-(2).png)
- 1300 00 1907
- Contact Us
- Member Login
- Join PPA
Posted by: PPA Blogger on 09/08/2016
The implementation of person centred care is the most profound change in our community we have ever had. The NDIS represents a change so profound it could almost be described as a revolution. Full stop. No argument. It beats the vote, universal health care, child support just about anything you can think of. The idea that the support our community can provide will be distributed according to an individual’s need, and that they will be empowered to decide how to best use that resource to participate actively in our community is an amazing thing.
Goodbye welfare state. Hello caring inclusive community. So how is it that arriving at this extraordinary revolution has been as painful, messy and downright dangerous as any of those other revolutions (the kind with guns and people dying?)
Because - here is the thing – the current policy and funding priorities of the government are either a deliberate attempt at sabotaging the implementation of person centred care or they really have arrived at the zenith of stupidity and putting those we are meant to be empowering and enabling at risk.
I am talking about the support workers and providers we are relying on to deliver services in the new NDIS market.
The focus of those in charge has been on promulgating the idea that the market will decide and that the market will manage risk. I have been researching the roll-out of person centred care for the aged, those with psycho-social and physical disabilities for over a decade now, and there are no examples that indicate the market has worked in achieving either of these things.
Somehow in the language of transition, there is a deafening silence regarding undertaking police checks, working with children checks, any kind of quality audits or controls for providers and especially for workers and sole traders providing services. This has become relegated to being a business expense and not part of the necessary infrastructure of implementing the NDIS.
As part of creating this new market, the government has funded particular commercial enterprises to develop apps (after all this is more important that developing an accreditation or compliance system) to enable workers to profile their likes and dislikes to match with a client. Workers are being encouraged to view this as a value add from their employment agency, and clients are supposed to regard it as a way of identifying the “right” worker.
I don’t think that safety and quality ought be something that is a market differentiator, that organisations or individuals will use as a competitive edge.
I want to know that the support workers looking after my loved ones are safe and competent to do their jobs, not what their movie preferences are. I want to be able to access suitable workers based on their qualifications. And as a worker in this sector myself, I want to be able to develop my skills and promote myself to clients based on my skills and my ability to build relationships with them. Discovering what our mutual likes and dislikes are will be a part of that journey, but my professionalism and my suitability and qualifications shouldn’t be a criterion in a dating game.
I see the lack of a skilled workforce as the major implementation challenge the NDIS now faces. The lack of any suitable accreditation/quality framework to ensure that workers are suitable to provide care for the most vulnerable really are suitable and safe places the scheme and the people who use it at risk.
Both PPA and Espyconnect are 2 industry based groups who are trying to meet the known shortfall of workers and connect suitable workers to clients. It has been slow and hard to establish these services, which provide a degree of surety to workers that there is a place that they can develop skills and present themselves to clients based on their qualifications and experience (love of coffee and sci-fi optional extras) and a degree of comfort to clients that the workers they are choosing are the right ones for them.
Aside from these services there is still nothing really focussed on how we can develop the workforce and nothing from government to ensure quality control in the sector. In NSW at least the default has been to put up the cost of insurance so that most practitioners (unless they are a part of a big for profit company or government entity that pays it for them) can’t afford the premiums. Somehow this insurance will protect us all? What it means is that many practitioners will drop out of the sector, making the workforce shortage even greater and actually creating the circumstances in which unqualified and uninsured people will be offering their services under the radar – they will be more affordable than those who have to set their rates to cover the cost of the insurance.
To cap it off, for any allied health professional or health professional registered with AHPRA, it is actually a breach of their registration to be on a website that provides a customer rating linked to their profile (this meets AHPRA’s definition of using customer testimonials in advertising). Another example of how the government seems to be actively blocking quality control, even through the simple mechanism of providing a client recommendation.
