A consumer body expressed concerns over an aged care facility in Victoria regarding visitor code. The said facility locked down visitors stronger than the required measure.
A peak provider body said that the facility has been dealing with such cases on a case to case basis.
Acknowledging the potential risk of staff members who move from one facility to another, the peak body pointed out that those measures were meant to control any possible infections.
It was reported that there were 28 cases in Victorian aged care facilities alone.
Professor Brett Sutton, Victoria’s health chief officer said that there were more than 40 COVID-19 cases that were linked to aged care facilities.
Across Australia, there were more than five aged care facilities that were involved in COVID-19 outbreaks within their facility.
Ian Yates, COTA Australia chief executive supported the tight visitor restrictions in the affected areas.
The existing industry code, which was updated on 3 July, provides the rights and responsibilities of care providers and visitors in relation to the support visits.
Mr. Yates pointed out that despite the provision, facility lockdowns were still in place in some aged care facilities across the country and these were clear manifestations of industry code breach.
This removed the right of the family members to visit their loved ones in such facilities.
Staff, rather than visitors, as spreaders
The restrictions that were put in place in accordance with the industry code should be provided for compassionate visits.
As long as visitors abide by the necessary protocols before entering the facility, they should be considered.
Facility lockdowns were a manifestation of the sector’s lack of acknowledgment of the detrimental effects of the pandemic on the well-being of its residents.
Mr. Yates pointed out that we should be mindful that the cause of infection is usually staff members and not visitors.
Visitors are checked closely and certain limitations were in place to ensure that they are not the ones who caused the infections within the facilities.
Professor Sutton highlighted the importance for the residents to see their families after all.
This means that the restrictions must be done on a case to case basis rather than a complete ban on visitors.
Response to different situations
Patricia Sparrow, Aged & Community Services Australia CEO said that in Melbourne, compassionate visits are only allowed.
Ms. Sparrow said that the decisions must be considered as a right of the providers to make the call, especially that it is under their discretion.
Lockdown must be understood not as it is but as a restriction that is still considerate of the situation.
Nicholas Brown, acting CEO of Aged Care Guild said that facility lockdowns in Victoria reflect the need to control the transmissions in the area.
Providers are committed to ensuring that the risk is assessed appropriately for them to institute necessary measures to control the spread of COVID-19.
Sean Rooney, CEO of Leading Age Services said that facilities in Melbourne were taking up measures that could save lives.
He pointed out that aged care homes in Victoria must be on the highest alert in order to completely manage the potential drawbacks of COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr. Rooney also said that providers must be able to coordinate closely with their staff to avoid unnecessary transmissions into their facilities.
Mobile workers caused four aged care facility outbreaks
Jenny Mikakos, health minister of Victoria brought to light the issue about mobile aged care workers and their potential threat to residents.
She said that mobile aged care workers who worked in different facilities caused an outbreak in four of their assignments.
The said issue was raised with the Commonwealth.
Ms. Mikakos still acknowledged the inevitability of such circumstances and relegated the responsibility to providers considering that they could be the reason for such movement. Moreover, a $1500 hardship payment shall be issued to aged care workers as compensation for their duties.
