I had the privilege of visiting the Little Sisters of the Poor Nursing Home in Kalgoorlie on Friday to meet the Mother Superior and management, and look through the facility.
I was left with no doubt the staff are dedicated, the residents are happy and a high level of care is provided. So why did the facility fail to meet more than 20 expected outcomes in an accreditation audit?
The simple answer is that the Little Sisters are totally devoted to delivering their mission of care to the frail aged. The four nuns are themselves growing older, but continue to dedicate themselves to their vocation.
They don’t work under an industrial award and they don’t clock off at the end of a shift. Their waking hours are spent caring for others.
I think it’s fair to say the increasing red tape associated with running an aged care facility is not something the Little Sisters have been expert at. But the sisters in Kalgoorlie have taken appropriate steps to address those issues.
Accreditation is the arrangement established by the Australian Government to verify that aged care homes provide quality care and services.
There are 44 expected outcomes related to such things as continuous improvement, education, staff development, personnel management and regulatory requirements.
Almost every business and organisation will strive to achieve and exceed similar standards in their own industries. How many of us though leave a paper trail to show that we have done so? That’s the requirement of the Federal Government for aged care providers.
While that may be appropriate for a commercial service, I question its application to charitable institutions.
I’m not suggesting that charities should be exempt from inspection, but I do believe the weighting of the inspection should be more greatly focused on the physical care that’s delivered and the overall wellbeing of residents.
The accreditation report for the Little Sisters is available online at www.accreditation.org.au. At first glance it appears highly critical.
In the important area of clinical care it says: “Care plans are not effectively reviewed, and they are not consistently reflective of the residents’ current care needs.”
A statement like that obviously contributed to the adverse media coverage last week which followed the release of the report.
But having seen the facility myself I have no doubt that care plans exist, perhaps more intuitively than formally, but the residents are obviously being well cared for.
I ask what is more important, a piece of paper to show that someone’s care is planned, or a happy and healthy resident?
When it comes to funding, the Federal Government should take into account the special needs of regional communities. As aged care becomes more corporatised there is a greater need to have more residents in homes for them to be commercially viable.
In small communities it may not be possible to have a 60-bed facility. The government should recognise this and make special allowance for people to stay in their home towns for the last days of their lives.
What will happen to the Little Sisters facility if the nuns can no longer run the operation?
The sisters have already recognised the need to engage lay people to deliver skills and labour they cannot provide themselves. That will probably increase and costs will rise as a result.
When that happens the Little Sisters won’t be able to afford the $100,000 bill they had to pay to satisfy the city council’s tree maintenance requirement.
Politicians, the council and the community need to support the Little Sisters in their mission and we all need to be thinking now about how to ensure the continuing future delivery of quality aged care in Kalgoorlie-Boulder.
×0
