I consider myself fortunate in not having been faced with this regrettable situation.
Like yourself, I would not automatically take the word of any broker (given that their financial motivations may compromise the impartiality of their advice).
Have you directed this question to the care facilities that you're interested in?
They just might be able to confirm or refute the claims of the brokers.
If you haven't already done so, another avenue of investigation might be to make informal enquiries of organisations such as Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul, Wesley , Baptists etc.
Drawing from their experience assisting community members, they may have some insights to offer.
If it were me, as the two potential places have been decided, I would not use a broker.
I would ask do they have day programs and take my Mum to that program, if not then I would simply stay in touch with them on a regular basis enquiring about her position on the waiting list.
IMO it is a sad situation with the Australian culture, that because of our transient nature through our working careers, we don't tend to have strong inter generational ties.
Just got some more advice...when admitting residents one should not admit all high care residents ,just to maximise funding.With a mix of residents high care to low care ,you are not flogging your staff to death.They should be motivated to go to work without the hard slog continually.More funding and staff helps all of this.The budget should be managed without devastating the staff.My wife still gets a call to go to aged care facilities on a contract basis...I suppose her title is nurse advisor..she is 70 herself...up with all the financials ,funding instruments care etc..With the financials it depends if one is concessional in a government facility,non-profit facility or private (for profit) home.I am trying to call these places homes and not facilities.
I notice a facility at Murchison vic went broke.Income did not cover expenditure.When residents are admitted they are vetted by the manager to see if they will be profitable,get a good ACFI score and hence good government funding (Aged Care Funding Instrument)If too many people with low ACFI scores are admitted ,funding is curtailed accordingly.A lot of residents with low funding should,and are good enough ,to still be in their own homes and not in care.
The days are gone when people arrived with their suitcase and their vehicle parked out the front to be admitted to a facility.
Having said all of this it is up to management to make the residents' lives as meaningful and pleasant as possible.This is what inspectors are looking at as a priority.In the end the most important aspect is more funding ,for more dedicated staff to assist in this,and recognise, and meet ,the needs the of individuals.I know in our areas these things are a priority-belated though they are.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?