Better health and ageing for all Australians

Aged Care Complaints

A Guide to the New Arrangements for the Accreditation Process 2011

This Guide has been prepared to assist approved providers to understand the changes to the accreditation processes for residential aged care services detailed in the Accreditation Grant Principles 2011

In this section:

May 2011
About this Guide
Overview of the new arrangements
Commencement of, and transition arrangements for, the new Accreditation Grant Principles
Applications for accreditation of commencing services and re-accreditation of accredited services
Assessment and decision - accreditation of commencing services
Assessment and decision - re-accreditation of services
Notification of decision on application for accreditation or re-accreditation
Assessment teams
Monitoring of accredited services
Dealing with non-compliance
Reconsideration and review
Reconsideration on application
Own initiative reconsideration
AAT Review
Promoting quality care in residential care services
Registration of quality assessors
Other matters
Copyright information

About this Guide

This Guide has been prepared to assist approved providers to understand the changes to the accreditation processes for residential aged care services detailed in the Accreditation Grant Principles 2011.

A recent review of the accreditation process (including the Accreditation Grant Principles) found that amendments to the Accreditation Grant Principles 1999 would be desirable in order to:
  • Remove or amend outdated provisions
  • Streamline the accreditation process
  • Make the Principles more logical, consistent and better able to be understood
  • Enhance consumer engagement
  • Provide greater clarity and consistency of administrative processes.
Given the extent of the changes proposed, the existing Principles have been repealed and replaced with an entirely new set of Principles (Accreditation Grant Principles 2011). The purpose of this Guide is to provide general guidance on the new legislative requirements. The Guide does not constitute legal advice and users are encouraged to seek their own professional advice about the application of the legislation to their own particular circumstances, and to exercise their own skill and care in considering the appropriate approach in meeting the legislative requirements. As this Guide has been written in plain English, some aspects of the legislation and policy have been simplified. In cases of discrepancy between the Guide and the legislation, the legislation should be relied on.

Additional Information

Additional information can be accessed through the:
  • Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd at www.accreditation.org.au
  • Department of Health and Ageing website at under 'Legislation' in the 'Aged Care' section for health professionals www.health.gov.au
  • Aged Care Information Line on 1800 500 853.

Legislation

The Accreditation Grant Principles 2011 can be downloaded from the Comlaw website at http://www.frli.gov.au Top of page

Overview of the new arrangements

The Accreditation Grant Principles set out the application requirements for approved providers seeking accreditation and the procedures to be followed, and the matters to be taken into account, by the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd (the Accreditation Agency) for accreditation of residential care services.

The Accreditation Grant Principles 2011 replace the Accreditation Grant Principles 1999. The main changes to the accreditation process implemented through the Accreditation Grant Principles 2011 are as follows:
  • The provision of self-assessment data as part of the re-accreditation application is no longer mandatory. However, approved providers are expected to undertake self-assessment and must make this information available to the quality assessors on site
  • The requirement for a desk audit in respect of re-accreditations has been removed
  • 'Support contact' has been renamed 'assessment contact' and amended to better reflect the purpose of the contact
  • Where possible, the time periods associated with various steps of the accreditation process have been changed in order to align timeframes across the process
  • The right of an approved provider to nominate a quality assessor to be on their assessment team has been removed
  • In relation to site audits and review audits, timeframes have been revised and provisions have been included to facilitate consumer input into the audit process
  • Confidentiality provisions have been revised to require the Accreditation Agency and assessment team members to not disclose certain confidential information to an approved provider, unless the person who provided the confidential information consents to the disclosure of the information or the safety, health or well-being of a care recipient is placed at risk by not disclosing
  • The requirement for assessment teams to make recommendations about the accreditation period or assessment contacts in their report on audit findings has been removed The requirement for approved providers to give a copy of their plan for continuous improvement (PCI) to the Accreditation Agency after a site audit has been removed and replaced with a requirement to have a PCI at all times, make it available to the assessment teams and update it and provide it to the Accreditation Agency if the service does not meet the Accreditation Standards
  • The need for agreement on the timetable to make improvements following a decision not to revoke accreditation has been removed
  • The information that must be included in a serious risk report has been revised
  • In relation to review and reconsideration, provisions have been standardised and clarified
  • The Principles have been re-ordered, corrected and updated, including minor wording changes throughout to improve consistency and remove redundant provisions.

Will the changes increase regulation and costs for approved providers?

The amendments implemented through the Accreditation Grant Principles 2011will have an overall positive and minimal impact on the aged care sector, the Accreditation Agency and aged care consumers.

The changes will not restrict the number and range of businesses in the industry, the ability of those businesses to compete or their incentives to compete. Businesses in the residential aged care sector will benefit from a streamlined accreditation process and amended Principles that provide a greater level of clarity. There are also no additional record keeping requirements as a result of these amendments.

Some amendments to the Accreditation Grant Principles also benefit consumers. These benefits include: better notification of visits by the Accreditation Agency, and increased anonymity/protection following the provision of information to the Accreditation Agency or the assessment team.

Amendments to the Accreditation Grant Principles do not change the role of the Accreditation Agency, rather they produce a more streamlined accreditation process.

Did the Government consult with the aged care industry about the changes?

Yes, extensive consultation was undertaken to inform changes to the Principles.

In March 2008 the Government announced a comprehensive review of the accreditation process and accreditation standards.

In relation to the accreditation process (which is the focus of this Guide), an issues paper was developed to facilitate discussion about the Accreditation Grant Principles 1999. This issues paper formed the basis of a public consultation process to provide all stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the existing accreditation process and suggest changes for the future. In response, 147 submissions were received from a range of aged care stakeholders including peak industry and consumer groups, trade unions, approved providers, aged care services, and from individual practitioners, staff, residents and relatives.

In 2009-10, the findings of the review process were considered and further consultation occurred. A paperon various options for enhancing the accreditation process was distributed to Ageing Consultative Committee (ACC) in March 2010. The ACC includes industry and consumer representatives. Following consideration of comments raised by the ACC, a further consultation paper (outlining the proposed changes to the Accreditation Principles) was developed and provided to the ACC in July 2010. As a result of valuable feedback, some further refinements were made to the proposals and presented to the ACC in November 2010 and again in March 2011.

The changes outlined in the Accreditation Grant Principles 2011 and this Guide are consistent with the outcomes of the review, consultation with the sector and consumer groups, and supported by the ACC.

How do I get further information about the changes?

This Guide provides general guidance to approved providers on how the Accreditation Grant Principles have been amended. Similarly, the Department's Residential Care Manual has been updated to reflect the changes to these Principles to help approved providers comply with their responsibilities under the Act and understand the requirements of the accreditation process.

If you require further information about these new arrangements, please phone the Aged Care Information Line on 1800 500 853.

Further information and answers to questions about changes to accreditation and quality of care for aged care, which begin to take effect as of 20 May 2011, can be found at www.accreditation.org.au or www.health.gov.au.