On the weekend, Bruce Bonihady, Chair of the NDIA sent out an email letter asking people that if they had complaints or questions they should contact the NDIA. The link is here
Here is my challenge to you all – let’s take the Chair at his word. Email the NDIA and ask this question (any way you like) - how is the Government going to build the NDIS workforce? And how is it going to keep clients and workers safe?
Isabelle Meyer
I support the workers.
The implementation of person centred care is the most profound change in our community we have ever had. The NDIS represents a change so profound it could almost be described as a revolution. Full stop. No argument. It beats the vote, universal health care, child support just about anything you can think of. The idea that the support our community can provide will be distributed according to an individual’s need, and that they will be empowered to decide how to best use that resource to participate actively in our community is an amazing thing.
Goodbye welfare state. Hello caring inclusive community. So how is it that arriving at this extraordinary revolution has been as painful, messy and downright dangerous as any of those other revolutions (the kind with guns and people dying?)
Because - here is the thing – the current policy and funding priorities of the government are either a deliberate attempt at sabotaging the implementation of person centred care or they really have arrived at the zenith of stupidity and putting those we are meant to be empowering and enabling at risk.
I am talking about the support workers and providers we are relying on to deliver services in the new NDIS market.
The focus of those in charge has been on promulgating the idea that the market will decide and that the market will manage risk. I have been researching the roll-out of person centred care for the aged, those with psycho-social and physical disabilities for over a decade now, and there are no examples that indicate the market has worked in achieving either of these things.
Somehow in the language of transition, there is a deafening silence regarding undertaking police checks, working with children checks, any kind of quality audits or controls for providers and especially for workers and sole traders providing services. This has become relegated to being a business expense and not part of the necessary infrastructure of implementing the NDIS.
As part of creating this new market, the government has funded particular commercial enterprises to develop apps (after all this is more important that developing an accreditation or compliance system) to enable workers to profile their likes and dislikes to match with a client. Workers are being encouraged to view this as a value add from their employment agency, and clients are supposed to regard it as a way of identifying the “right” worker.
I don’t think that safety and quality ought be something that is a market differentiator, that organisations or individuals will use as a competitive edge.
I want to know that the support workers looking after my loved ones are safe and competent to do their jobs, not what their movie preferences are. I want to be able to access suitable workers based on their qualifications. And as a worker in this sector myself, I want to be able to develop my skills and promote myself to clients based on my skills and my ability to build relationships with them. Discovering what our mutual likes and dislikes are will be a part of that journey, but my professionalism and my suitability and qualifications shouldn’t be a criterion in a dating game.
I see the lack of a skilled workforce as the major implementation challenge the NDIS now faces. The lack of any suitable accreditation/quality framework to ensure that workers are suitable to provide care for the most vulnerable really are suitable and safe places the scheme and the people who use it at risk.
Both PPA and Espyconnect are 2 industry based groups who are trying to meet the known shortfall of workers and connect suitable workers to clients. It has been slow and hard to establish these services, which provide a degree of surety to workers that there is a place that they can develop skills and present themselves to clients based on their qualifications and experience (love of coffee and sci-fi optional extras) and a degree of comfort to clients that the workers they are choosing are the right ones for them.
Aside from these services there is still nothing really focussed on how we can develop the workforce and nothing from government to ensure quality control in the sector. In NSW at least the default has been to put up the cost of insurance so that most practitioners (unless they are a part of a big for profit company or government entity that pays it for them) can’t afford the premiums. Somehow this insurance will protect us all? What it means is that many practitioners will drop out of the sector, making the workforce shortage even greater and actually creating the circumstances in which unqualified and uninsured people will be offering their services under the radar – they will be more affordable than those who have to set their rates to cover the cost of the insurance.
To cap it off, for any allied health professional or health professional registered with AHPRA, it is actually a breach of their registration to be on a website that provides a customer rating linked to their profile (this meets AHPRA’s definition of using customer testimonials in advertising). Another example of how the government seems to be actively blocking quality control, even through the simple mechanism of providing a client recommendation.
