The quality effects of agency staffing in residential aged care.

OBJECTIVES: In Australia, temporary agency workers are a relatively small but enduring component of the residential aged care workforce. However, evidence from other countries suggests reliance on agency workers has a detrimental effect on the quality of care (QoC). We examined whether QoC outcomes differ for Australian residential aged care facilities (RACFs) based on their reliance on agency care staff. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted using de-identified datasets obtained under the legal authority of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Regression analysis was conducted using data comprising 6221 RACF-year observations, across 5 years (2015-2019), from 1709 unique RACFs in Australia. RESULTS: After controlling for other determinants of QoC, RACFs with a greater reliance on agency care staff have poorer QoC outcomes, with significantly higher rates of complaints, missing persons, reportable assaults, hospitalisations, and accreditation flags. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with international evidence, we found that the QoC of Australian RACFs is sensitive to the reliance on agency staff in delivering direct care to residents. These findings illustrate the importance of workers' employment conditions, alongside other workforce characteristics, in driving the quality of residential aged care.

Considering the new minimum staffing standards for Australian residential aged care.

Objective To compare the historical staffing patterns and organisational characteristics of Australian residential aged care facilities (RACFs) against the new minimum staffing standards recommended by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (RCACQS). Method Retrospective data analysis was used to compare the staffing levels and characteristics of 1705 RACFs (for 4 years, 2016-19) with the three new mandatory staffing requirements. De-identified datasets were provided by the RCACQS, obtained under its legal authority. Results Only 3.8% of RACFs have staffing levels at or above all three requirements. Although many (79.7%) already meet the requirement to have a registered nurse (RN) on-site for morning and afternoon shifts, few have staffing levels above requirements for total direct care per resident per day (10.4%) or care provided by an RN per resident per day (11.1%). Historical levels of on-site RNs, total direct care, and RN care vary significantly across facilities of different size, location and provider scale. Conclusion The new staffing standards, to be mandatory by 2023, prescribe minimum requirements significantly higher than existing levels, particularly in care per resident per day. Each of the three requirements will likely have a differential effect for different types of RACFs. What is known about the topic? International evidence suggests that introducing mandatory minimum staffing standards tends to increase the amount of care provided by staff in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). However, the impact of staffing standards is influenced by the stringency of the minimum threshold relative to existing staffing levels, the capacity of organisations to increase their staffing levels, and the specific way the regulation is formulated. What does this paper add? This paper explores the potential implications of the three national minimum staffing standards, to be in force by October 2023, specifying total direct care, care received by a registered nurse (RN), and an RN on-site. By examining the existing staffing levels of Australian RACFs, it identifies the extent to which facilities already meet the new standards and the characteristics of facilities with staffing levels above and below the three requirements (individually and in combination). What are the implications for practitioners? The study informs both policy and practice in relation to the likely effects of implementing the national minimum staffing standards for residential aged care in Australia. It demonstrates that the new minimum thresholds are likely to require substantial increases in staffing across the sector, both in terms of all direct care workers and RNs. It also shows that the three requirements are likely to have a differential effect for RACFs of different size, location and chain affiliation, thereby guiding policy about the future needs for Australia's aged care workforce.

Development, spread and impact of primary care and musculoskeletal communities of practice to assist rapid translation of evidence into practice.

BACKGROUND: Embedding research into practice is challenging. Barriers include: a shortage of time, lack of understanding of the evidence and a poor support in the clinical setting. A community of practice (CoP) model has been used to address these issues. Three 'Evidence into Practice' groups use a CoP model to assist the rapid translation of evidence into practice in primary and secondary care settings. We describe how a CoP model supports the functions, operations and outputs of three 'Evidence into Practice Groups'. METHOD: A CoP model is used to engage a broad range of clinicians, researchers, managers, patients and librarians in the complex process of acquiring research knowledge and then translating knowledge into practice. The CoP principles of Domain, Community and Practice are used to describe three 'Evidence into Practice Groups' who cater for different elements of the care and academic sector and engage a range of professional groups. This includes primary and secondary care engaging professionals such as general practitioners (GP), practice nurses, allied health professionals, researchers and librarians. All groups are clinically led, academically supported and follow similar processes to identify the best evidence and translate it into practice. As the groups reflect the context in which they work they have different operational arrangements for example frequency and time of meetings. RESULTS: The CoP model enabled three 'Evidence into Practice Groups' over time to: engage over 180 clinical and academic staff; answer 130 clinical questions; improve clinical care, gain funding for two randomised controlled trials (enrolled over n = 7000 participants) and identify areas for further research, quality improvement audit and training. CONCLUSION: The CoP model encourages the rapid translation of evidence into practice by engaging staff to identify areas of clinical concern in their own context, thereby stimulating their interest and involvement. This creates a meaningful link between research and practice. Clinical leadership and the CoP model ensure that practice change is quick and efficient. This model can be replicated at scale. Consideration needs to be given to the key ingredients to achieve impact.