Structure of the Principles

The review of the accreditation process (including the Accreditation Grant Principles 1999) found a number of structural problems with the Principles, including:
  • They did not flow logically making it difficult to locate information
  • They contained content that was no longer relevant regarding requirements applying to services accredited or accredited pre-January 2001
The amended Accreditation Grant Principles have been re-structured to make them more logical and reader-friendly and all redundant sections relating to pre-January 2001 services have been removed.

What will this mean for approved providers and consumers?

The impact on approved providers is expected to be positive as the restructure will provide greater clarity regarding the accreditation process. The restructure of the Principles will enhance the accessibility of the document and the understanding of both approved providers and consumers. Top of page

Commencement of, and transition arrangements for, the new Accreditation Grant Principles

The Accreditation Grant Principles 2011 commence on 20 May 2011.

This means that all applications for accreditation or reaccreditation that are made on or after 20 May 2011 will be assessed in accordance with the new Principles.

For applications that are made before 20 May 2011 but for which no decision has been made by 20 May 2011, transitional arrangements will apply. For such applications, the Accreditation Grant Principles 1999 will apply until the completion of the decision making processes.

What will this mean for approved providers?

The transitional arrangements as outlined above will ensure those providers with applications already in train before 20 May 2011 are not impacted by amendments to the Principles during the accreditation or re-accreditation process. Top of page

For those that make applications to the Accreditation Agency on or after 20 May 2011, it is expected that the requirements will be clearer. The changes have also been anticipated by the sector since the commencement of the review of the accreditation process in 2008 and subsequent consultations with the industry.

What will this mean for consumers?

A key outcome from the review of the accreditation process was the need to increase consumer engagement. A number of amendments are implemented through these Principles, including the improvements to the notification for residents (or representatives) of visits by the Accreditation Agency, effective from 20 May 2011. These amendments are discussed in further detail under relevant Parts. References Sections 2.2 (commencement) and 2.90 (transitional arrangements) of the Accreditation Grant Principles 2011

Applications for accreditation of commencing services and re-accreditation of accredited services

Part 2 of the Principles describes the application requirements for both commencing services and services seeking re-accreditation.

Reordered to make the provisions flow more logically, this Part includes most of the existing requirements such as:
  • Information about application for accreditation. An approved provider may apply, in writing, to the Accreditation Agency for accreditation or re-accreditation of a residential care service
  • Requirements for making an application:
    • As is currently the case, an application must: be made by the approved provider on behalf of the service in the form decided by the Accreditation Agency (the approved form will be made available to approved providers); be accompanied by the correct fee; and include an undertaking by the approved provider to undertake continuous improvement, measured against the Accreditation Standards, if the service is accredited
    • The application may also be accompanied by documents that relate to the service's self-assessment information (this is not mandatory). The Accreditation Agency application form does not require a self-assessment to be submitted at the time of application but the approved provider may do so if they wish. The self-assessment information may be in any form the approved provider wishes, although the Accreditation Agency will provide a tool. If the self-assessment information is not provided as part of the application, it must be provided before or during the site audit
  • Payment of application fees. The provisions relating to fees have been amended to reflect the current fees as at 1 July 2010. A Consumer Price Index increase will apply from 1 July each year, commencing 1 July 2011. Broadly speaking, the amount of the fee is determined by the number of places allocated to the service. The existing provisions regarding circumstances in which a reduced, or no fee, is payable have been retained
  • As is currently the case, the Accreditation Agency must not accept an application unless it is valid

What will this mean for approved providers?

The changes will have an overall minimal impact on the aged care sector. On the whole, the impact on approved providers is expected to be positive as the restructure of these related provisions into one Part will provide greater clarity. Approved providers will be able to finalise their self-assessment closer to their site audit date if they wish and report the result of their self-assessment using whatever form they wish.

What will this mean for consumers?

These minor amendments will have little to no impact on consumers as they are of an administrative nature only. References Part 2 of the Accreditation Grant Principles 2011Top of page

Assessment and decision - accreditation of commencing services

Part 3 of the Principles incorporates most of the existing provisions relating to the procedures for assessment of applications for commencing services. However, some minor amendments, to improve clarity and minimise internal inconsistency, have been made.

The Principles provide that:
  • Within 16 days after receiving an application for accreditation of a commencing service, the Accreditation Agency must decide whether or not to accredit the service. In doing so, the Accreditation Agency must take into account the application, any relevant information provided by the approved provider and whether the Accreditation Agency is satisfied that the service will undertake continuous improvement
    • The only substantial change (from the existing requirements) is that the period within which the Accreditation Agency must decide whether or not to accredit a commencing service has been increased from 14 to 16 days. The Accreditation Agency and the approved provider can also agree that the decision be made at a later date
  • If the Accreditation Agency decides to accredit the commencing service, the Agency must accredit the service for 12 months, decide whether there are any areas in which improvements must be made to meet the Accreditation Standards and decide the arrangements for assessment contacts
    • These requirements address two deficiencies in the previous Principles. Previously the Accreditation Grant Principles 1999 provided that the Accreditation Agency must decide the period of accreditation, yet another provision stated that the Accreditation Agency can only accredit for 12 months.
    • This inconsistency has now been removed but the policy retained (accreditation for commencing services is for 12 months only)
    • References to 'support contacts' have been amended to refer to 'assessment contacts' which have been defined in section 2.4 of the Principles. The new terminology and definition better reflects the Accreditation Agency's role in monitoring, assessing performance and assisting through education and continuous improvement. Further information about assessment contacts is included in the section of this Guide entitled "Monitoring of accredited services"

What will this mean for approved providers?

The minor amendments made will have little impact on approved providers. Any impact is expected to be positive as the amendments will provide greater clarity regarding the Accreditation Agency's decision making process in relation to commencing services.

What will this mean for consumers?

These minor amendments are expected to have no impact on consumers as they are of an administrative nature only. References Part 3 of the Accreditation Grant Principles 2011 Top of page

Assessment and decision - re-accreditation of services

Part 4 of the Principles describes the assessment and decision making process for applications for re-accreditation of services.

