Background
Risk management approach in residential aged care homes
Aged care accreditation
The process of aged care accreditation
Information systems in RAC homes
- What were the measurement indicators used by the accreditation agency to assess the accreditation outcomes? Were the indicators consistently implemented?
- What were the risk indicators for RAC homes to fail the accreditation outcomes?
- Which accreditation outcomes were RAC homes mostly likely to fail?
- Were there any differences in accreditation failure rate after the accreditation authority changed from ACSAA to AACQA?
- Were there any differences in accreditation failure rate between the RAC homes using EHR and those with paper records, over accreditation years, facility size, location, or ownership?
Methods
Step 1. Data sourcing and processing
Step 2. Development, test and use of a computer program to extract data
Step 3. Data labelling
Step 4. Data analysis
Quantitative analysis
Qualitative analysis
Results
The measurement indicators for accreditation outcome 1.8 information systems
Comparison between the ACSAA and AACQA reports
Use of information systems, size and location of RAC homes
The measurement indicators for accreditation outcome 2.4 clinical care
Comparison between the ACSAA and the AACQA reports
Use of information systems, size and location of RAC homes
Risk indicators for RAC homes failing the accreditation outcomes 1.8 and 2.4
Indicators used to determine that outcome 1.8 Information Systems was not met | Indicators used to determine that outcome 2.4 Clinical Care was not met |
---|---|
1. Information was not accurate, up-to-date, complete, consistent and sufficient to guide care delivery. 2. Staff did not have access to the information. 3. Monitoring mechanisms were not effective in identifying deficiencies in management and staff practice. 4. Staff did not consistently report clinical incidents. 5. Key information such as clinical data was not always used to identify and meet the needs of residents and staff. 6. Communication was not systematic and effective. 7. Policies and procedures were not evidence-based. 8. Staff were not familiar with computerised systems. 9. Management did not regularly review the information system. 0. Residents and their representatives were not satisfied because the information they provided were not incorporated into care. | 1. RAC home was not able to demonstrate residents were receiving appropriate clinical care. 2. Staff did not appropriately assess residents’ clinical care needs on entry to home and on an ongoing basis. 3. Care plan did not always reflect current care needs and preferences of residents. 4. Clinical care was not provided in accordance with directives from qualified staff, care plan and residents’ needs and/or preferences. 5. Changes in care were not consistently documented and doctors were not informed about them. 6. Residents experienced unrelieved pain, their wounds were not always promptly reviewed, and changes in their health conditions were not recognised by staff. 7. Information was not always current, accurate and consistent. 8. Information systems and communication processes were not effective to support the provision of appropriate clinical care. 9. Monitoring mechanisms such as audits, care reviews and incident reporting were not effective in the identification of deficiencies in care delivery. 10. Clinical incidents were not consistently collated and analysed to identify opportunities for improvement. 11. Referrals to other health professionals were not implemented in a timely manner. 12. Staff was not knowledgeable about residents’ care needs. 13. Staff reported not adequate time to complete all required tasks and staffing insufficiency had negative impact on their ability to provide care that meets care recipients’ needs and preferences. 14. Residents and representatives reported dissatisfaction with the adequacy and responsiveness of care. |
Failed outcome | Statement that cited monitoring mechanism failure |
---|---|
1.6 Human Resource Management | Did not have effective monitoring systems in place to identify deficits in staff skills and practices. |
2.7 Medication Management | Failure to ensure safe and secure medication management |
2.8 Pain Management. | Monitoring mechanisms not effective in ensuring residents’ pain management needs |
2.13 Behavioural Management | Problems in the identification and reporting of episodes of challenging behaviours |
3.6 Privacy and Dignity | Lacked an effective system to monitor the maintenance of this area. |
2.10 Nutrition and Hydration | Lacked consistent monitoring of residents’ weights as required by the care plan. |
2.5 Specialised Nursing | Registered nurses did not monitor residents’ specialised nursing care needs, causing a failure in information systems to identify the change in a resident’s health status. |
No. | Indicators |
---|---|
1 | Residents’ medications were not managed safely and correctly. |
2 | Medications were not consistently administered in accordance with medical officer prescription. |
3 | Processes were not effective in ensuring maintenance of sufficient stock of regular medications and timely commencement of short term medications. |
4 | Monitoring processes did not identify incorrectly stored medications. |
Comparison of the ACSAA and AACQA reports
ASCAA | AACQA | |
---|---|---|
Number of reports | 2684 | 2876 |
Failure rate | 1.2% | 4.6% |
Mean number of outcomes failed | 5.5 | 5.6 |
Most frequently failed outcomes | Information Systems (0.7%) | Human Resource Management (2.2%) |
Clinical Care (0.6%) | Clinical Care (1.9%) | |
Medication Management (0.5%) | Information Systems (1.8%) | |
Human Resource Management (0.4%) | Medication Management (1.5%) | |
Continuous Improvement (0.4%) | Behavioural Management (1.1%) |
Failure rate and use of information systems
Year | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Failure rate, % | 2.9 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 2.1 | 4.0 | 7.2 | 12.3 |
Proportion of reports from homes with EHR, % | 29.5 | 31 | 32.9 | 36 | 43.3 | 52.4 | 42.1 | 31.1 |
Size of RAC homes
Type of home and records | Number of reports | Number of failures | Failure rate |
---|---|---|---|
Large home, EHR | 1169 | 40 | 3.4% |
Large home, paper | 2025 | 80 | 4.0% |
Small home, EHR | 819 | 15 | 1.9% |
Small home, paper | 1547 | 31 | 2.0% |
Location of RAC homes
Jurisdiction | NSW | VIC | QLD | SA | Othersa |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of reports | 1668 | 1631 | 986 | 512 | 763 |
Failure rate, % | 3.2 | 1.8 | 4.5 | 3.1 | 3.0 |