Benjamin Short Grove
activeOverview
Location
Orange (SA2)
130 Huntley Road, ORANGE, NSW, 2800
Star ratings
Latest — May 2026
Compliance findings
11 recorded
| Date | Type | Requirement | Severity | Finding | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05 Mar 2024 | Assessment contact (performance assessment) – site | – | – | Personal care and clinical care | Not applicable |
| 05 Mar 2024 | Assessment contact (performance assessment) – site | – | – | Services and supports for daily living | Not applicable |
| 05 Mar 2024 | Assessment contact (performance assessment) – site | – | – | Human resources | Not applicable |
| 24 Nov 2022 | Site Audit | – | – | Consumer dignity and choice | Compliant |
| 24 Nov 2022 | Site Audit | – | – | Ongoing assessment and planning with consumers | Compliant |
| 24 Nov 2022 | Site Audit | – | – | Personal care and clinical care | Non-compliant |
| 24 Nov 2022 | Site Audit | – | – | Services and supports for daily living | Non-compliant |
| 24 Nov 2022 | Site Audit | – | – | Organisation’s service environment | Compliant |
| 24 Nov 2022 | Site Audit | – | – | Feedback and complaints | Compliant |
| 24 Nov 2022 | Site Audit | – | – | Human resources | Non-compliant |
| 24 Nov 2022 | Site Audit | – | – | Organisational governance | Compliant |
Accreditation & assessment timeline
11 events · AI report insights nested where analysed
- Assessment contact (performance assessment) – sitesource ↗
- Assessment contact Performance Report
An assessment contact was conducted with this service on 31 January 2024. The attached Performance Report details the assessment of performance against the Aged Care Quality Standards following the assessment contact.
source ↗ - Accreditation decision
Following a site audit conducted on 26 September 2022 to 29 September 2022, the Commission made a decision on 24 November 2022 to re-accredit this service. The period of accreditation of the service will expire on 24 November 2025.
source ↗ - Site Auditsource ↗
AI report insightsAI-extracted · qwen2.5:32b
The service was compliant with most standards, but non-compliant in areas related to personal care and clinical care (managing high impact risks), services for daily living (meal quality and variety), and human resources (workforce planning). The report highlights the need for improvements in these specific areas.
Standard 1 Consumer dignity and choiceCompliant
Consumers felt respected, culturally safe, supported to exercise choices, and their privacy was maintained.
- Met Requirement 1(3)(a) — Staff made consumers feel accepted, valued, and respected their culture.
- Met Requirement 1(3)(b) — Consumers felt culturally safe with physical, spiritual, cultural, and social needs catered for.
- Met Requirement 1(3)(c) — Staff supported consumers to exercise choice and independence in care planning and daily activities.
- Met Requirement 1(3)(d) — Consumers felt the service supported their choices to engage in risky activities.
- Met Requirement 1(3)(e) — Staff provided current and accurate information communicated clearly to consumers.
- Met Requirement 1(3)(f) — Consumers' privacy was respected, and personal information was kept confidential.
Standard 2 Ongoing assessment and planning with consumersCompliant
Assessment and planning processes identified consumer needs, goals, preferences, and involved the consumer in care decisions.
- Met Requirement 2(3)(a) — Care planning documents showed risks to health and well-being were considered.
- Met Requirement 2(3)(b) — Assessment and planning addressed consumer needs, goals, preferences including advance care planning.
- Met Requirement 2(3)(c) — Consumers were involved in assessment and planning with other organizations as needed.
- Met Requirement 2(3)(d) — Outcomes of assessments were communicated to consumers and documented.
- Met Requirement 2(3)(e) — Care planning documents showed regular reviews for effectiveness or changes in circumstances.
Standard 3 Personal care and clinical careNon-compliant
Personal and clinical care was safe, effective, tailored to needs, but there were issues with managing high impact risks.
- Met Requirement 3(3)(a) — Care planning documents showed best practice care and tailored services.
- Not met Requirement 3(3)(b) — Issues with managing weight loss, catheter care, and falls management were identified.
- Met Requirement 3(3)(c) — End-of-life care was recognized and addressed to maximize comfort and preserve dignity.
- Met Requirement 3(3)(d) — Deterioration or changes in consumer conditions were promptly identified and responded to.
- Met Requirement 3(3)(e) — Information about condition, needs, and preferences was documented and communicated effectively.