For ease of reference, this part of the Guide has been
divided into four sections:
  • Steps that occur prior to a site audit
  • Process during a site audit
  • Information to be communicated after a site audit
  • Decisions by the Accreditation Agency

Steps that occur prior to a site audit

In summary, Part 4 of the Principles requires that:
  • If the Accreditation Agency accepts a valid application, the Accreditation Agency must:
    • Create an assessment team to undertake a site audit. Part 6 of the Principles describes the requirements for assessment teams. In summary, assessment teams are comprised of one or more registered quality assessors
    • Consult with the approved provider about when the assessment team will undertake the site audit
  • Within 28 days of receiving the application, the Accreditation Agency must also tell the approved provider:
    • The date/s for the site audit and the names of the members of the assessment team. The approved provider may object to an assessor if the approved provider does not consider that the person meets the eligibility criteria (described in Part 6 of the Principles). If this occurs, and the Accreditation Agency accepts the objection, the person may be removed from the assessment team and replaced with a new assessor
    • The specific wording to be used to notify residents of the site audit. The Accreditation Agency must also provide the approved provider with a poster to inform residents about the site audit
  • After being told by the Accreditation Agency when the site audit will start, the approved provider must take all reasonable steps to ensure that residents (and their representatives) are aware of the date/s of the site audit and that they may speak with the assessment team:
    • In order to ensure that residents are properly informed, the approved provider must, as a minimum, provide written information to each resident (or their representative), including any specific wording provided by the Accreditation Agency and display copies of the poster provided by the Accreditation Agency in a prominent place or places within the residential care service
    • This must be done at least 21 days before the start of the site audit, unless the Accreditation Agency provides less notice than this, in which case residents must be notified as soon as possible after the approved provider is advised of the date/s for the site audit

Process during a site audit

The Principles require that:
  • In carrying out the site audit, the assessment team must:
    • Act consistently with any requirements in the Accountability Principles
    • Assess the quality of care and services provided by the approved provider against the Accreditation Standards
    • Consider any information about the quality of care and services at the service that is provided by a resident, former resident or by their representative
    • Consider any information received from the Secretary
    • Consider any information received from the approved provider, including its 'self-assessment information'. As noted previously, self assessment information may be provided as part of the application. If its not provided at the time of application, it must be provided to the assessment team prior to, or during, the site audit
Each of the requirements detailed above are broadly consistent with the requirements under the Accreditation Grant Principles 1999 but have been redrafted for greater clarity and consistency with review audit requirements. For example, previously the provision required the assessment team to consider the 'quality of care' provided by the approved provider rather than the 'quality of care and services' which is a more accurate description of what is covered by the Standards.
  • During the site audit, the assessment team must also:
    • Meet with the approved provider daily to discuss the progress of the audit. This amends the previous wording (which refers to discussing the 'audit process') to better reflect the purpose of such a meeting
    • Meet with at least 10% of the residents (or their representatives) to discuss the care and services provided. If the person wishes to meet with the assessment team privately, the approved provider must accommodate this
This amendment clarifies that the meetings with residents/representatives are to 'discuss the care and services provided', as opposed to 'discuss the audit' which is the previous wording.

On the last day of the site audit, the assessment team must give the approved provider a written report of the major findings of the site audit. This is consistent with the current requirements.

Information to be communicated after the site audit

The Principles provide that:
  • The approved provider may, within 14 days of receiving the written report of major findings, give the Accreditation Agency a written response to the report. This is consistent with the current requirements
  • Within 14 days after the site audit is finished, the assessment team must give the report on major findings and the site audit report to the Accreditation Agency. This is consistent with the current requirements
  • The site audit report must include an assessment of the approved provider's performance against the Accreditation Standards. It may also include any other matters the assessment team considers relevant. This report will not contain any confidential information that is unable to be disclosed to the approved provider because of the operation of confidentiality provisions included in the Principles
The key difference between this requirement and the previous requirement is that the assessment team is no longer required to include an executive summary or recommendations about accreditation, the period of accreditation and the frequency of assessment contacts in the site audit report.

A further difference between these new requirements and previous requirements are that the requirement for a desk audit has been removed.

Decision by the Accreditation Agency

The Principles require that:
  • Within 28 days after receiving the site audit report, the Accreditation Agency must decide to re-accredit or not to re-accredit the accredited service. However, the Accreditation Agency and the approved provider can agree that the decision can be made at a later date
  • In making a decision about re-accreditation, the Accreditation Agency must take into account:
    • The site audit report (the requirement to take into account the desk audit report is removed)
    • Any information received from the approved provider in response to the report of the major findings given to the approved provider
    • Any information received from residents, former residents or their representatives. This is a new requirement making the consideration of such information by the Accreditation Agency explicit
    • Whether it is satisfied that the approved provider will undertake continuous improvement, measured against the Accreditation Standards, if it is re-accredited
  • The Accreditation Agency may also take into account any other relevant matter
  • If the Accreditation Agency decides to re-accredit the accredited service, the Accreditation Agency must decide:
    • The further period for which the service is to be accredited
    • Whether there are any areas in which improvements must be made to meet the Accreditation Standards
    • The arrangements for assessment contacts
  • If the Accreditation Agency decides not to re-accredit the accredited service, the Accreditation Agency must decide:
    • Whether there are any areas in which improvements would be necessary to meet the Accreditation Standards
    • The arrangements for assessment contacts
  • If the Accreditation Agency, decides not to re-accredit an accredited service, it may also revoke the service's existing accreditation. If this decision is made, it must decide the date on which the revocation takes effect
  • The Accreditation Agency must record its decisions and the reasons for any decisionPart 5 sets out the requirements for notifying the approved provider and the Secretary of the Accreditation Agency's decisions

What will this mean for approved providers?

Consultation with industry indicated that approved providers would benefit from a restructure and redraft of some existing provisions relating to accreditation decisions into a more reader-friendly format.

In regard to the notification to residents and their representatives, previously this was required within three days of being told the date of the audit. This could have been three to four months before the audit and often had to be completed in haste. As a result of the amendments to this provision, approved providers will be able to more readily plan for the communication.

In regard to the site audit report, to date assessment teams conducting site or review audits had to make a recommendation to the Accreditation Agency regarding future accreditation. The Accreditation Agency must then make a decision about the service's accreditation utilising the assessment team's report but also taking into account other information, such as that provided by the approved provider. As a result, its decision could differ from the recommendation made by the assessment team, as it takes into account a greater range of information. This could result in confusion for both the approved provider and consumers.

To reduce confusion, the requirements for the site audit report to include recommendations about accreditation, the period of accreditation and the frequency of assessment contacts have been removed.

What will this mean for consumers?

A number of submissions to the review from consumer groups indicated that residents (or their representatives) did not really understand the accreditation process or how they could input to it. In addition, under the previous arrangements an approved provider had to notify residents/representatives within 3 days of being told when a site audit would start, when the audit would be. This notification may have been months before the visit was due to occur, which may have resulted in residents and their representatives forgetting.

Under the revised provisions, it is now a requirement that approved providers, not less than 21 days before the first day of the site audit, give information in writing to each resident (and their representative, if any) about the site audit and display copies of a poster about the audit in a prominent place or places within the services. For example, on noticeboards and in lifts.

The information to be provided to residents/representatives must include a form of words provided by the Accreditation Agency, including the date of the visit and that residents are encouraged to participate.

These new arrangements allow notification of the residents and representatives closer to the date, but still allow enough time for those who wish to meet with the assessors, time to organise to be available on the days of the audit. References Part 4 of the Accreditation Grant Principles 2011 Top of page

Notification of decision on application for accreditation or re-accreditation

Part 5 sets out how the Accreditation Agency must notify the approved provider, and the Secretary, of the Accreditation Agency's decision on an application for accreditation or re-accreditation.

The essential requirements included in the previous Principles have not been changed. However, the language has been updated so that it better reflects reality and it is easier to understand.

