|
senate vote 2021-02-04#9
Edited by
don
on
2021-02-09 12:58:26
|
Title
Description
<p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I would like to ask the minister some questions. I do intend to move my amendments, but I do wish to ask some questions first. I will try and be as quick as I can, but there are some issues that I do want to quickly seek confirmation about. Has the addendum been circulated? I don't seem to be able to find it.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p>- ye this is a pretty cunty bill and everything shouldve been voted NOOOOOo
<p>Minister, can you clarify the situation at the request of—</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>It was tabled in the House as part of the debate down there, but I will table it now.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: And can a copy be provided to Senator Siewert?</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>That would be very helpful if possible, thank you. I'm just checking it's the one that I think it is. Why have falls been left off the definition of a serious incident?</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>Falls will be reportable under the Serious Incident Response Scheme where they are caused by unreasonable use of force towards a person, result from neglect by the aged-care provider or result in unexpected death. Where the fall is not reportable aged-care providers will still be required to identify, record, manage and resolve the incident; provide support to ensure the health, safety and wellbeing of the person; and assess the incident and take necessary remedial action to prevent future incidents.</p><p>The next point I will make goes to the management of the entire aged-care system as a whole. As of 1 July this year, under the national mandatory quality indicator program, residential aged-care services will be required to report all care recipient falls, so when you bring these two things together—</p> <p class="speaker">Glenn Sterle</p><p>Minister, if you could resume your seat for just a moment. I call Senator Siewert.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>The mic is not picking up everything, so I missed what you said just then. I apologise for that.</p> <p class="speaker">Glenn Sterle</p><p>The minister might speak a little more loudly for the benefit of the senators in the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>I'm happy to repeat it. From 1 July this year, under the national mandatory quality indicator program, providers will be required to report all care recipient falls. So we have two things working in concert: we have the quality indicator program and we also have the Serious Incident Response Scheme. They will be required to report all falls, including those which result in major injury, to Health through My Aged Care. So we have two systems working together. All falls will be reported under the quality indicator program, and that will then flow through to the rating system that providers get under the reporting of the quality indicators, which are also publicly reported.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I thank the minister for his answer. My concern is that it's then up to a provider to determine what neglect is, if the fall has resulted as a matter of neglect, and some of the other issues that you raised are then subject to a provider making that call. I understand the point you've just made about the quality indicators, but this is an extremely important issue. I still don't understand why all falls are not treated as a serious incident, because the nature of a fall, whether it's caused by someone being a little bit adventurous or by neglect, can lead to premature death and other serious implications.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>I think I understand the question, but the point we're making is that all falls will be reported as a part of the quality indicator program. The question then becomes how you actually define a serious incident. Our view on that is, as I've explained to you in response to your question a moment ago, in those three circumstances that I've explained, it does require providers to make those assessments because all falls will be reportable under the quality indicator program. So there will have to be a process whereby providers make those assessments to consider those things. Of course, those things are also assessed as a part of the provider's ongoing accreditation process because all of the documentation that's gathered as a part of providing care is assessed as part of the provider's ongoing accreditation process.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>But it's not as clearly transparent and accountable as—well, if you accept my other amendments that are about accountability and reporting data, it's not as immediately transparent as the process of reporting serious incidents, is it?</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>You're right, Senator; it is different, but there also needs to be some balance in the amount of work that goes into the administration of each of the various schemes, and that's why we've made the decisions that we have. All of the falls will be reported. The provider will be required to do an assessment as a part of that, as I've indicated to you, but that's the assessment that's being done through the scoping study, and particularly through the learnings that we've had by assessing other schemes, including the one that operates through the NDIS.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>If someone is receiving respite care at a residential aged-care facility and they experience a serious incident, will providers be required to record and investigate that incident under the scheme?</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>My understanding is that, given they are in the care of the provider, that would fall under the requirements of the providers approved-provider status and therefore would be within the parameters of the Aged Care Act, which then brings in these particular requirements.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Could you take on notice—you said that was your understanding. It would be appreciated if you could—</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>Hold on a second—what was the question, Senator?</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Could the minister take on notice to confirm—because it was a little equivocal—that respite care is covered under this scheme?</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>Respite is included, Senator.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I'll get to my amendments and what our proposals are in a minute, but given that the recording and publication of the data isn't as thorough as it could be, how will this current proposal result in continuous improvement and prevent similar incidents from occurring in residential care facilities? And how will the community, residents and family members know that?</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>There are two elements to that, and they come to the two elements which we've discussed before. I think the other point I should make is in reference to where we sit in the overall scheme of things with respect to the royal commission and where we go out of the back of that.</p><p>Clearly, the requirements for reporting—the requirements which I indicated before for falls in both categories under the mandatory quality indicator program and also under the serious response scheme—are going to require providers to assess the fall and the reasons for the fall. Quite frankly, a good quality system has a continuous improvement element as part of it. So that's one of the objectives of the Serious Incident Response Scheme—the assessment of the fall, the reasons for it and then the corrective actions that are put in place to deal with that. That would be my expectation of what would occur.</p><p>With respect to the data: I would agree with you with respect to the amount of data that is available and that exists in the aged-care sector right now. That's something that we clearly need to improve. That will be part of the work that we do post the receipt of the royal commission report in just three weeks time. It is clearly something that we need to do to improve the visibility of this information, not only for consumers and for the community but also for the department and for the quality regulator. This is clearly a direction that we will continue to move in and it is certainly part of our policy discussions at this point in time.</p><p>So the operation of a good quality system will do exactly what you've asked it to do because continuous improvement is one of the elements of a good quality system.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Thank you. I might ask you a few more questions on reporting when we get to the amendments. Have you given any consideration to evaluation of the operation of this scheme and, if so, what are you planning?</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>I'll have to come back to you on any particular cycle of evaluation of the scheme, but, from my perspective, a regular cycle of doing that actually informs continuous improvement. I understand where you're coming from and I agree with the concept that you're discussing.</p><p>We are currently doing some additional scoping work on the Serious Incident Response Scheme. A number of colleagues have acknowledged the fact that it doesn't include home care. We're doing the scoping work for home care right now, so that answers the issue that has been raised in relation to home care. But we believe that it was important to get the scheme up, running and operating, particularly in residential care. The bringing forward of the commencement of the scheme was part of our response to the royal commission's COVID report, so we're clearly responding in that sense, but it is something that we will need to continue to monitor, and my view would be that that should form part of our reform process that we'll embark on off the back of the royal commission.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>I thank the minister for his answer, and in fact he's touched on my next question, about home care. I am aware of the time. Can I perhaps ask a question on notice: could the minister provide a written update to the chamber on where the feasibility and prevalence study to inform the introduction of the scheme for home and community care is at?</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>I'm happy to take that on notice and provide that information and perhaps a briefing if you require it.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|