Aged Care Complaints Management: Process and Follow-Up

Good complaint handling gives the person a way to be heard, a clear explanation of the response and a route for further help. It also gives the provider information to improve care. This guide sets out a practical operating process for aged care teams, supported by the Commission’s good complaints practice guidance.

The Commission’s guidance asks providers to support complaints without fear of punishment, involve the person, start resolution work promptly and keep them informed. Explain what will happen and who will respond. Include supporters where appropriate and make the process accessible to the person.

Receiving the complaint is the first step. Record the concern in the person’s own terms where possible, identify any immediate safety issue and assign a responsible reviewer. Do not wait for a reporting dashboard to decide whether urgent action is needed.

Agree the next contact and explain the work needed to investigate the issue. Keep a record of updates, decisions and any change to the expected response date. The person should understand what is happening even when the investigation is incomplete.

A provider’s acknowledgement or ageing target is an operational aid. It does not replace the applicable obligations or justify delaying urgent action. Review open cases and missed targets with the person responsible for the response, including the reason for any delay and the next step.

Keep the original concern, relevant records, investigation work and response connected. Record what the reviewer concluded, what action was taken and what remains open. Distinguish an internal resolution decision from the explanation given to the person.

The Commission recommends explaining the outcome honestly and asking for feedback on the handling of the complaint. If the response includes an apology, explanation or follow-up meeting, record what actually occurred. A prepared letter alone is not evidence that the outcome was communicated.

People can raise concerns with the Commission. Explain the available contact options and avoid treating a request for external help as misconduct or proof that the person is being unreasonable. See the Commission’s complaints and feedback information.

Some concerns also need a separate incident or protected-disclosure assessment. Follow the relevant process and access arrangements; do not assume that moving a record between software modules establishes its legal classification. Use the incident reporting workflow or whistleblower overview when evaluating those related processes.

Review categories, severity, case status and resolution records alongside the underlying concerns. A repeated category is a reason to investigate further, not a complete explanation of the cause. Check the period, service population and recording practices before comparing totals.

Give each agreed improvement an owner and next step. At a later review, examine whether the action changed the problem reported by the person. Retain the connection between the complaint, the decision and the evidence reviewed.

Statura’s Complaints Management workspace brings the case, acknowledgement information, communications, resolution and linked improvement work together. Analytics provide category, severity, status and resolution views for the team’s review.

The workflow separates a prepared outcome letter from recorded communication. For an email sent through the provider’s own mailbox, the team records external delivery and a note. Closure can require outcome communication or a recorded reason for closing without delivery. Open-disclosure fields record the explanation, person’s perspective and follow-up.

Bring a fictional complaint with an unresolved follow-up to a demonstration. Follow it from receipt through review, communication and improvement work. Use the evaluation workbook to record the responsibilities and exceptions your team needs to test.