My name is Stephanie Watts. I’m a registered nurse. I’ve been an aged care consultant in the aged care sector for years and years, and I worked as a registered quality assessor in the very interesting Covid time. So the commission had to catch up on lots of audits. And so I worked sometimes as a team leader, sometimes part of a team, as a quality assessor, just during and after the Covid period. So the way that the audits are done is we go in work as a team and we don’t actually decide on the outcome that actually goes to the next level. And we write a report of our experience, and we have meetings with the organisation the whole way through. And then the report goes to the next person we recommend. We have a lot of recommendations. And then the next level up actually decide within 14 days the result of the audit. I think that real strong compliance requires treating risk management and workforce capability as business as usual. So providers must be able to demonstrate it, not just state it. So the new standards are fundamentally rights based, meaning older people must be treated as individuals first, with their choices actively shaping their care. I’ll give you a real life example. So before 2024, an organisation could pass an audit simply by presenting a well-written diversity and inclusion policy. However, now the policies are just a starting point. Auditors want providers to demonstrate it. So during an audit, the organisation is expected to provide concrete evidence, such as observing a worker supporting an Aboriginal elder’s connection to country and island home, or asking a worker how they respect an LGBTQIA+ resident’s right to intimacy and sexual expression, and they’re two very different examples of how an organisation passes an audit with the new Strengthened Standards. it’s absolutely essential. Standard two in the new standards explicitly demands a training system that ensures workers have the necessary skills, qualifications and competencies to effectively perform their roles. So if staff aren’t trying to deliver person centered, culturally safe, trauma aware care, including caring for individuals with dementia and responding to medical emergencies, your document compliance means nothing in everyday practice. So the workers really are the eyes and ears of the organisation. Their knowledge and understanding of work practices is absolute gold. So well-trained staff creates also a positive culture which reflects in their care, and the knowledge of the staff flows onto the residents. So a real life example is under the old framework, showing an auditor that staff watched a generic slide show on dementia was often sufficient. A box would be ticked. However, under the new standards specifically outcome 2.9 training must be competency based and responsive to incidents. So if a resident is living with dementia and they become distressed, the organisation is expected to show the auditor that this incident triggered specific, updated competency based training for the workers on trauma aware and healing informed care. And the commission states, all aged care workers receiving competency based training in relation to core matters. This is very crucial because it actually shows that the provider is, in real time, making sure regarding the cohort of residents, that their staff are skilled for those particular residents. All the time, you could very well say. The staff and their training are really the culture of the organisation. So assessors now conduct deep dive interviews with leadership and older individuals. Nonconformities usually emerge when governance expectations aren’t translating into operational reality, because the staff haven’t been adequately trying to execute the expectations. So assessors no longer just read the policies or the statement of rights. They look for concrete evidence and they use a triangulation audit. So what they do is they interview the families, they interview the resident, they look at the documentation, they look at the organisation and the environment. They look for concrete evidence that through these observation and interviews that an individual’s preferences, cultural identity, and lived experience influences the daily routines and worker interactions. So, for example, in the past, auditors primarily check training logs. Now they do a deep dive interview with the senior management team, and they ask them how you know the organisation is safe. Before, in order to speak directly to an older person who reports that workers don’t know how to operate their equipment safely, for example, the organisation might say that all the workers have been trained in manual handling and using hoists. However, on interview of an individual, they might say that the workers actually don’t know how to move them in a hoist and they feel scared. I think probably one of the major gaps is a lack of regular competency based training on core matters like dementia care, responding to medical emergencies, and the code of conduct, so providers frequently fail to update their training based on feedback, complaints, incidents, identified risks and the outcome of regular aged care worker performance interviews. So if the organisation actually aligned their training with their complaints, their incidents, their reporting data, which is due every month and show that they’re actually a living organisation training their staff with the cohort of residents, it would make a big difference. So a real-life example example is historically, providers could use the same static training packages for years, but the new standards demand continuous improvement on contemporary evidence based practice. So if a provider hasn’t updated their emergency and disaster manual training following, for example, in Queensland all the floods, or hasn’t engaged workers and residents in regular testing that emergency plan an auditor to might flag this as a significant gap in maintaining a current and responsive training system. So gaps show up when we observe care or interview older individuals and see their preferences aren’t shaping their daily routines. So under the new graded assessment this leads to major nonconformance. Consequences are intense regulatory scrutiny, reputational damage and ultimately unsafe care for the older individual. Again: demonstrate it, don’t just state it. So the new standards providers are expected to have active, meaningful partnerships with the individuals that they care for. A real life example of this would be gaps used to be found in reviewing care plans in an office. So today, auditors use a care delivery evidence collection tool and they directly survey the individuals receiving care. So if an older person tells the auditor that their cultural food preferences and preferred meal time are consistently ignored, the auditor will trace back to a training gap, in partnering with individuals. The consequences is a greater non conformance to let the individuals choices should be actively shaping their daily routine. And just to add, probably the governing body must lead a culture of quality, safety and inclusion that supports individuals accessing quality funding aged care services by focusing on continuous improvement, which is just crucial. Yeah, I think gaps show up when we observe care, or interview older individuals, and see their preferences are actively shaping their daily routines. So under the new graded assessment, this will lead to major nonconformance. One of the main challenges is ensuring training remains current, compliant and practical across the aged care frameworks without overloading staff with generic or outdated content. Courses are clearly aligned with regulatory expectations and could be easily implemented across a diverse workforce instead of balancing operational demands. And it was time intensive. So giving a real life example to better explain. Before 2024, when the new Aged Care Act came in, in-house training