- Met Requirement 3(3)(f) — Timely referrals to specialists and allied health practitioners were made.
- Met Requirement 3(3)(g) — Policies for infection control and antimicrobial stewardship were implemented.
Risks: Continuing weight loss despite referrals to dieticians.; Lack of catheter care directives in planning documents.; Unwitnessed falls not managed according to policy.
Standard 4 Services and supports for daily livingNon-compliant
Services met consumer needs, promoted well-being, but there were issues with meal quality and variety.
- Met Requirement 4(3)(a) — Consumers felt their daily living needs were met.
- Met Requirement 4(3)(b) — Services promoted emotional, spiritual, and psychological well-being.
- Met Requirement 4(3)(c) — Consumers could participate in community activities and maintain social connections.
- Met Requirement 4(3)(d) — Information about condition, needs, and preferences was communicated effectively.
- Met Requirement 4(3)(e) — Timely referrals to external providers were made.
- Not met Requirement 4(3)(f) — Consumers expressed dissatisfaction with meal quality and variety.
- Met Requirement 4(3)(g) — Equipment was safe, clean, well-maintained, and suitable for use.
Risks: Limited meal options and alternatives were available.
Standard 5 Organisation’s service environmentCompliant
The service environment was welcoming, safe, clean, well-maintained, and comfortable.
- Met Requirement 5(3)(a) — Consumers felt a sense of belonging and independence.
- Met Requirement 5(3)(b) — The service was safe, clean, well-maintained, comfortable, and enabled free movement.
- Met Requirement 5(3)(c) — Furniture and equipment were suitable, clean, well-maintained, and safe.
Standard 6 Feedback and complaintsCompliant
Consumers felt encouraged to provide feedback and make complaints, which were addressed promptly.
- Met Requirement 6(3)(a) — Feedback and complaint processes were in place.
- Met Requirement 6(3)(b) — Consumers knew about advocates, language services, and other methods for raising complaints.
- Met Requirement 6(3)(c) — Appropriate action was taken in response to complaints with an open disclosure process.
- Met Requirement 6(3)(d) — Feedback and complaints were reviewed for quality improvement.
Standard 7 Human resourcesNon-compliant
Workforce was planned but insufficient to deliver safe and quality care, though interactions with consumers were respectful.
- Not met Requirement 7(3)(a) — Staff shortages impacted the delivery of safe and quality care.
- Met Requirement 7(3)(b) — Workforce interactions were kind, caring, and respectful.
- Met Requirement 7(3)(c) — Staff had the qualifications and knowledge to perform their roles effectively.
- Met Requirement 7(3)(d) — Workforce was recruited, trained, equipped, and supported for safe care delivery.
- Met Requirement 7(3)(e) — Performance reviews were being completed or scheduled.
Risks: Insufficient staff to provide adequate care, leading to consumer and staff concerns.
Standard 8 Organisational governanceCompliant
Consumers were engaged in service development, the governing body promoted quality care, and effective governance systems were in place.
- Met Requirement 8(3)(a) — Consumers were engaged in service development.
- Met Requirement 8(3)(b) — The governing body promoted a culture of safe, inclusive care and was accountable for its delivery.
- Met Requirement 8(3)(c) — Effective governance systems were in place for information management, continuous improvement, financial governance, workforce governance, regulatory compliance, feedback, and complaints.
- Met Requirement 8(3)(d) — Risk management systems addressed high impact risks, abuse prevention, incident management.
- Met Requirement 8(3)(e) — Clinical governance framework included antimicrobial stewardship and open disclosure policies.
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.
- Exceptional Circumstances
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 25 May 2023. The service remains subject to compliance monitoring by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.
source ↗ - Site audit Performance Report
A site audit was conducted with this service on 26 September 2022 to 29 September 2022. The attached Performance Report details the assessment of performance against the Aged Care Quality Standards following the site audit.
source ↗ - Exceptional Circumstances
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 25 November 2022. The service remains subject to compliance monitoring by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.
source ↗ - Exceptional Circumstances
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 25 May 2022. The service remains subject to compliance monitoring by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.
source ↗ - Exceptional Circumstances
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 25 November 2021. The service remains subject to compliance monitoring by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.
source ↗ - Assessment
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 25 May 2021.
source ↗ - Assessment
This is a new home and is accredited for one year until 25 May 2018. We made the decision on 25 May 2017.
source ↗
Regulatory actions
0 recorded
No regulatory actions recorded.