group~ Supported Accommodation SpecialistsWinstonSupported AccommodaborHou11Special ,sts guardien~ care~
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL DISABILITY
INSURANCE SCHEME-
INQUIRY INTO THE NDIS QUALITY & SAFEGURDS COMMISSION
121 Care Submission – July 2020
About 121 Care
121 Care (formerly Quality Lifestyle Alliance) was formed in 1992, ensuring People with disabilities who received supports could continue to live independently and enjoy a better quality of life on their terms. In the years following, 121 Care expanded its supports from spinal cord injury to include other disabilities with neurological conditions or physical conditions such as cerebral palsy, amputees, traumatic brain injury.
On its 25th anniversary, 121 Care took another step forward by expanding services to include supports to people living with mental illness and intellectual disabilities. This meant operating supported accommodations and supported independent living.
Our vision
Choose the life you love.
Our mission
To create opportunities for the life you choose.
Our values
Courage to be bold and open to change Honesty to have integrity and be transparent Opportunities to be inspired by new things Innovation to do things differently and keep improving Commitment to our clients and colleagues to attain a standard of excellence Equality to champion the lives of everyone equally
Response to selected Terms of Reference
121 Care welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) inquiry into NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (the Commission).
guardien~ 1nsTon HOUSE group~ OIYIIIE IODGE51..pported Accomrodation Special sts Supported Accommodation Specialists care~
Since the implementation of the Commission, 121 Care recognises both areas of improvements to providing safeguards to persons with a disability, and areas of concerns. This submission focuses on a particular area of concern to us in relation to the following Terms of Reference:
b. The effectiveness of the Commission in responding to concerns, complaints and reportable incidents – including allegations of abuse and neglect of NDIS participants.
h. Any related matters Our issues have been identified as a result of resolving complaints made through the Commission and are explored below.
Timeliness in responding to complaint outcome
This concern arises from management of complaints and some reportable incidents in which clients have been involved in situations in which they have experienced or alleged to be at risk of harm. Our response has been submitted within two weeks, yet we wait in excess of four months to receive a response to our actions.
It is critically important that any action relating to a complaint outcome is responded to in a timely manner from the Commission. To do otherwise, a situation in which a person with disability is at risk of harm, may continue until the Provider is notified.
Non-existence of procedural fairness shown towards Provider
Our experiences in responding to complaints received by the Commission are that allegations are truth until a Provider can prove otherwise, with bias directed toward participant or complainant. This is a particularly concerning attitude when vexatious and malicious accusations are made.
It is imperative procedural fairness principles are applied consistently and with integrity. Complaint outcomes can have a significant effect on the Provider and staff involved. Consequently, consideration should be given to the potential impact of the allegations on all people involved in the complaint, including the Provider.
As such, we advocate procedural fairness principles should be actioned and allowed to all parties involved in the complaint, including the Provider.
Lack of communication between Commission and Provider
We also highlight the need for a more transparent and mindful approach to communication around the Commission’s response and handling of complaints. Allegations can cause stress, anxiety and worry for all people involved in the process, including the Provider’s staff, potentially with negative impact on service delivery to clients.
HOUSE group~ OlYHlE lODGE Supported Accommodation Specialists SpecialistsW1nsTonn,w““ JOat1on guardien~ car~
For example, staff involved in allegations are removed from the worksite to limit contact with the participant involved. This has led to staff shortages and clients becoming anxious with too many changes. Allegations have been proven to be unsubstantiated, some because of vexatious claims, but resulted in competent staff not being able to be rostered.
It is our experience when receiving a complaint through the Commission, the Commission has provided no communication around what the plan or process will be and the outcome timeframe.
When communicating outcomes, we have received little more than a generic email stating the Commission is satisfied and the matter is closed. There is no mention of how the outcome was reached, recommendations, observations or improvement suggestions for the Provider’s consideration.
For the Commission to work with Providers in managing complaints, we advocate the need for improved communication and transparency from the Commission when managing complaints which includes initial proposed actions timeframes how information will be gathered, and a final report detailing the actions taken the evidence collected outcomes recommendations from the Commission.
We would also encourage the Commission to collect feedback from Providers about the complaint handling experience- e.g. what did we do well? What could we do better?
Risk of inappropriate workers
Additionally, in consideration of the Commission working with Providers, we recommend a system in which Providers can notify and request investigation by the Commission regarding workers who have been terminated as a result of crossing professional boundaries. There have been instances where no charge was laid, hence not having any effect on the workers ability to maintain appropriate criminal screening, but there is definite issues presented with the worker’s behaviour in their ability to provide services in a professional manner in which participants are not at risk of harm.
Conclusion
121 Care regard the delivery of service under the NDIS as an opportunity for reform and as such we support the need for shared responsibility with the Commission when addressing and responding to complaints. We are finding that the intersection of the above issues demonstrates areas where the NDIS
HOUSE group~ OlYHlE lODGE Supported Accommodation Specialists SpecialistsW1nsTonn,w““ JOat1on guardien~ car~
complaints management system, as a shared process between Commission and Provider, has yet to adequately provide for people with disability.
We thank the Joint Standing Committee for its consideration of the feedback provided in this submission and invite the opportunity to comment further on any of the issues it raises.