Benetas Corowa Court

752 Esplanade, MORNINGTON, VIC, 3931

1. Assessment Contact - SiteJul 11, 2023

   Prepared by D. Fekonja

   source ↗
2. Assessment contact Performance ReportJun 20, 2023

   An assessment contact was conducted with this service on 20 June 2023. The attached Performance Report details the assessment of performance against the Aged Care Quality Standards following the assessment contact.

   source ↗
3. Accreditation decisionDec 21, 2022

   Following a site audit conducted on 12 October 2022 to 14 October 2022, the Commission made a decision on 21 December 2022 to re-accredit this service. The period of accreditation of the service will expire on 21 December 2025.

   source ↗
4. Site AuditDec 21, 2022

   Prepared by James Howard

   source ↗
   AI report insightsAI-extracted · qwen2.5:32b

   The service was compliant with most standards but faced challenges with staffing levels under Standard 7. Consumers reported positive experiences regarding dignity, choice, care quality, and feedback mechanisms.

   math errorCompliant

   Consumers reported being treated with dignity and respect, their cultural needs were met, and they felt supported to make choices about their care.

   • Met 1(3)(a) — Staff showed respect by using consumers' preferred names and ensuring privacy during care.
   • Met 1(3)(b) — Consumers’ cultural needs were identified at admission and recorded in their care plans.
   • Met 1(3)(c) — Consumers said they were supported to exercise choice about how their care was delivered.
   • Met 1(3)(d) — Staff understood risks taken by consumers and supported them with a dignity of risk assessment.
   • Met 1(3)(e) — Information was provided in a timely manner through newsletters, emails, resident meetings, and lifestyle calendars.
   • Met 1(3)(f) — Consumers said their privacy was respected and information kept confidential.

   math errorCompliant

   The service effectively involved consumers in the assessment and planning process, which considered risks to health and well-being.

   • Met 2(3)(a) — Consumers' needs were regularly reviewed and guided by care planning policies.
   • Met 2(3)(b) — End of life plans were included in care plans when consumers wished for them.
   • Met 2(3)(c) — The service partnered with consumers and other providers during the assessment process.
   • Met 2(3)(d) — Assessment outcomes were documented in care plans available to consumers and representatives.
   • Met 2(3)(e) — Care was reviewed every four months or when circumstances changed.

   math errorCompliant

   Consumers received safe and effective personal and clinical care that met their needs despite some staffing issues.

   • Met 3(3)(a) — Care plans reflected individualised care for skin integrity, restrictive practices, and pain management.
   • Met 3(3)(b) — High impact risks were managed effectively.
   • Met 3(3)(c) — Comfort measures were provided for consumers nearing end of life.
   • Met 3(3)(d) — Changes in mental and physical function were recognized and responded to promptly.
   • Met 3(3)(e) — Information about consumers' conditions was documented and communicated effectively.
   • Met 3(3)(f) — Referrals were made appropriately when needed.
   • Met 3(3)(g) — Infection-related risks were minimized through appropriate practices.

   math errorCompliant

   Consumers received services and supports that met their needs and promoted independence and well-being.

   • Met 4(3)(a) — Services supported consumers' quality of life and health.
   • Met 4(3)(b) — Emotional, spiritual, and psychological well-being was promoted.
   • Met 4(3)(c) — Consumers were supported to maintain relationships and engage in activities of interest.
   • Met 4(3)(d) — Information about consumers' conditions was communicated effectively.
   • Met 4(3)(e) — Referrals were made appropriately when needed.
   • Met 4(3)(f) — Meals provided were varied and of suitable quality and quantity.
   • Met 4(3)(g) — Equipment was safe, clean, well maintained, and suitable for consumers' needs.

   math errorCompliant

   The service environment was welcoming, safe, clean, and allowed free movement.

   • Met 5(3)(a) — The environment created a sense of homestyle living.
   • Met 5(3)(b) — The service was clean, well maintained, and allowed free movement.
   • Met 5(3)(c) — Furniture, fittings, and equipment were safe, clean, well maintained, and suitable.

   math errorCompliant

   Consumers could provide feedback and make complaints, which the service used to improve care.

