged Services Australia (LASA) agreed that raising staff levels is not possible in the current system, but disagreed with the recommendation to implement mandated minimum staffing requirements, suggesting this may hinder innovation in the sector. “We agree with counsel assisting’s observation that realising more staff in aged care is not possible under the current including a reasonable financial margin, to maintain viability. “Achieving the best quality care is paramount, and we note that more staff can only be implemented with adequate funding. “At the same time, we proposed in our submission to the royal commission that staffing numbers be aligned to ‘if not, why not’ benchmarks that are a better alternative to a mandated minimum staff‑to-resident ratio. We believe this approach warrants further attention. “LASA supports increases in overall staffing levels in aged care facilities, and our sector tells us they want more staff who are well-skilled and well-paid,” Rooney said. “But we need more funding to achieve this goal.” In his concluding remarks, Rozen told the commission that poor conditions of employment, low staffing levels and poor training is why the sector is struggling with staff retention and attracting future workers. “Most workers are on minimum award rates,” he said. He quoted evidence given previously by the ANMF’s Paul Gilbert, who said that when it comes to staff numbers, it’s time “to stop kicking the can down the road”. “Commissioners, counsels assisting agree with that observation,” Rozen said. “We submit that if the goal of this royal commission is to make recommendations to achieve high quality, safe and person‑centred aged care services, as it must be under the terms of reference, then the time for real action – on staffing numbers and mix, skill levels, remuneration, conditions of work and registration of the unregulated portion of the aged care workforce – is now.” What we know now is that aged care simply isn’t funded to provide the level of care people expect and deserve. Tech and teaching constraints laid bare funding system,” said LASA chief executive Sean Rooney. “The problem is that the average aged care operator struggles to cover their current costs at existing funding levels. We have long advocated for funding for good quality care to be linked to the cost of delivering good quality care, In mid-March, the royal commission turned its attention to the role of research, innovation and technology in aged care, noting that those areas were vital for the sector to meet the many challenges it faced in the coming years. Specifically, the workshops were about investigating whether the sector and the Australian government were doing enough to foster “much needed” developments. The royal commission heard from Jennene Buckley, chief executive of Feros Care, which has kept technology as a centrepiece of its approach to care in recent years. Buckley said technology is the future but added that rolling it out across residential aged care has been difficult. “We need to make sure the funding model and the pricing model of all aged care services allows an organisation to invest in technology and to invest in Better wages, training and regulation would also improve the retention and recruitment of the beleaguered aged care workforce. quality,” she told the royal commission, explaining that current funding models don’t allow providers to innovate. “[When] a piece of technology off the shelf, that’s already been developed, comes into our service, there is so much work for a service provider to do to put that innovation in the hands of a client. “We need to test it. We need to make sure we understand its limitations – the risks around the technology, who it can help, who it can’t help. Then we have to develop assessment tools and guidelines and training material. “There’s a lot of work involved in just one small piece of technology. So we need to be able to create the ecosystem for that technology to be evaluated, but then we need funding and systems to be able to allow providers to actually implement that innovation. It’s not so simple.” The following day, the royal commission heard about teaching and research in aged care, with researcher Dr Kate Barnett comparing the aged care sector’s teaching model with that of teaching hospitals, calling it “the poor cousin”. “It hasn’t had the kind of funding support that the health sector model has had,” Barnett explained. “And that’s a pity, because there’s huge scope, you know, if we want to break down silos between health and aged care, and particularly acute care, to have teaching hospitals and teaching aged care services as considered fairly equal players in the field of educating current and future workforces.” She added ageism is a factor in the inequity. “Why is it perfectly acceptable to have a network of teaching hospitals, but for the aged care sector it’s a bit of a luxury and a bit of an add-on? Why isn’t it a central part of an evidence-based quality system of care?” agedcareinsite.com.au 9