Anglican Care Storm Village

109 Cowper Street, TAREE, NSW, 2430

1. AssessmentSep 2, 2025

   The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (the Commission) has monitored the provider’s progress in implementing improvements in the service to ensure compliance with the Aged Care Quality Standards. Based on the information submitted by the provider, as of 02/09/2025, the Commission is satisfied actions have been taken to address the non-compliance with the Aged Care Quality Standards. The Commission will continue to monitor the provider’s performance.

   source ↗
2. Assessment contact (performance assessment) – siteDec 24, 2024

   Prepared by Alla Kasyan

   source ↗
3. Assessment contact Performance ReportNov 7, 2024

   An assessment contact was conducted with this service on 07/11/2024 to 07/11/2024. The attached Performance Report details the assessment of performance against the Aged Care Quality Standards following the assessment contact.

   source ↗
4. Accreditation decisionJul 29, 2024

   Following a site audit conducted on 11/06/2024 to 13/06/2024, the Commission made a decision on 29/07/2024 to re-accredit this service. The period of accreditation of the service will expire on 06/09/2027

   source ↗
5. Site AuditJul 29, 2024

   Prepared by Katherine Richards

   source ↗
6. Site audit Performance ReportJun 13, 2024

   A site audit was conducted with this service on 11 June 2024 to 13 June 2024. The attached Performance Report details the assessment of performance against the Aged Care Quality Standards following the site audit.

   source ↗
7. Assessment contact (performance assessment) – siteDec 20, 2023

   Prepared by G-M. Cain

   source ↗
8. Assessment contact Performance ReportNov 17, 2023

   An assessment contact was conducted with this service on 14 November 2023 to 17 November 2023. The attached Performance Report details the assessment of performance against the Aged Care Quality Standards following the assessment contact.

   source ↗
9. Accreditation decisionMar 6, 2023

   Following a site audit conducted on 17 January 2023 to 24 January 2023, the Commission made a decision on 06 March 2023 to re-accredit this service. The period of accreditation of the service will expire on 06 September 2024.

   source ↗
10. Site AuditMar 6, 2023

    Prepared by E Woodley

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

    The performance report for Anglican Care Storm Village highlights significant non-compliance across most Aged Care Quality Standards, particularly in areas such as consumer dignity and choice, ongoing assessment and planning with consumers, personal care and clinical care, services and supports for daily living, human resources, and organisational governance. The service faces challenges related to staff shortages, ineffective risk management systems, and inadequate communication of consumer needs and preferences. While feedback and complaints were managed effectively, there is a need for substantial improvement in the delivery of safe and quality care.

    1Non-compliant

    The service did not treat all consumers with dignity and respect, impacting their privacy and well-being.

    • Not met 1(3)(a) — Consumers and representatives identified instances of disrespect by staff, such as opening bathroom doors while consumers were using the facilities.
    • Met 1(3)(b) — Care planning documentation reflected consumer's cultural needs, interests, and preferences to inform culturally safe care and services.
    • Met 1(3)(c) — The service supports consumers in exercising choice and independence regarding their care and services.
    • Met 1(3)(d) — Consumers are supported to take risks to live the best life they can, with strategies developed to mitigate these risks.
    • Met 1(3)(e) — Information provided to consumers is current, accurate, and communicated in a way that enables them to exercise choice.
    • Met 1(3)(f) — Privacy of consumers is respected, with care plans and personal information kept secure.

    Risks: Negative impacts on consumer dignity due to staff shortages and shared bathrooms.

    2Non-compliant

    The service did not consistently consider risks in assessment and planning, leading to inadequate care delivery.

    • Not met 2(3)(a) — Risks were not consistently considered in the assessment and planning process.
    • Not met 2(3)(b) — Assessment and planning did not adequately address consumer needs, goals, and preferences.
    • Not met 2(3)(c) — Consumers and representatives were not always involved in assessment and planning processes.
    • Not met 2(3)(d) — Outcomes of assessments were not effectively communicated to consumers or documented.
    • Not met 2(3)(e) — Care and services were not reviewed regularly for effectiveness, especially following incidents.

    Risks: Negative impacts on consumer health and well-being due to inadequate assessment and planning.

    3Non-compliant

    The service did not provide safe and effective personal and clinical care, leading to negative outcomes for consumers.