In summary, Part 5 requires that within 14 days after making a decision in relation to the application, the Accreditation Agency must tell the approved provider and the Secretary, in writing, of the decision. This retains the existing requirement.

Various sections within the Part set out the different types of information that must be given to the approved provider and the Secretary depending on whether the decision has been to accredit, not to accredit or to revoke accreditation.

If the Accreditation Agency decides to accredit or re-accredit a residential care service, the Accreditation Agency must within 14 days of making the decision:
  • Tell the approved provider in writing about:
    • The decision and the reasons for the decision
    • The period for which the service is to be accredited
    • For a decision to re-accredit an accredited service, how to apply for reconsideration of the further period of accreditation (this is not required for commencing services as the initial period of accreditation for a commencing services must be 12 months)
    • Any areas in which improvements must be made to demonstrate performance against the Accreditation Standards and the timetable to make improvements in these matters
    • The arrangements for assessment contacts with the service
    • The circumstances in which a review audit may be undertaken
    • How the approved provider may apply for further accreditation of the service
    • Give the approved provider a copy of the site audit report if a site audit was conducted
    • Tell the Secretary, in writing, about the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the period of accreditation or further accreditation
The Agency must also give the approved provider a certificate of accreditation stating the period of accreditation or re-accreditation for the service. No time period is stipulated for the provision of this certificate. This is because the certificate is generally issued once the time period for requesting reconsideration of the decision has expired. This removes the need to issue two certificates, should a decision be changed on reconsideration.

If the Accreditation Agency decides not to accredit or re-accredit a residential care service, the Accreditation Agency must, within 14 days of the decision:
  • Tell the approved provider, in writing, about:
    • The decision and the reasons for it
    • Any areas in which improvements would be necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Accreditation Standards
    • If the service is an accredited service, the arrangements for assessment contacts
    • How to apply for reconsideration of the decision
  • Give the approved provider a copy of any information received from the Secretary that influenced its decision on the application and a copy of the site audit report (if a site audit was conducted)
  • Tell the Secretary in writing about the decision and the reasons for the decision
If the Accreditation Agency decides to revoke an accredited service's existing accreditation the Accreditation Agency must, within 14 days of the decision:
  • Tell the approved provider in writing about:
    • The decision and the reasons for it
    • The date the revocation takes effect
    • Any areas in which improvements would be necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Accreditation Standards
    • The arrangements for assessment contacts
    • How to apply for reconsideration of the decision
  • Tell the Secretary in writing about the decision and the reasons for the decision and the date of revocation

What will this mean for approved providers?

The main change to the above provisions are that they have been drafted in a more reader-friendly manner. There is also increased consistency across all the information-giving provisions (be it information provided to an approved provider after a site audit or after a review audit).Approved providers are expected to benefit from greater clarity and consistency.

Also under previous arrangements the Accreditation Agency could revoke accreditation following a review audit but could not revoke accreditation following a site audit that was initiated in response to an approved provider seeking re-accreditation. Under the amended Principles, the Accreditation Agency can revoke accreditation either following a site audit or a review audit. This will prevent services having to be subject to a review audit immediately following a site audit in those situations when the non-compliance is so severe that the Accreditation Agency considers it necessary to revoke accreditation immediately. All of the protections that exist in relation to review audits also apply in relation to revocation following a site audit.

As is the case for revocation following a review audit, the approved provider may seek reconsideration within 14 days of the decision and is also able to seek AAT review following an unsuccessful request for reconsideration (Refer to Part 9 of the Principles).

What will this mean for consumers?

These amendments will have no impact on consumers as they are of an administrative nature only. References Part 5 of the Accreditation Grant Principles 2011 Top of page

Assessment teams

Part 6 of the Principles sets out how assessment teams for site audits and review audits are constituted and the process for objecting to the appointment of a person to a team and appointing replacement members.

Most existing provisions pertaining to assessment teams have been retained. The main changes to note are:
  • Removal of references to desk audits. Previously on receipt of an application for re-accreditation a team of quality assessors would undertake a desk audit, within a legislative time frame, and provide a report to the Accreditation Agency recommending whether or not the Accreditation Agency proceed with the application. A significant part of the desk audit was reviewing the service's self-assessment information. With the inclusion of an amendment providing that self assessment information may accompany the application (or be provided as part of the site audit itself), the desk audit can be eliminated
  • Removal of the right of an approved provider to nominate a quality assessor to be on the team that conducts an assessment of their home. Existing provisions relating to opportunities for approved providers to object to an assessor have been retained
In summary, this Part requires that:
  • Site audits and review audits must be carried out by assessment teams comprising available quality assessors (as is currently the case)
  • In order to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest, the Accreditation Agency must not appoint a person to an assessment team if they were employed by the approved provider or provided services to the approved provider within the 3 years before the team is created or has a financial or other interest that could conflict with a proper audit of the approved provider
  • An assessment team, created for a purpose other than a review audit, may consist of 1 member. An assessment team for a review audit, must be 2 or more members
  • If a member of an assessment team becomes unavailable during the audit, the Accreditation Agency may replace the member. However, if the team was created for a review audit, and only 2 persons were appointed to the team, the Accreditation Agency must appoint another person to the team. The intent of these provisions is that:
    • if only one member has been appointed to a team (to conduct a site audit) and that person becomes unavailable, then a team no longer exists and the Accreditation Agency must recreate a team (with one or more members)
    • if there are two members of a team for a site audit, and one becomes unavailable then it is up to the Accreditation Agency whether it proceeds with one team member or appoints another team member
    • if there are two members of a review audit team and one member becomes unavailable, the Accreditation Agency must appoint a replacement member (because a review audit cannot be conducted with less than two team members)
  • If a member of an assessment team becomes unavailable during the audit and the Accreditation Agency replaces the member, it must tell the approved provider as soon as possible after replacing the member
  • The approved provider may, within 14 days after being told who is on a site audit team, object (in writing) to a quality assessor if the approved provider considers that the assessor is ineligible for inclusion on the team. If an approved provider makes an objection, the Accreditation Agency must decide to accept the objection and remove the person from the team or reject the objection and advise the approved provider, in writing, within 7 days of receiving the objection
Approved providers do not have the opportunity to object to members of review audit teams (noting that review audits often occur on an unannounced basis) nor do they have the opportunity to object to replacement members. For example, if a site audit team member is replaced because an assessor fell ill, the approved provider cannot object to the replacement member. This is for practical reasons because in these circumstances an imminent audit could be delayed by up to 21 days in order for the approved provider to object and for the Accreditation Agency to consider the objection.

What will this mean for approved providers?

Improvements to the structure, flow and consistency of the provisions will provide increased clarity. Streamlining measures, such as the removal of the requirement for a desk audit will also have a positive impact.

What will this mean for consumers?

The removal of the provision allowing approved providers the right to choose a quality assessor was done in consultation with the sector and consumers. Stakeholders were largely of the view that approved providers should not be able to nominate a member of the assessment team and that this may undermine the independence of the assessment process. By removing the capacity for approved providers to nominate assessors, this has addressed concerns expressed by some stakeholders, including consumer groups. References Part 6 of the Accreditation Grant Principles 2011 Top of page

Monitoring of accredited services

The Accreditation Grant Principles 1999 included a part called 'Continuous Improvement', however related provisions were spread throughout the Principles.