   • Met 6(3)(a) — Feedback was encouraged through various methods.
   • Met 6(3)(b) — Consumers were aware of how to access advocates and language services.
   • Met 6(3)(c) — Complaints were managed promptly with open disclosure used when necessary.
   • Met 6(3)(d) — Feedback was reviewed to improve care and services.

   math errorNon-compliant

   The service had insufficient staffing numbers which impacted the quality of care.

   • Not met 7(3)(a) — There were insufficient staffing numbers impacting the quality of care and services received by consumers.
   • Met 7(3)(b) — Staff interacted with consumers in a kind, caring manner respecting their identity, culture, and diversity.
   • Met 7(3)(c) — The workforce was competent and had the qualifications to perform their roles effectively.
   • Met 7(3)(d) — Staff were trained and supported to deliver outcomes required by the Quality Standards.
   • Met 7(3)(e) — Regular assessment of staff performance was conducted through formal annual reviews.

   Risks: Insufficient staffing numbers impacted care quality, including increased call bell wait times and incomplete consumer progress notes.

   Recommendations: Limit new consumer admissions to ensure adequate staff.; Restart training placements for student care workers.; Recruit experienced staff into key roles.; Improve roster management to match consumers' needs with staff skillsets.

   math errorCompliant

   Consumers were engaged in the development and delivery of services, and governance systems supported safe care.

   • Met 8(3)(a) — Consumers provided feedback on various aspects of service delivery.
   • Met 8(3)(b) — The governing body promoted a culture of safe and quality care.
   • Met 8(3)(c) — Governance systems were in place for information management, continuous improvement, financial governance, workforce governance, regulatory compliance, feedback, and complaints.
   • Met 8(3)(d) — Risk management systems supported the identification and response to abuse and neglect.
   • Met 8(3)(e) — Clinical governance frameworks were in place for antimicrobial stewardship, minimizing restraint use, and open disclosure.

   Generated by qwen2.5:32b on 12 June 2026 from the published Performance Report. AI output — may contain errors; verify against the source document and the official findings above.

5. Site audit Performance ReportOct 14, 2022

   A site audit was conducted with this service on 12 October 2022 to 14 October 2022. The attached Performance Report details the assessment of performance against the Aged Care Quality Standards following the site audit.

   source ↗
6. Exceptional CircumstancesSep 27, 2022

   During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission has temporarily modified our Regulatory Program, including the suspension of site audits to determine whether to accredit, not to re-accredit or vary the periods of accreditation for a service. In order to give effect to continuity of accreditation the Department of Health has, under Section 42.5 of the Aged Care Act 1997, made a decision to grant ‘exceptional circumstances’ to this service 27 April 2023. The service remains subject to compliance monitoring by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.

   source ↗
7. Exceptional CircumstancesMar 23, 2022

   During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission has temporarily modified our Regulatory Program, including the suspension of site audits to determine whether to accredit, not to re-accredit or vary the periods of accreditation for a service. In order to give effect to continuity of accreditation the Department of Health has, under Section 42.5 of the Aged Care Act 1997, made a decision to grant ‘exceptional circumstances’ to this service until 27 October 2022. The service remains subject to compliance monitoring by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.

   source ↗
8. Exceptional CircumstancesSep 29, 2021

   During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission has temporarily modified our Regulatory Program, including the suspension of site audits to determine whether to accredit, not to re-accredit or vary the periods of accreditation for a service. In order to give effect to continuity of accreditation the Department of Health has, under Section 42.5 of the Aged Care Act 1997, made a decision to grant ‘exceptional circumstances’ to this service until 27 April 2022. The service remains subject to compliance monitoring by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.

   source ↗
9. AssessmentAug 1, 2018

   Following an audit we decided that this home met 44 of the 44 expected outcomes of the Accreditation Standards and would be accredited for three years until 27 October 2021.

   source ↗
10. AssessmentAug 5, 2015

    Following an audit we decided that this home met 44 of the 44 expected outcomes of the Accreditation Standards and would be accredited for three years until 27 October 2018.

    source ↗
11. AssessmentAug 9, 2012
    source ↗
12. AssessmentAug 14, 2009
    source ↗

No regulatory actions recorded.