The most disturbing aspect of the recent Four Corners Program featuring four families dissatisfied with aged care was that the complainants’ voices were not heard – by anyone! They were not heard at the home providing care and the Commonwealth complaints investigators did not listen...

Complaints from the families included a range of issues – wounds were not treated properly, dentures not cleaned and medication not given. There were complaints about hygiene and much more. In the end, the validity of these complaints was rejected by investigators and so families resorted to the media to have their voice heard.

It is worth considering the courage of families in facing TV cameras soon after the death of their mother or father.

One complainant put it bluntly when challenged:
'Why would we make up these allegations, why would we put ourselves through this ordeal? Why would we drag our deceased mother's name through this? It would be much easier to move on and deal with our grief privately'.

The power imbalance between the frail residents and those who run and work in aged-care facilities can never be overemphasised. Family members don't have too much power either. The fear of retribution is very real. So one of the main ways which governments can assure us that vulnerable older people are provided with quality, humane care is by ensuring that there is an independent, transparent and rigorous system whereby complaints by residents and their families are heard and key issues addressed.

The current complaints system is the third attempt. Like the first two, it has failed.

The comment made on the Four Corners Program by Professor Alan Pearson, a former panel chair in the old Complaints Resolution Scheme, was stunning. 'The Complaints Investigation Scheme was operating to protect the Minister', he said.  'It's a deeply flawed system'.
The biggest flaw with the current system is that it is embedded in the Federal Department of Health and Ageing – the very agency given the task of ensuring that good care is provided for older Australians.  So there is an inherent conflict of interest.
There are other flaws. Many say that investigators concentrate on looking at documentation and policy statements. We should remember that investigators are part of the system too. It is natural for them to listen to people like themselves – those in charge of running facilities and other health bureaucrats. It is much harder to take the time and trouble to listen to frail older people and their upset families. And to put themselves in their place!
The blurb from Four Corners illustrates this so clearly – and sadly.
Waverley Gardens "has a comprehensive medication management policy" and Hilda Eastwood's dentures "appeared to be clean" the investigators found.
Rhonda Button told Four Corners she rang the investigator and asked whether the investigator had actually taken her mother's dentures out and looked? "Well no, we didn't" he told her.

There were 7,500 complaints made to the complaints investigators last year.
Yet the community has no way of knowing what these were about.
- How serious were they?
- What were the outcomes?
- Are there particular homes with lots of complaints lodged against them?

Frail people in residential care will never be fully protected until this flawed system is reformed. For starters, the investigation of complaints must be taken out of the nest of Health and Ageing. Consumer advocates should be part of the system and the whole process opened up for scrutiny.