This issue is addressed in the new Principles. Part 7 of the new Principles consolidates all provisions relating to continuous improvement. The opportunity has also been taken to remove all of the redundant provisions relating to services before 1 January 2001.

Some amendments have also been made to provisions relating to continuous improvement, as outlined below.

Compliance and continuous improvement

The Accreditation Grant Principles 1999 required that approved providers give the Accreditation Agency, in a form approved by the Agency, a plan for continuous improvement. The Principles did not state when the plan had to be given to the Accreditation Agency but as a matter of practice, the Agency requested that it be provided within 6 weeks of a site audit. These requirements have been changed such that:
  • An approved provider must maintain a plan for continuous improvement, the form of which is not prescribed
  • The plan must be made available to an assessment team or to the Accreditation Agency, only if requested (by contrast to previous practice which was that it was routinely provided after every site visit regardless of whether non-compliance was detected)

Assessment contacts

As described earlier, as part of the revisions to the Principles, 'support contact' has been changed to 'assessment contact' and the language of 'supervision' has been replaced with the language of 'assessment'.

In summary, the Accreditation Agency must carry out regular assessment contacts of an accredited residential care service. The purpose of the assessment contacts is to:
  • Assess the approved provider's performance against the Accreditation Standards
  • Assist the approved provider's process of continuous improvement
  • Identify whether there is a need for a review audit
  • Give the approved provider additional information or education about the accreditation process and requirements
The form that the assessment contact takes is up to the Accreditation Agency for example, phone discussions or site visits
The Accreditation Agency is not required to give notice to the approved provider before all assessment contacts takes place: some assessment contacts are announced and some are unannounced. However, it is now a requirement that residents are informed of an assessment contact in the form of a site visit. The Accreditation Agency must give the approved provider a poster to be displayed as soon as practicable in a prominent place or places within the service to inform the residents of the service about the contact.

If the Accreditation Agency gives the approved provider advance notice of the visit to the service then the poster can be displayed in advance of the visit. But if the visit is unannounced, the Accreditation Agency would provide a copy of the poster at the time of the visit and this would be displayed in the service from the day of the visit.

Within 21 days after an assessment contact, the Accreditation Agency must tell the approved provider, in writing about the arrangements for future assessment contacts and any areas in which improvements must be made to meet the accreditation standards.

To enable the Accreditation Agency to vary arrangements for existing 'support contacts' established for approved providers prior to the revocation of the Accreditation Grant Principles 1999, provision has been included to allow the Accreditation Agency to also vary arrangements for support contacts after 20 May 2011.Top of page

Review audits

The circumstances in which a review audit may be undertaken have not changed.

In summary:
  • The Accreditation Agency must arrange for a review audit at the Secretary's request and may arrange for a review audit if:
    • It believes, on reasonable grounds, that the approved provider may not be meeting the Accreditation Standards or other responsibilities under the Act
    • There has been a change to the service about which, under section 9-1 of the Act, the approved provider must tell the Secretary
    • Under section 16-1 of the Act, there has been a transfer of allocated places
    • The premises at which the service is conducted have changed since the service was accredited
  • The service has not complied with the arrangements made for assessment contacts (or support contacts under the Accreditation Grant Principles 1999), as required by the accreditation decision- The approved provider has requested reconsideration
  • The Accreditation Agency must create an assessment team, in accordance with Part 6 to undertake the review audit and prepare a review audit report
  • As with assessment contacts and site audits, it is now a requirement that residents must be informed of a review audit. The Accreditation Agency or the assessment team must give the approved provider a poster to display as soon as practicable in a prominent place or places within the service to inform the residents of the service about the audit
  • If the Accreditation Agency gives the approved provider advance notice of the visit, then the poster can be displayed in advance of the visit. But if the visit is unannounced, the Accreditation Agency would provide a copy of the poster at the time of the visit and this would be displayed in the service from the day of the visit
  • In carrying out the review audit, the assessment team must:
    • Act consistently with any provisions of the Accountability Principles applying to the audit
    • Assess the quality of care and services provided by the approved provider against the Accreditation Standards
    • Visit the premises of the residential care service
    • Consider any information about the quality of care and services received from residents, former residents or their representatives. In order to elicit information, the assessment team must meet with at least 10% of residents or their representatives during the review audit to discuss the care and services provided. If a resident asks to meet the team, the approved provider must allow the team to meet the resident or their representative privately
    • Consider any information received from the Secretary
    • Consider any information received from the approved provider
The changes detailed above, make the requirements in relation to review audits consistent with those in relation to site audits
  • The assessment team must meet with the approved provider daily during the review audit to discuss the progress of the audit. On the last day of the review audit, the assessment team must give the approved provider a written report of major findings. The approved provider may, within 7 days after receiving the report, give the Accreditation Agency a written response to the report. This retains existing requirements in the Accreditation Grant Principles 1999
  • Within 7 days of the end of the review audit, the assessment team must provide a review audit report to the Accreditation Agency and the approved provider
  • A copy of the report of major findings must also be provided to the Accreditation Agency at this time. This report was already given to the approved provider on the last day of the review audit but the assessment team has a longer period of time within which to provide this to the Accreditation Agency
  • The review audit report must include an assessment of the approved provider's performance against the Accreditation Standards and any other matters the team considers relevant. The requirement for a review audit report are the same as for a site audit report and differ from existing requirements by excluding any recommendations.

Decisions following review audit

As is currently the case, the Accreditation Agency may decide:
  • To revoke the accreditation of the service and the date the revocation takes effect;
  • Not to revoke the accreditation; or
  • Not to revoke, but to vary the period for accreditation by fixing the date the accreditation will cease
Within 14 days after receiving the review audit report, the Accreditation Agency must tell the approved provider, in writing, of the decision. The Principles continue to detail the matters to be taken into account by the Accreditation Agency when making a decision (consistency has been improved with the matters to be taken into account across the relevant review audit and site audit provisions).

In making a decision following a review audit, the Accreditation Agency must take into account:
  • The review audit report
  • Any information received from the approved provider in response to the review audit report
  • Any information received from residents, or former residents or their representatives Any information received from the Secretary
  • Whether it is satisfied that the approved provider will undertake continuous improvement, measured against the Accreditation Standards. This is a new requirement for review audits but is consistent with the process following site audit requirements and with current practice in relation to decisions made after a review audit
The Accreditation Agency may also take into account any other relevant matter. This clarifies current practice.

The Accreditation Agency must record its decision and the reasons for the decision.