On the weekend, Bruce Bonihady, Chair of the NDIA sent out an email letter asking people that if they had complaints or questions they should contact the NDIA. The link is here
Here is my challenge to you all – let’s take the Chair at his word. Email the NDIA and ask this question (any way you like) - how is the Government going to build the NDIS workforce? And how is it going to keep clients and workers safe?
Isabelle Meyer
I support the workers.
[post_category] => [post_org_url] => [post_filename] => blog/its-working-not-dating-33 [post_image] => /uploads/news-pictures/12--blog-post-image-20160914120427.jpg [post_type] => Account [data_type] => 20 [post_clicks] => 0 [post_price] => 0.00 [feed_id] => 0 [blog_id] => 0 [post_date] => [post_tags] => Ndia Ndis Ppa [post_status] => 1 [post_live_date] => 20160908161109 [post_author] => PPA Blogger [post_token] => a1ce37093cec1f23e5c3cd579a0369a2 [post_updated] => [post_featured] => 0 [post_image_saved] => 0 [twitter_post] => 0 [user_id] => 12 [service_id] => 0 [additional_fields] => [post_expire_date] => [post_start_date] => [data_id] => 66 [lat] => -25.274398 [lon] => 133.775136 [revision_timestamp] => 2016-09-13 22:04:27 [sticky_post] => 0 [sticky_post_expiration_date] => 0000-00-00 [country_sn] => [state_sn] => [revision_count] => 0 [image_imported] => 0 [original_image_url] => [id] => [save] => 1 [noheader] => [method] => [form_name] => article_fields [au_comesf] => [au_link] => [au_location] => [au_photo] => [au_header] => [au_limit] => [au_main_info] => [au_module] => [au_hint] => [au_ttlimit] => [au_length] => [au_selector] => [form] => myform [myid] => [sized] => 0 [subaction] => save [formname] => article_fields [dowiz] => 1 [post_video] => [post_venue] => [post_promo] => [post_job] => [post_location] => [editmode] => [token] => [auHeaderTitle] => [0] => 66 [1] => [system_name] => [2] => 20 [3] => Blog [data_name] => Blog [4] => [comments] => [5] => [comments_header] => [6] => [comments_code] => [7] => 9 [per_page] => 9 [8] =>
Posted by: PPA Blogger on 09/08/2016
The implementation of person centred care is the most profound change in our community we have ever had. The NDIS represents a change so profound it could almost be described as a revolution. Full stop. No argument. It beats the vote, universal health care, child support just about anything you can think of. The idea that the support our community can provide will be distributed according to an individual’s need, and that they will be empowered to decide how to best use that resource to participate actively in our community is an amazing thing.
Goodbye welfare state. Hello caring inclusive community. So how is it that arriving at this extraordinary revolution has been as painful, messy and downright dangerous as any of those other revolutions (the kind with guns and people dying?)
Because - here is the thing – the current policy and funding priorities of the government are either a deliberate attempt at sabotaging the implementation of person centred care or they really have arrived at the zenith of stupidity and putting those we are meant to be empowering and enabling at risk.
I am talking about the support workers and providers we are relying on to deliver services in the new NDIS market.
The focus of those in charge has been on promulgating the idea that the market will decide and that the market will manage risk. I have been researching the roll-out of person centred care for the aged, those with psycho-social and physical disabilities for over a decade now, and there are no examples that indicate the market has worked in achieving either of these things.
Somehow in the language of transition, there is a deafening silence regarding undertaking police checks, working with children checks, any kind of quality audits or controls for providers and especially for workers and sole traders providing services. This has become relegated to being a business expense and not part of the necessary infrastructure of implementing the NDIS.
As part of creating this new market, the government has funded particular commercial enterprises to develop apps (after all this is more important that developing an accreditation or compliance system) to enable workers to profile their likes and dislikes to match with a client. Workers are being encouraged to view this as a value add from their employment agency, and clients are supposed to regard it as a way of identifying the “right” worker.