created by a well-meaning manager was standard practice. Now, the clinical care standards, particularly standard five, strictly require contemporary evidence based best practice for high risk areas. If an auditor reviews an in-house infection control module, for example, and find it lacks current protocols on antimicrobial stewardship or managing invasive devices like urinary catheters, the organisation will fail to demonstrate that the workers are equipped to minimise severe clinical risks. I think some providers overload staff with generic theories rather than practical applications, and generic or AI content risks being outdated and completely disconnected from regulatory expectations. Staff become bored, complacent and don’t keep up with evidence based practices. In turn, the care provided may well fall and culture decline in place of generic and nonspecific training, so risking a possible noncompliance. Giving an example of this generic training might cover basic first aid, but the new standards demand specific clinical governance for high impact risks like choking, dysphagia, and pressure injuries. So if an auditor observes a worker giving the wrong food texture to a resident with dysphagia, and the organisation’s only defence is a generic AI generated training module rather than a sector specific training aligned with the IDDSI, which is the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative, the provider will face intense regulatory scrutiny for unsafe care. And probably just to add, if choking incidents and weight loss are high and the organisation cannot show that they’ve been actively training their staff in assisting the individual with meals and choking risks, nonconformists will be identified and the individuals may be at risk of non be at risk of choking and the organisation be at risk of nonconformance. Sure, the good providers offer the training, obviously that adheres to the legislation requirements, but active consideration is given to organisational operational risks, the workforce needs and the wider organisation environment, including quality, safe and inclusion. Inclusive culture. To support individuals who are learning good training providers should have an effective learning management system, which provides comprehensive reporting to showing staff completion rates and gaps so that can be really targeted, but they also should have adequate competencies. Training in practical content designed by subject matter experts, which can be easily accessed as required depending on their risk complaints and continuous improvement occurring at the time in the resident aged care organisation. An example of this would be previously keeping training sign off sheets in a binder was acceptable. Now the governing body is accountable for monitoring organisational performance using reliable data. A good training provider gives the organisation a system where management can instantly generate a report during an audit, providing that 100% of workers have completed mandatory training, such as the SIRS and the Code of Conduct, among other subjects, before delivering care. Fundamentally the NGO provides the toolbox that’s required. It’s competency based skills for providers, aligned with the standards. And I know there’s over 90 courses that allow specific resident and aged care homes to target and train the gaps identified in their particular homes. So the training is current to specific risks and gaps identified. It makes it very personalised. It also supports it to have a positive culture. It enables providers to demonstrate audit readiness and continuous improvement. They provide a sector specific platform that really does increase staff confidence in high risk areas, making them a strategic partner for demonstrating audit readiness. It also empowers the team to deliver person centered care and support the individuals, especially with their diverse needs. Increasing staff culture – with competent, well-trained staff, it increases the culture all through the organisation, and it impacts directly onto staff care. So to give an example, under the old system, general personal care training was enough. The new Act requires workers to be explicitly trained in specific diversity and inclusive areas, such as supporting First Nations elders or understanding specific needs of care leavers and veterans. Because the NGO training has such a diverse group of aged care courses explicitly aligned with the new strengthened aged care standards as well, a provider is able to show that to the auditor, exact course completions for these specific newly mandated topics, providing immediate compliance for the provider. There’s quite a lot, but they replace respective spreadsheets with a system that makes tracking engagement incredibly easy. And I note that they also have a mobile app for offline learning. So for the carers, they have access to key information at their fingertips. Some carers are reluctant to put their hand up and say “I’m not sure how to do this”. So it actually gives them the tools in their pockets to look up and be aware of specifically what they’re looking for and to guide them. So the key differentiators are the quality of their audit focused content as well. And the intuitive learning management system. So I think the courses that are engaged with and written by the subject matter experts makes a big difference when these experts can provide practical examples that learners can follow and understand in the real world of aged care. And also the storytelling mode is easy for the staff to follow, especially when they’re tired from their shifts and doing education modules that they don’t always look forward to. The NGO has a specific recipe that their training is effective because it’s engaging. So probably a real life example is an organisation relying on restrictive manual spreadsheets to record training completions. They might panic during an audit if the assessor demands immediate proof a specific worker is competent in medication administration, for example, the new expectation is measurable assurance. So the NGO Training allows an organisation to pull up an intuitive learning management system, download completion rates and competencies for the users, and demonstrate reform evidence to the assessor on the spot, which is very useful for organisations and providers. Choose a provider that delivers practical courses explicitly aligned with the standards and the legislation around aged care. The Aged Care Act, which was introduced in November 2024, essential requirements, include use of robust reporting features and responsive sector specific customer support should be able to effortlessly integrate with the existing clinical management system so they can talk to each other and provide easily accessible reports. Probably a real life example is that the ultimate expectation is compliance is no longer a scramble before an audit. It must be treated as fully integrated, business as usual operating system. So instead of putting out policies the week before the commission arrives, an organisation is expected to use a platform like the NGO training, where courses, as a map to the new standards are automatically assigned, tracked and accessible to the workers via the app, and they provide able to provide to the auditor that the work force capability is managed proactively every single day. Giving you a real life example, Dean. Previously, if a worker missed signing a training attendance sheet in order to might issue a simple not met on a pass or fail checklist. However, under the new graded assessment approach, the order to evaluate on a scale of conformance so they will look beyond the paperwork. Observe the worker in practice, and if the lack of training has a resulted in unsafe manual handling, they will issue a major non-conformists because they are assessing real world impact, not just administrative intent, which makes a big difference.