Relationship between residential aged care facility characteristics and breaches of the Australian aged care regulatory standards: non‐compliance notices and sanctions

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesTo examine the relationship between structural characteristics of Australian residential aged care facilities (RACFs) and breaches of the aged care quality standards.MethodsFacility‐level analysis of audits, sanctions and non‐compliance notices of all accredited Australian RACFs between 2015/16 and 2018/19. Structural factors of interest included RACF size, remoteness, ownership type and jurisdiction. Two government data sources were joined. Each outcome was analysed to calculate time trends, unadjusted rates and relative risks.ResultsNon‐compliance notices were imposed on 369 RACFs (13%) and 83 sanctions on 75 RACFs (3%). Compared with New South Wales (NSW), non‐compliance notices were less likely in Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory (NT), more likely in South Australia (SA), and comparable in Western Australia (WA), Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). RACFs with more than 100 beds and RACFs located in remote and outer regional areas (vs. major cities) also increased the likelihood of non‐compliance notices. Compared with NSW, sanctions were less likely in Victoria, Queensland, NT and WA and comparable in SA, Tasmania and ACT. Additionally, the likelihood of sanctions was higher for RACFs with more than 40 beds. For both non‐compliance notices and sanctions, no significant relationship was found with RACF ownership type.ConclusionsWe partially confirmed other Australian findings about the relationship between RACF structural characteristics and regulatory sanctions and reported new findings about non‐compliance notices. Routine and standardised public reporting of RACF performance is needed to build trust that Australia's latest aged care reforms have led to sustained quality improvements.