    • Not met 3(3)(a) — Personal and clinical care was not always best practice or tailored to consumer needs.
    • Not met 3(3)(b) — High impact risks were not effectively managed, including falls and restrictive practices.
    • Not met 3(3)(c) — Needs of consumers nearing the end of life were not always recognized or addressed in a timely manner.
    • Not met 3(3)(d) — Deterioration or changes in consumer condition were not always recognized and responded to promptly.
    • Not met 3(3)(e) — Information about the consumer’s condition, needs, and preferences was not effectively documented or communicated.
    • Not met 3(3)(f) — Timely referrals to other care providers were not always made.
    • Not met 3(3)(g) — Infection control practices and antibiotic stewardship were deficient.

    Risks: Negative impacts on consumer health due to inadequate care delivery, including pain management and wound care.

    4Non-compliant

    The service did not provide safe and effective daily living services that met consumers' needs and preferences.

    • Not met 4(3)(a) — Services for daily living were not always safe, effective, or tailored to consumer needs.
    • Not met 4(3)(b) — Emotional and psychological well-being was not consistently promoted through services.
    • Not met 4(3)(c) — Consumers were not always supported to participate in community activities or maintain personal relationships.
    • Not met 4(3)(d) — Information about consumer needs and preferences was not effectively communicated within the service.
    • Not met 4(3)(f) — Meals were not always varied, of suitable quality, or met dietary requirements.

    Risks: Negative impacts on consumer well-being due to insufficient support for daily living activities and poor meal service.

    5Non-compliant

    The service environment was not always safe, clean, or comfortable.

    • Not met 5(3)(b) — Some areas of the service were poorly maintained and posed safety risks.

    Risks: Safety hazards due to poor maintenance and cleanliness in parts of the service environment.

    6Compliant

    Consumers are encouraged and supported to provide feedback and make complaints.

    • Met 6(3)(a) — Consumers were aware of how to provide feedback or make a complaint.
    • Met 6(3)(b) — Access to advocates and language services was provided for raising complaints.
    • Met 6(3)(c) — Appropriate action is taken in response to complaints, including open disclosure processes.
    • Met 6(3)(d) — Feedback and complaints are reviewed and used for continuous improvement.

    7Non-compliant

    The workforce was not always sufficient or competent to deliver safe and quality care.

    • Not met 7(3)(a) — Staff shortages impacted the delivery of safe and quality care.
    • Not met 7(3)(c) — Staff were not always assessed as competent in their roles.
    • Not met 7(3)(d) — Training and support for staff to deliver required outcomes was inadequate.
    • Not met 7(3)(e) — Regular assessment, monitoring, and review of workforce performance were not consistently undertaken.

    Risks: Negative impacts on consumer care due to insufficient staffing levels and lack of staff training.

    8Non-compliant

    The service did not have effective governance systems in place.

    • Not met 8(3)(a) — Consumers were not actively engaged in the development and delivery of care.
    • Not met 8(3)(b) — The governing body did not promote a culture of safe, inclusive, and quality care.
    • Not met 8(3)(c) — Governance systems for information management, continuous improvement, workforce governance, and regulatory compliance were deficient.
    • Not met 8(3)(d) — Risk management systems were not effective in identifying and managing high impact risks.
    • Not met 8(3)(e) — Clinical governance frameworks were not effectively implemented to ensure safe clinical care.

    Risks: Ineffective oversight of care delivery and risk management at the service level.

    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.

11. Site audit Performance ReportJan 24, 2023

    A site audit was conducted with this service on 17 January 2023 to 24 January 2023. The attached Performance Report details the assessment of performance against the Aged Care Quality Standards following the site audit.

    source ↗
12. Exceptional CircumstancesSep 26, 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 14 April 2023. The service remains subject to compliance monitoring by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.

    source ↗
13. Exceptional CircumstancesMar 22, 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 14 October 2022. The service remains subject to compliance monitoring by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.

    source ↗
14. Exceptional CircumstancesOct 1, 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 14 April 2022. The service remains subject to compliance monitoring by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.

    source ↗
15. Exceptional CircumstancesMar 17, 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 14 October 2021. The service remains subject to compliance monitoring by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.

    source ↗
16. AssessmentJan 11, 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 14 April 2021.

    source ↗
17. AssessmentJan 15, 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 14 April 2018.

    source ↗
18. AssessmentJan 19, 2012
    source ↗

No regulatory actions recorded.