I don’t think that safety and quality ought be something that is a market differentiator, that organisations or individuals will use as a competitive edge.
I want to know that the support workers looking after my loved ones are safe and competent to do their jobs, not what their movie preferences are. I want to be able to access suitable workers based on their qualifications. And as a worker in this sector myself, I want to be able to develop my skills and promote myself to clients based on my skills and my ability to build relationships with them. Discovering what our mutual likes and dislikes are will be a part of that journey, but my professionalism and my suitability and qualifications shouldn’t be a criterion in a dating game.
I see the lack of a skilled workforce as the major implementation challenge the NDIS now faces. The lack of any suitable accreditation/quality framework to ensure that workers are suitable to provide care for the most vulnerable really are suitable and safe places the scheme and the people who use it at risk.
Both PPA and Espyconnect are 2 industry based groups who are trying to meet the known shortfall of workers and connect suitable workers to clients. It has been slow and hard to establish these services, which provide a degree of surety to workers that there is a place that they can develop skills and present themselves to clients based on their qualifications and experience (love of coffee and sci-fi optional extras) and a degree of comfort to clients that the workers they are choosing are the right ones for them.
Aside from these services there is still nothing really focussed on how we can develop the workforce and nothing from government to ensure quality control in the sector. In NSW at least the default has been to put up the cost of insurance so that most practitioners (unless they are a part of a big for profit company or government entity that pays it for them) can’t afford the premiums. Somehow this insurance will protect us all? What it means is that many practitioners will drop out of the sector, making the workforce shortage even greater and actually creating the circumstances in which unqualified and uninsured people will be offering their services under the radar – they will be more affordable than those who have to set their rates to cover the cost of the insurance.
To cap it off, for any allied health professional or health professional registered with AHPRA, it is actually a breach of their registration to be on a website that provides a customer rating linked to their profile (this meets AHPRA’s definition of using customer testimonials in advertising). Another example of how the government seems to be actively blocking quality control, even through the simple mechanism of providing a client recommendation.
On the weekend, Bruce Bonihady, Chair of the NDIA sent out an email letter asking people that if they had complaints or questions they should contact the NDIA. The link is here
Here is my challenge to you all – let’s take the Chair at his word. Email the NDIA and ask this question (any way you like) - how is the Government going to build the NDIS workforce? And how is it going to keep clients and workers safe?
Isabelle Meyer
I support the workers.
Posted by: PPA Blogger on 09/08/2016
The implementation of person centred care is the most profound change in our community we have ever had. The NDIS represents a change so profound it could almost be described as a revolution. Full stop. No argument. It beats the vote, universal health care, child support just about anything you can think of. The idea that the support our community can provide will be distributed according to an individual’s need, and that they will be empowered to decide how to best use that resource to participate actively in our community is an amazing thing.
Goodbye welfare state. Hello caring inclusive community. So how is it that arriving at this extraordinary revolution has been as painful, messy and downright dangerous as any of those other revolutions (the kind with guns and people dying?)
Because - here is the thing – the current policy and funding priorities of the government are either a deliberate attempt at sabotaging the implementation of person centred care or they really have arrived at the zenith of stupidity and putting those we are meant to be empowering and enabling at risk.
I am talking about the support workers and providers we are relying on to deliver services in the new NDIS market.
The focus of those in charge has been on promulgating the idea that the market will decide and that the market will manage risk. I have been researching the roll-out of person centred care for the aged, those with psycho-social and physical disabilities for over a decade now, and there are no examples that indicate the market has worked in achieving either of these things.
Somehow in the language of transition, there is a deafening silence regarding undertaking police checks, working with children checks, any kind of quality audits or controls for providers and especially for workers and sole traders providing services. This has become relegated to being a business expense and not part of the necessary infrastructure of implementing the NDIS.