If the Accreditation Agency decides to revoke the residential care service's accreditation, the Accreditation Agency must within 14 days after receiving the review audit report:
  • Tell the approved provider, in writing, about:
    • The decision and the reasons for it
    • The date on which the revocation takes effect
    • The areas in which improvements would be necessary to meet the Accreditation Standards. It is intended that the Agency give the approved provider information about the areas of deficiency so the approved provider is aware of the areas in which improvement must be made and is therefore able to act immediately to make improvements to the areas of deficiency. Approved providers van also include evidence of their actions should they request reconsideration of the decision by the Accreditation Agency
    • The arrangements for assessment contacts with the service
    • How to apply for reconsideration of the decision
  • Tell the Secretary, in writing, about its decision and the reasons for the decisions and the date on which accreditation will cease
If the Accreditation Agency decides not to revoke and not to vary the residential care service's accreditation, the Accreditation Agency must within 14 days after receiving the review audit report:
  • Tell the approved provider, in writing, about:
    • The decision and the reasons for it
    • Any areas in which improvements must be made to meet the Accreditation Standards and the timetable for making the improvements (if applicable)
    • The arrangements for assessment contacts with the service
  • Tell the Secretary, in writing, about its decision and the reasons for the decisions
If the Accreditation Agency decides to vary the residential care service's accreditation, the Accreditation Agency must within 14 days after receiving the review audit report:
  • Tell the approved provider in writing about:
    • The decision and the reasons for it
    • The date the service's accreditation period will cease
    • The areas in which improvements must be made to demonstrate compliance with the Accreditation Standards and the timetable to make improvements in these matters (if applicable);
    • The arrangements for assessment contacts with the service
    • How to apply for reconsideration of the decision
  • Tell the Secretary, in writing, about its decision and the reasons for the decisions and the date on which accreditation will cease
The Accreditation Agency must also give the approved provider a new certificate of accreditation stating the new period of accreditation for the service. In line with similar provisions, there is no time period applicable to the provision of this certificate as it is generally provided after the time period for requesting reconsideration of the decision has expired.

What will this mean for approved providers?

As described above, for each type of decision, the Principles more expressly describe the information that must be given to the approved provider - this gives greater consistency and enhances the information available to approved providers, compared to the previous Principles.

What will this mean for consumers?

The previous Principles only required the assessment team to consult with at least 10% of residents during site audits but not review audits. Although the Accreditation Agency currently meets or exceeds this requirement during review audits as well as site audits, the Principles now formalise this practice.As with site audits, the provisions for assessment contacts and review audits have been amended to include the display of a poster in a prominent place or places to inform residents of the assessment activity. These amendments facilitate increased consumer involvement in the accreditation process. References Part 7 of the Accreditation Grant Principles 2011Top of page

Dealing with non-compliance

Part 8 of the Principles sets out how the Accreditation Agency will deal with non-compliance by an approved provider with the approved provider's responsibilities under the Act and the Accreditation Standards.

Many previous provisions addressing non-compliance have been retained but have been restructured or reworded to enhance understanding of the role and responsibilities of the Accreditation Agency. Provisions pertaining to non-compliance before 1 January 2001 have been removed from the new Principles.

Some amendments have also been made to the provisions relating to non-compliance, as outlined below.

Evidence of non-compliance with the Act


The Principles require if the Accreditation Agency finds evidence of a failure of an approved provider to comply with 1 or more of the approved provider's responsibilities under Part 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3 of the Act, the Accreditation Agency must, as soon as it becomes aware of the evidence tell the Secretary, in writing, about the evidence.

This differs to previous requirements by removing references to desk audits and also to recommendations about sanctions.

Failure to meet Accreditation Standards

The Principles provide that:
  • If the Accreditation Agency identifies a failure by an approved provider to comply with the Accreditation Standards, the Accreditation Agency must, as soon as practicable, decide whether the failure has placed, or may place, the safety, health or wellbeing of residents receiving care through the service at serious risk
  • If the Accreditation Agency decides that the failure has placed, or may place, the safety, health or wellbeing of residents receiving care at serious risk, the Accreditation Agency must:
  • As soon as practicable after finding the failure, give the Secretary and the approved provider, in writing, information about the reason for the risk (and evidence of the risk) and a statement about any other Accreditation Standard that the approved provider may have failed to meet
  • Give the approved provider a written notice about the failure to meet the Accreditation Standards and direct the approved provider to revise their plan for continous improvement to demonstrate how the approved provider will meet the standards within 14 days of receiving the notice. If the Accreditation Agency requests a copy of the revised plan of continuous improvement, the approved provider must make a copy of the revised plan available

Action if improvements not satisfactory

  • If the Accreditation Agency has decided a timetable for improvements in relation to a service and at the end of that timetable the Accreditation Agency is not satisfied that the level of care and services provided by the residential care service complies with the Accreditation Standards, the Accreditation Agency must give the Secretary and the approved provider:
    • Written reasons why it is not satisfied regarding compliance with the Standards
    • Details of the evidence the Accreditation Agency relies on to support its finding
    • A copy of any other relevant information

What will this mean for approved providers?

Approved providers will benefit from the improvements to the structure, flow and consistency of these provisions.

What will this mean for consumers?

Under the previous Principles, a serious risk report (provided to the Secretary by the Accreditation Agency) needed to include:
  • Specific information about the reason for the risk, and evidence of the risk
  • Recommendations to the Secretary about whether or not sanctions under the Act should be imposed on the approved provider
  • A statement of any standards or outcomes that have not been complied with
  • Any improvement outline that the Accreditation Agency considered appropriate in the circumstances
In determining whether immediate or severe risk to a person receiving care is present, it is important that the Department has a full understanding of the potential extent of non-compliance in a service. However, it was considered that the need for the Accreditation Agency to be definitive about the overt area of non-compliance could potentially delay the production of the serious risk report.

Consequently, the provisions regarding a failure to comply with Accreditation Standards have been amended and now only require that information included in a serious risk report include specific information about the reason for the risk and evidence of the risk and reference to other potential areas of non-compliance. This gives priority to ensuring that the Department and the approved provider are advised that the Accreditation Agency has identified serious risk in a service, while still providing adequate information on all potential areas of non-compliance. References Part 8 of the Accreditation Grant Principles 2011Top of page

Reconsideration and review

Within the Accreditation Grant Principles 1999 there were various provisions regarding reconsideration spread throughout the Principles which was confusing.Further, there was inconsistency in relation to those decisions that can be reconsidered and those for which Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) review is an option. Under the Accreditation Grant Principles 2011, the opportunity has been taken to group all these like provisions together and redraft some for clarity.

