It was also suggested that the integrated carer support service system enable comparisons of results across regions. Some cautions were offered in relation to: using outcomes results in any punitive way; and considering carers relinquishing the carer role, as a matter of choice, as a ‘fail’. This was on the premise that the integrated carer support service system will seek to assist carers to sustain their caring role. In a similar vein, several providers identified that it may be challenging to measure outcomes from such initiatives. This would be due to the multi-factorial nature of caring. The caring role may end as a result of decline of the person being cared for, a matter of choice or other factors such as greater family need, or the need to participate in the workforce. While a central carer record was viewed as a way to capture information to inform evaluation efforts, respondents highlighted that multiple collection methods would be required, particularly for services that do not easily lend support to pre and post-style measures. One provider recommended these elements be co-designed with the future participants of the integrated carer support service system. Importance of governance and quality A discussion question in the draft Service Delivery Model poses that while it would seek to help more carers, it would also be important to ensure quality services would be delivered. Respondents were asked to identify what they viewed as the essential components of a future quality framework. Many organisations referred to existing health service quality frameworks and standards that could be adapted for use. Examples include: Australian Service Excellence Standards; Aged Care Accreditation Standards; Quality Improvement Council Health and Community Services Standards; National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards; Common Care Standards; Department of Human Services Standards; and Australian Safety Quality Framework for Health. There was a unanimous view that carer feedback was essential for quality evaluation efforts. This, coupled with quantitative methods, was viewed as the best way to evaluate the quality of the services offered. Benchmarking was also raised as a feature that should be incorporated to enable cross-service evaluation. Suggestions for measures included: standard response times; integrity of the needs identification undertaken by carer support staff; staff with comprehensive knowledge of supports available; availability of carer services; ease of referral to services, to and from other services; and appropriate feedback and complaint mechanisms.
It was also suggested that the integrated carer support service system enable comparisons of results across regions. Some cautions were offered in relation to: using outcomes results in any punitive way; and considering carers relinquishing the carer role, as a matter of choice, as a ‘fail’. This was on the premise that the integrated carer support service system will seek to assist carers to sustain their caring role. In a similar vein, several providers identified that it may be challenging to measure outcomes from such initiatives. This would be due to the multi-factorial nature of caring. The caring role may end as a result of decline of the person being cared for, a matter of choice or other factors such as greater family need, or the need to participate in the workforce. While a central carer record was viewed as a way to capture information to inform evaluation efforts, respondents highlighted that multiple collection methods would be required, particularly for services that do not easily lend support to pre and post-style measures. One provider recommended these elements be co-designed with the future participants of the integrated carer support service system. Importance of governance and quality A discussion question in the draft Service Delivery Model poses that while it would seek to help more carers, it would also be important to ensure quality services would be delivered. Respondents were asked to identify what they viewed as the essential components of a future quality framework. Many organisations referred to existing health service quality frameworks and standards that could be adapted for use. Examples include: Australian Service Excellence Standards; Aged Care Accreditation Standards; Quality Improvement Council Health and Community Services Standards; National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards; Common Care Standards; Department of Human Services Standards; and Australian Safety Quality Framework for Health. There was a unanimous view that carer feedback was essential for quality evaluation efforts. This, coupled with quantitative methods, was viewed as the best way to evaluate the quality of the services offered. Benchmarking was also raised as a feature that should be incorporated to enable cross-service evaluation. Suggestions for measures included: standard response times; integrity of the needs identification undertaken by carer support staff; staff with comprehensive knowledge of supports available; availability of carer services; ease of referral to services, to and from other services; and appropriate feedback and complaint mechanisms.