As part of creating this new market, the government has funded particular commercial enterprises to develop apps (after all this is more important that developing an accreditation or compliance system) to enable workers to profile their likes and dislikes to match with a client. Workers are being encouraged to view this as a value add from their employment agency, and clients are supposed to regard it as a way of identifying the “right” worker.
I don’t think that safety and quality ought be something that is a market differentiator, that organisations or individuals will use as a competitive edge.
I want to know that the support workers looking after my loved ones are safe and competent to do their jobs, not what their movie preferences are. I want to be able to access suitable workers based on their qualifications. And as a worker in this sector myself, I want to be able to develop my skills and promote myself to clients based on my skills and my ability to build relationships with them. Discovering what our mutual likes and dislikes are will be a part of that journey, but my professionalism and my suitability and qualifications shouldn’t be a criterion in a dating game.
I see the lack of a skilled workforce as the major implementation challenge the NDIS now faces. The lack of any suitable accreditation/quality framework to ensure that workers are suitable to provide care for the most vulnerable really are suitable and safe places the scheme and the people who use it at risk.
Both PPA and Espyconnect are 2 industry based groups who are trying to meet the known shortfall of workers and connect suitable workers to clients. It has been slow and hard to establish these services, which provide a degree of surety to workers that there is a place that they can develop skills and present themselves to clients based on their qualifications and experience (love of coffee and sci-fi optional extras) and a degree of comfort to clients that the workers they are choosing are the right ones for them.
Aside from these services there is still nothing really focussed on how we can develop the workforce and nothing from government to ensure quality control in the sector. In NSW at least the default has been to put up the cost of insurance so that most practitioners (unless they are a part of a big for profit company or government entity that pays it for them) can’t afford the premiums. Somehow this insurance will protect us all? What it means is that many practitioners will drop out of the sector, making the workforce shortage even greater and actually creating the circumstances in which unqualified and uninsured people will be offering their services under the radar – they will be more affordable than those who have to set their rates to cover the cost of the insurance.
To cap it off, for any allied health professional or health professional registered with AHPRA, it is actually a breach of their registration to be on a website that provides a customer rating linked to their profile (this meets AHPRA’s definition of using customer testimonials in advertising). Another example of how the government seems to be actively blocking quality control, even through the simple mechanism of providing a client recommendation.
On the weekend, Bruce Bonihady, Chair of the NDIA sent out an email letter asking people that if they had complaints or questions they should contact the NDIA. The link is here
Here is my challenge to you all – let’s take the Chair at his word. Email the NDIA and ask this question (any way you like) - how is the Government going to build the NDIS workforce? And how is it going to keep clients and workers safe?
Isabelle Meyer
I support the workers.
The implementation of person centred care is the most profound change in our community we have ever had. The NDIS represents a change so profound it could almost be described as a revolution. Full stop. No argument. It beats the vote, universal health care, child support just about anything you can think of. The idea that the support our community can provide will be distributed according to an individual’s need, and that they will be empowered to decide how to best use that resource to participate actively in our community is an amazing thing.
Goodbye welfare state. Hello caring inclusive community. So how is it that arriving at this extraordinary revolution has been as painful, messy and downright dangerous as any of those other revolutions (the kind with guns and people dying?)
Because - here is the thing – the current policy and funding priorities of the government are either a deliberate attempt at sabotaging the implementation of person centred care or they really have arrived at the zenith of stupidity and putting those we are meant to be empowering and enabling at risk.
I am talking about the support workers and providers we are relying on to deliver services in the new NDIS market.
The focus of those in charge has been on promulgating the idea that the market will decide and that the market will manage risk. I have been researching the roll-out of person centred care for the aged, those with psycho-social and physical disabilities for over a decade now, and there are no examples that indicate the market has worked in achieving either of these things.
