David Naulls

Rest home scrutiny?

In late 2009, Auditor-General Lyn Provost issued a damning report on the quality of rest-home care. The report described a system failing to ensure rest home residents – some of our most vulnerable citizens – received the care they needed and deserved.

Over a year later, the government has issued its response. In a press release last month Minister of Health Tony Ryall acknowledged problems in the rest home sector were long-standing and said the government was acting to address all the recommendations made by the Auditor-General.

Many of the changes so far have focused on “tweaking” existing auditing systems. Criteria for rest home auditors have been tightened and responsible agencies say they’re "sharing" more information to identify at-risk homes. The Ministry of Health has also started publishing key findings from rest-home audits online.

But we're still waiting for signs of any progress on strengthening rest-home regulations and the standards homes are expected to meet. We've previously called for mandatory staffing ratios for all rest homes. There's an obvious link between staffing and quality of care but mandatory ratios have so far been rejected. We've also called for homes to report on other key indicators of residents' health care – such as infection rates, mobility, pressure sores and weight loss. That's yet to happen.

Despite the intent to give consumers better access to audit information, the doors are still closed on some homes. In March last year, we requested copies of unannounced inspection reports for five rest homes. The Ministry of Health refused on the grounds that release of the information would be likely "to prejudice the commercial position" of the homes. The names of seven other homes which had unannounced audits carried out during 2009 have also been withheld. So much for increased transparency.

We've asked the Ombudsman to investigate the ministry's decision to withhold the information – that investigation is still ongoing almost a year later. We can't see any good reason why the reports we've requested shouldn't be publicly available. Well-run homes have nothing to fear from public scrutiny and the others don’t deserve to be in business.

David Naulls
Editor
Consumer magazine

Got a question or comment on this topic? Share your views and experiences with other Consumer members...