In addition there have been some further amendments as follows:
  • Timeframes and processes for reconsideration and review have been standardised, where possible
  • There is a requirement that decisions be reconsidered by the Accreditation Agency before applying for review by the AAT
  • The right of review in respect to a refusal to include a nominated quality assessor on the assessment team has been removed (as the right to nominate no longer exists)
  • The right to reconsideration or AAT review for commencing services where the period of accreditation is for 12 months has been removed (because there is no point in having review rights while the Principles prescribe that the Accreditation Agency must only accredit for 12 months)
  • Provision has been added to allow approved providers to seek review by the AAT of the period of accreditation even where the period is not varied on reconsideration by the Accreditation Agency
  • Clarification that the Accreditation Agency may undertake an own-motion review of an accreditation decision (i.e. the Agency can decide to review its own decisions)Top of page

Reconsideration on application

In summary, Part 9 of the new Principles requires that:
  • The approved provider for a commencing service may seek reconsideration of a decision by the Accreditation Agency to refuse accreditation of the commencing service
  • The approved provider of an accredited service may seek reconsideration of a decision by the Accreditation Agency:
    • To refuse to re-accredit an accredited service
    • Regarding the period of accreditation for an accredited service
    • To reject an objection to the appointment of a member of an assessment team for a site audit
    • To revoke the accreditation of an accredited service
    • To vary the period of accreditation
  • A registered assessor may also seek review of a decision by the registrar to remove the person's name from the register of quality assessors
  • Requests for reconsideration must be in writing and include a statement of the grounds on which reconsideration is sought. The request must be given to the Accreditation Agency within 14 days after the person making the request is notified of the decision
  • Different time periods for different types of reconsideration decisions apply. In summary, the Accreditation Agency must tell the Secretary and the person requesting reconsideration, in writing, of its decision:
    • Within 56 days of the request for reconsideration, if the reconsideration relates to a decision by the Accreditation Agency to:
      • Refuse accreditation of the commencing service
      • Refuse to re-accredit an accredited service
      • Revoke the accreditation of an accredited service
    • Within 14 days of the request for reconsideration, if the reconsideration relates to a decision by the Accreditation Agency:
      • To reject an objection to the appointment of a member of an assessment team for a site audit
      • Regarding the period of accreditation
      • To vary the period of accreditation
      • To remove a person's name from the register of quality assessors
  • If the Accreditation Agency decides, on reconsideration, to:
    • Accredit a commencing service, or re-accredit an accredited service, it must give the approved provider a certificate setting out the accreditation period
    • Vary the period of accreditation for an approved service, it must give the approved provider a replacement certificate setting out the new accreditation periodTop of page

Own initiative reconsideration

Part 9 of the Principles also allows the Accreditation Agency to reconsider its own decision, if it decides it is appropriate to do so, regardless of whether there has been a request for reconsideration. If the Accreditation Agency decides to reconsider a decision, it must:
  • Give written notice of the reconsideration to the relevant person
  • On reconsideration of the decision confirm, vary or set aside the decision and substitute a new decision. Consistent with the timeframes for reconsideration on matters following a request for reconsideration, the Accreditation Agency must make a decision in relation to an 'own initiative' reconsideration (and advise, in writing, the Secretary and the relevant person):
    • Within 56 days, if the reconsideration relates to a decision by the Accreditation Agency to:
      • Refuse accreditation of the commencing service
      • Refuse to re-accredit an accredited service
      • Revoke the accreditation of an accredited service
    • Within 14 days, if the reconsideration relates to a decision by the Accreditation Agency:
      • To reject an objection to the appointment of a member of an assessment team for a site audit
      • Regarding the period of accreditation
      • To vary the period of accreditation
      • To remove a person's name from the register of quality assessors
If the Accreditation Agency decides on reconsideration to:
  • Accredit a commencing service, or re-accredit an accredited service, it must give the approved provider a certificate setting out the accreditation period; and
  • Vary the period of accreditation for an accredited service, it must give the approved provider a replacement certificate setting out the new accreditation periodTop of page

AAT Review

The Principles provide that a person may apply to the AAT for review of a decision of the Accreditation Agency only following reconsideration of that decision by the Accreditation Agency. In other words, the approved provider must have first sought reconsideration of a decision by the Accreditation Agency (in accordance with Part 9) prior to seeking review by the AAT.

What will this mean for approved providers?

As a result of the amendments discussed above, approved providers have a much stronger right to seek a review of the period of accreditation; previously if the Accreditation Agency decided the period of accreditation did not change as a result of a reconsideration, the approved provider could not seek review by the AAT – they now can. The right to seek reconsideration of a decision not to revoke the accreditation period has been removed.The alignment of provisions and timeframes across the accreditation process will provide consistency and reduce confusion for approved providers.

What will this mean for consumers?

These amendments will have little to no impact on consumers. References Part 9 of the Accreditation Grant Principles 2011 Top of page

Promoting quality care in residential care services

Part 10 describes the Accreditation Agency's responsibilities in relation to promoting and encouraging quality care. It also sets out the fees that the Accreditation Agency may charge for materials and seminars or conferences.

These provisions, including the fees, remain consistent with the provisions contained within the Accreditation Grant Principles 1999. However, the outdated reference to videotapes in the previous Principles has been removed.

What will this mean for approved providers and consumers?

Nil impact. References Part 10 of Accreditation Grant Principles 2011 Top of page

Registration of quality assessors

While provisions relating to the registration of quality assessors have changed quite significantly (to provide greater clarity concerning registration requirements), the basic eligibility requirements relating to quality assessors remain similar.

Part 12 of the Principles requires that the Accreditation Agency appoint a person or body as a registrar to keep a register of quality assessors and to register persons as quality assessors. The Accreditation Agency draws people from the register of quality assessors to form assessment teams to undertake site and review audits (and certain assessment contacts).

The Part describes the application requirements for people seeking registration (or re-registration) as quality assessors and the matters that must be considered by the registrar before including a person on the register of quality assessors.

Application for registration

Part 12 provides that:
  • A person may apply to the registrar, in writing, to be registered as a quality assessor
  • The registrar must register the applicant as a quality assessor if the registrar is satisfied that the applicant:
    • Has been interviewed, and recommended to the Accreditation Agency, by the Aged Care Industry Panel which consists of persons with expertise in accreditation systems or management in aged care
    • Has successfully completed a course about aged care quality assessment approved by the Accreditation Agency and which is listed on its website
    • Has participated in an orientation programme delivered by the Accreditation Agency
    • Has, after making the application for registration, obtained a police certificate. The police certificate must not record any conviction for murder or sexual assault or any conviction (and sentence to imprisonment for) any other form of assault
    • For an applicant who, at any time after the applicant turned 16, was a citizen or permanent resident of a country other than Australia - has made a statutory declaration, at the time of making the application for registration, that the person has never been convicted of murder or sexual assault or convicted of, and sentenced to imprisonment for, any other form of assault
    • Has fulfilled any other registration requirements agreed by the Accreditation Agency and the Registrar and published on the Agency's website
  • The registrar must refuse to register the applicant as a quality assessor if the registrar is not satisfied that the applicant meets these requirements. If the registrar refuses the application, the registrar must communicate this decision, in writing, to the applicant and the Accreditation Agency
  • If the registrar registers the applicant as a quality assessor, the registrar must register the applicant for 1 year, give the applicant written notice of the applicant's obligations as a quality assessor and also advise the Accreditation Agency of the decision

Applications for re-registration (or registration for a further period)