Somehow in the language of transition, there is a deafening silence regarding undertaking police checks, working with children checks, any kind of quality audits or controls for providers and especially for workers and sole traders providing services. This has become relegated to being a business expense and not part of the necessary infrastructure of implementing the NDIS.
As part of creating this new market, the government has funded particular commercial enterprises to develop apps (after all this is more important that developing an accreditation or compliance system) to enable workers to profile their likes and dislikes to match with a client. Workers are being encouraged to view this as a value add from their employment agency, and clients are supposed to regard it as a way of identifying the “right” worker.
I don’t think that safety and quality ought be something that is a market differentiator, that organisations or individuals will use as a competitive edge.
I want to know that the support workers looking after my loved ones are safe and competent to do their jobs, not what their movie preferences are. I want to be able to access suitable workers based on their qualifications. And as a worker in this sector myself, I want to be able to develop my skills and promote myself to clients based on my skills and my ability to build relationships with them. Discovering what our mutual likes and dislikes are will be a part of that journey, but my professionalism and my suitability and qualifications shouldn’t be a criterion in a dating game.
I see the lack of a skilled workforce as the major implementation challenge the NDIS now faces. The lack of any suitable accreditation/quality framework to ensure that workers are suitable to provide care for the most vulnerable really are suitable and safe places the scheme and the people who use it at risk.
Both PPA and Espyconnect are 2 industry based groups who are trying to meet the known shortfall of workers and connect suitable workers to clients. It has been slow and hard to establish these services, which provide a degree of surety to workers that there is a place that they can develop skills and present themselves to clients based on their qualifications and experience (love of coffee and sci-fi optional extras) and a degree of comfort to clients that the workers they are choosing are the right ones for them.
Aside from these services there is still nothing really focussed on how we can develop the workforce and nothing from government to ensure quality control in the sector. In NSW at least the default has been to put up the cost of insurance so that most practitioners (unless they are a part of a big for profit company or government entity that pays it for them) can’t afford the premiums. Somehow this insurance will protect us all? What it means is that many practitioners will drop out of the sector, making the workforce shortage even greater and actually creating the circumstances in which unqualified and uninsured people will be offering their services under the radar – they will be more affordable than those who have to set their rates to cover the cost of the insurance.
To cap it off, for any allied health professional or health professional registered with AHPRA, it is actually a breach of their registration to be on a website that provides a customer rating linked to their profile (this meets AHPRA’s definition of using customer testimonials in advertising). Another example of how the government seems to be actively blocking quality control, even through the simple mechanism of providing a client recommendation.
On the weekend, Bruce Bonihady, Chair of the NDIA sent out an email letter asking people that if they had complaints or questions they should contact the NDIA. The link is here
Here is my challenge to you all – let’s take the Chair at his word. Email the NDIA and ask this question (any way you like) - how is the Government going to build the NDIS workforce? And how is it going to keep clients and workers safe?
Isabelle Meyer
I support the workers.
[46] => [47] => [48] => blog/its-working-not-dating-33 [49] => /uploads/news-pictures/12--blog-post-image-20160914120427.jpg [50] => Account [51] => 20 [52] => 0 [53] => 0.00 [54] => 0 [55] => 0 [56] => [57] => NDIA, NDIS, PPA, [58] => 1 [59] => 20160908161109 [60] => PPA Blogger [61] => a1ce37093cec1f23e5c3cd579a0369a2 [62] => [63] => 0 [64] => 0 [65] => 0 [66] => 12 [67] => 0 [68] => [69] => [70] => [71] => 66 [72] => -25.274398 [73] => 133.775136 [74] => 2016-09-13 22:04:27 [75] => 0 [76] => 0000-00-00 [77] => [78] => [79] => 0 [80] => 0 [81] => [new_filename] => %data_filename%/%post_filename% [post_content_clean] =>The implementation of person centred care is the most profound change in our community we have ever had. The NDIS represents a change so profound it could almost be described as a revolution. Full stop. No argument. It beats the vote, universal health care, child support just about anything you can think of. The idea that the support our community can provide will be distributed according to an individual’s need, and that they will be empowered to decide how to best use that resource to participate actively in our community is an amazing thing.
