accreditation, monitoring and review processes and signal when I think urgency is required. There are couple of areas the ALRC may wish to consider in looking at improved responses to elder abuse. Firstly, it may be useful and timely to review the provisions in the Act relating to the disclosure of protected information to see if they need adjusting to make information sharing between government and non-government agencies and across the Commonwealth and States and Territories more fluid, and to see if more information can be provided to the public. Secondly, greater and linkage between all the various agencies may help improve responses to complaints of elder abuse. Disclosure of information When my team and I receive information which we feel could be better dealt with by another organisation we will refer this information on; however with the exception of referrals to the Department and the Quality Agency, this is not a simple process. Most information my team and I receive is classed as information’ under ‘protected the Act and may also be covered under the Privacy Act 1988 or the information that relates to affairs of” an Australian Government funded aged care service. There “the are limited circumstances where my team and I can release protected information outside of a complaint resolution process. Such examples are: to prevent or lessen a serious risk to the safety, health or wellbeing of a person receiving care, in situations where professional conduct is at question, in criminal matters, or to persons specified in the Information Principles 2014 (the CEO of the Quality Agency, the Secretary of the Department or the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner). Incorrect disclosure of protected information is a criminal offence and may attract a penalty of up to two years imprisonment. In a case of suspected elder abuse; the timely sharing of information between relevant agencies and other aged care services, may protect an individual or individuals. In some circumstances it may also be helpful to provide greater information to the public. Very little information is able to be provided publicly now. I acknowledge that the provisions for protected information exist for a reason but I also understand it is many years since they have been reviewed. It may be time to check to ensure they are still fit for and reflect modern expectations of transparency of information in an increasingly consumer driven aged care environment. I am not suggesting that information is not appropriately shared between Government agencies as necessary now. However I believe there may be merit in reviewing the provisions. They may be able to be revised to better facilitate the flow of information between different agencies, services and the public as well as reflecting contemporary expectations. A national approach
accreditation, monitoring and review processes and signal when I think urgency is required. There are couple of areas the ALRC may wish to consider in looking at improved responses to elder abuse. Firstly, it may be useful and timely to review the provisions in the Act relating to the disclosure of protected information to see if they need adjusting to make information sharing between government and non-government agencies and across the Commonwealth and States and Territories more fluid, and to see if more information can be provided to the public. Secondly, greater and linkage between all the various agencies may help improve responses to complaints of elder abuse. Disclosure of information When my team and I receive information which we feel could be better dealt with by another organisation we will refer this information on; however with the exception of referrals to the Department and the Quality Agency, this is not a simple process. Most information my team and I receive is classed as ‘protected information’ under the Act and may also be covered under the Privacy Act 1988 or the information that relates to “the affairs of” an Australian Government funded aged care service. There are limited circumstances where my team and I can release protected information outside of a complaint resolution process. Such examples are: to prevent or lessen a serious risk to the safety, health or wellbeing of a person receiving care, in situations where professional conduct is at question, in criminal matters, or to persons specified in the Information Principles 2014 (the CEO of the Quality Agency, the Secretary of the Department or the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner). Incorrect disclosure of protected information is a criminal offence and may attract a penalty of up to two years imprisonment. In a case of suspected elder abuse; the timely sharing of information between relevant agencies and other aged care services, may protect an individual or individuals. In some circumstances it may also be helpful to provide greater information to the public. Very little information is able to be provided publicly now. I acknowledge that the provisions for protected information exist for a reason but I also understand it is many years since they have been reviewed. It may be time to check to ensure they are still fit for and reflect modern expectations of transparency of information in an increasingly consumer driven aged care environment. I am not suggesting that information is not appropriately shared between Government agencies as necessary now. However I believe there may be merit in reviewing the provisions. They may be able to be revised to better facilitate the flow of information between different agencies, services and the public as well as reflecting contemporary expectations. A national approach