Read the transcript
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.