In summary, Part 12 requires that:
  • Applications for re-registration must be made in writing, not later than one month before the end of the assessor's registration period
  • The application must be accompanied by evidence that the assessor has completed any mandatory training and not less than 15 hours of professional developed approved by the Accreditation Agency. Evidence of relevant audit experience must also accompany the application
  • When making decisions on applications for further registration, the registrar must ask the Accreditation Agency for advice on the assessor's performance in relation to any assessment contacts or site or review audits undertaken by the assessor
  • The registrar must register the assessor for a further year if the registrar is satisfied that the assessor:
    • Has complied with the assessor's obligations as notified to the assessor by the registrar
    • Has completed any mandatory training required by the Accreditation Agency and at least 15 hours professional development approved by the Agency (including any mandatory training)
    • Has relevant audit experience gained during the assessor's most recent registration period
    • Has a police certificate issued not more than 3 years before the application was made that does not record that the person has been convicted of murder or sexual assault or convicted of (and sentenced to imprisonment for) any other form of assault
  • If the registrar is not satisfied that the assessor meets the requirements detailed above, the registrar may remove the assessor's name from the register
  • The registrar must remove the name of a person from the register if they are satisfied that a police certificate, or statutory declaration made by the person, states that the person has been convicted of murder or sexual assault or has been convicted of, and sentenced to imprisonment for, any other form of assault. If the registrar removes the name of a person from the register, the registrar must tell the person and the Accreditation Agency about this decision and the reasons for it. In these circumstances the person can seek reconsideration of the decision
  • If the registrar makes a decision to register for a further period (or not to re-register), the registrar must tell the person and the Accreditation Agency, in writing, about the decision and the reasons for the decision
Redundant provisions that related to transitional arrangements for police checks have been removed or amended in the new Principles (for example, sections 8.4B, 8.4C and 8.4D of the Accreditation Grant Principles 1999).

What will this mean for approved providers?

Nil impact.

What will this mean for consumers?

These amendments will have no impact on consumers as they are of an administrative nature only.

What will this mean for registered aged care quality assessors?

These amendments will require the registered assessors to be informed of their obligations and to comply with them. Assessors also will be required to undertake mandatory training as required by the Accreditation Agency and relevant audit experience which will be defined by the Accreditation Agency. References Part 12 of Accreditation Grant Principles 2011 Top of page

Other matters

Part 13 of the Principles deals with the protection of identifying information, publication of decisions and transitional matters.

Identifying information

The provisions regarding the protection of certain identifying information within the Accreditation Grant Principles have been revised and operate such that:
  • If a resident or former resident (or either person’s representative) provides information to Accreditation Agency or an assessment team,the Agency or team must not disclose the identity of the person to the approved provider
  • If any other person requests the Accreditation Agency or the assessment team to keep their identity confidential, the Agency or team must not disclose their identity to the approved provider
This ensures that the identity of residents and their representative always remain confidential and the identity of others may be kept confidential if this is the express wish of the person providing the information.

The only exceptions to this rule are:
  • If the person expressly consents to the Accreditation Agency or assessment team disclosing their identity. For example, a resident may advise the Agency that they are happy to have their name disclosed to the approved provider in connection with information they gave to the Agency about the quality of care they receive at the service
  • If not disclosing the information would place the safety or wellbeing of a resident at risk.If the Agency or team intends to reveal identifying information to the approved provider (because not disclosing would place a resident at risk), the Agency or team must take all reasonable steps to tell the person who provided the information about the proposed disclosure before it occurs
This provision represents a change in approach fromThis provision represents a change in approach from the previous requirement that only provided that the assessment team must not disclose or communicate to the approved provider or their staff, information identifying residents/representatives who gave information to the team during a site visit.

Publication of decisions

Most of the existing provisions have been retained with some amendment to provide for the Accreditation Agency to publish the decision and any site audit report or review audit report considered in the making of the decision, after any reconsideration process is complete the but prior to an AAT review. The publication must be made within 28 days after the last day when a request for reconsideration of a decision could be made.

Similarly, the Accreditation Agency must, within 28 days of making a reconsideration decision, publish their decision and any site audit report or review audit report considered in making the decision.

If a person applies for review by the AAT of the reconsideration decision, the Accreditation Agency must:
  • Publish a notice that the reconsideration decision is subject to review by the AAT
  • Publish the outcome of the AAT's review. However, the Accreditation Agency must not publish, or otherwise make available, protected information (as described in the Act) unless the publication is authorised under the Act

Transitional arrangements

These arrangements are also included in this Part and have been discussed earlier in this Guide in relation to the commencement of the Principles.

What will this mean for approved providers?

Approved providers can be assured that consumers receive information about the accreditation status of their service in a timely manner. They are also assured of the decision not being published prior to any reconsideration process being complete.

What will this mean for consumers?

The amendments to confidentiality provisions help ensure that staff and others feel able to provide their input into the accreditation process.

The accreditation decisions published by the Accreditation Agency contain information on how the approved provider performed against the Accreditation Standards. Therefore, these reports are a valuable tool to inform consumer choices; however, currently accreditation decisions are not published until after all reconsideration and review periods are complete. This may be many months if an appeal to the AAT is pending. This is contrary to normal administrative practice, whereby findings or decisions which are subject to reconsideration or review are published whether or not review has expired or whether or not an application for reconsideration or review has been lodged.

Under the amendments made to the Principles, a reconsideration process must be complete prior to publication of the report (resulting in a delay of approximately two to six weeks), but avoiding the long delays associated with AAT review. The majority of reports will be published within two weeks of a decision when there is no request for a reconsideration. This amendment thereby enhances consumer access to information on a residential care service's compliance with the accreditation standards. References Part 13 of Accreditation Grant Principles 2011 Top of page

Copyright information

Paper-based publications
© Commonwealth of Australia 2011
This work is copyright. You may reproduce the whole or part of this work in unaltered form for your own personal use or, if you are part of an organisation, for internal use within your organisation, but only if you or your organisation do not use the reproduction for any commercial purpose and retain this copyright notice and all disclaimer notices as part of that reproduction. Apart from rights to use as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968 or allowed by this copyright notice, all other rights are reserved and you are not allowed to reproduce the whole or any part of this work in any way (electronic or otherwise) without first being given the specific written permission from the Commonwealth to do so. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights are to be sent to the Communications Branch, Department of Health and Ageing, GPO Box 9848, Canberra ACT 2601, or via e-mail to copyright@health.gov.au.

Internet sites
© Commonwealth of Australia 2011
This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce the whole or part of this work in unaltered form for your own personal use or, if you are part of an organisation, for internal use within your organisation, but only if you or your organisation do not use the reproduction for any commercial purpose and retain this copyright notice and all disclaimer notices as part of that reproduction. Apart from rights to use as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968 or allowed by this copyright notice, all other rights are reserved and you are not allowed to reproduce the whole or any part of this work in any way (electronic or otherwise) without first being given the specific written permission from the Commonwealth to do so. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights are to be sent to the Communications Branch, Department of Health and Ageing, GPO Box 9848, Canberra ACT 2601, or via e-mail to copyright@health.gov.auTop of page