Goodbye welfare state. Hello caring inclusive community. So how is it that arriving at this extraordinary revolution has been as painful, messy and downright dangerous as any of those other revolutions (the kind with guns and people dying?)
Because - here is the thing – the current policy and funding priorities of the government are either a deliberate attempt at sabotaging the implementation of person centred care or they really have arrived at the zenith of stupidity and putting those we are meant to be empowering and enabling at risk.
I am talking about the support workers and providers we are relying on to deliver services in the new NDIS market.
The focus of those in charge has been on promulgating the idea that the market will decide and that the market will manage risk. I have been researching the roll-out of person centred care for the aged, those with psycho-social and physical disabilities for over a decade now, and there are no examples that indicate the market has worked in achieving either of these things.
Somehow in the language of transition, there is a deafening silence regarding undertaking police checks, working with children checks, any kind of quality audits or controls for providers and especially for workers and sole traders providing services. This has become relegated to being a business expense and not part of the necessary infrastructure of implementing the NDIS.
As part of creating this new market, the government has funded particular commercial enterprises to develop apps (after all this is more important that developing an accreditation or compliance system) to enable workers to profile their likes and dislikes to match with a client. Workers are being encouraged to view this as a value add from their employment agency, and clients are supposed to regard it as a way of identifying the “right” worker.
I don’t think that safety and quality ought be something that is a market differentiator, that organisations or individuals will use as a competitive edge.
I want to know that the support workers looking after my loved ones are safe and competent to do their jobs, not what their movie preferences are. I want to be able to access suitable workers based on their qualifications. And as a worker in this sector myself, I want to be able to develop my skills and promote myself to clients based on my skills and my ability to build relationships with them. Discovering what our mutual likes and dislikes are will be a part of that journey, but my professionalism and my suitability and qualifications shouldn’t be a criterion in a dating game.
I see the lack of a skilled workforce as the major implementation challenge the NDIS now faces. The lack of any suitable accreditation/quality framework to ensure that workers are suitable to provide care for the most vulnerable really are suitable and safe places the scheme and the people who use it at risk.
Both PPA and Espyconnect are 2 industry based groups who are trying to meet the known shortfall of workers and connect suitable workers to clients. It has been slow and hard to establish these services, which provide a degree of surety to workers that there is a place that they can develop skills and present themselves to clients based on their qualifications and experience (love of coffee and sci-fi optional extras) and a degree of comfort to clients that the workers they are choosing are the right ones for them.
Aside from these services there is still nothing really focussed on how we can develop the workforce and nothing from government to ensure quality control in the sector. In NSW at least the default has been to put up the cost of insurance so that most practitioners (unless they are a part of a big for profit company or government entity that pays it for them) can’t afford the premiums. Somehow this insurance will protect us all? What it means is that many practitioners will drop out of the sector, making the workforce shortage even greater and actually creating the circumstances in which unqualified and uninsured people will be offering their services under the radar – they will be more affordable than those who have to set their rates to cover the cost of the insurance.
To cap it off, for any allied health professional or health professional registered with AHPRA, it is actually a breach of their registration to be on a website that provides a customer rating linked to their profile (this meets AHPRA’s definition of using customer testimonials in advertising). Another example of how the government seems to be actively blocking quality control, even through the simple mechanism of providing a client recommendation.
On the weekend, Bruce Bonihady, Chair of the NDIA sent out an email letter asking people that if they had complaints or questions they should contact the NDIA. The link is here
Here is my challenge to you all – let’s take the Chair at his word. Email the NDIA and ask this question (any way you like) - how is the Government going to build the NDIS workforce? And how is it going to keep clients and workers safe?
Isabelle Meyer
I support the workers.
)| Contact Member |