Top Menu

A ‘moderated Trip Advisor’ could provide useful feedback: CEO

VIDEO: A moderated consumer review site for aged care could provide older people with more information around quality of life, says the head of a leading provider.

Stephen Judd, CEO of HammondCare, said that aged care providers should not be fearful about consumer reviews.

“You might as well not die wondering what people think about your service or how you can improve,” he told the NEWSROOM at the HammondCare International Dementia Conference last week.

“Sometimes the people who’ve had the greatest complaints about a service become your greatest fans, because you’ve addressed the issue,” he said.

A moderated Trip Advisor style website, where consumers could post reviews but the provider also got a chance to respond, could provide useful information to older people, he said.

Dr Judd spoke to the NEWSROOM about the new proposals for further deregulation of aged care, as well as his thoughts on how we move to a more meaningful system of quality:

Brought to you by the NEWSROOM

Brought to you by the NEWSROOM

, , , ,

, , , , ,

5 Responses to A ‘moderated Trip Advisor’ could provide useful feedback: CEO

  1. Dementia Alliance International June 22, 2016 at 11:53 am #

    There is already a very good version of this which consumers can find here:

    http://www.agedcarereportcard.com.au/

  2. Ben Baddis June 22, 2016 at 1:24 pm #

    Ill-informed commentary about what does or doesn’t exist in the market place surrounding Trip Advisor based reviews would be helpful in providing a balanced unbiased view on consumer reporting mechanisms.

    As the CEO of Hammond Care, I would have thought it would have been far more useful from an advisory perspective to give consumers accurate information about other industry players.

    It appears that you are either are unaware of who or what other players exist in the market, or you choose to adopt a biased approach about disseminating accurate information for consumers to form independent views without prejudice on your behalf.

    This is not the first time you have endorsed the concept in the article that was published in the ABC several weeks ago. Here is the link that outlines your recent comments. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-11/dementia-aged-care-advocates-want-trip-advisor-style-platform/7391906

    I’m not sure if there is a hidden agenda for this sudden interest of “Trip Advisor” style reviews sites and why you deliberately have chosen to disregard other proven and established players in the industry. It leaves many unanswered questions open for conjecture.

    I’m not sure if Australian Aged Agenda briefed you about their previous article they wrote on the rise of ratings and reviews in 2015, here it is http://www.australianageingagenda.com.au/2015/01/22/special-report-rise-reviewer/

    It is important to be objective and unbiased in all your dealings, because competition is critical. It appears you are in favour of a monopoly and that’s bot good for consumers and them making the right decisions based on accurate moderated reviews.

    There are other players who do exactly what the Trip Advisor concept you are proposing does and better.

    Consumers look forward to hearing from you 🙂

    Ben

  3. Dementia Alliance International June 22, 2016 at 3:26 pm #

    We definitely agree with you Ben, and do wonder why some are so biased in their commentary and refuse to acknowledge all the players already out there, some doing an excellent job already.

    Reinventing the wheel, or only promoting one player, would appear to indicate the is some hidden interest or agenda, not being discussed.

    If you know of others, please list them here as well.

  4. Tired in the regions June 23, 2016 at 7:57 am #

    I hope this consumer satisfaction methodology will also be applied to MyAgedCare, the RAS, Medicare’s payment system, the Quality Agency and the Department’s own policy-making and reform implementation processes. Let’s have transparency applied to all elements of the system, not just providers.

  5. Dave July 4, 2016 at 6:42 pm #

    It’s really not that hard to formulate a system that provides accurate and relevant information; it’s just hard to stop everyone from tinkering with the data before it’s presented. Providers have no interest in transparency.

    Even the Department website doesn’t provide a complete list of current and historical sanctions and notices of non-compliance. The national quality indicators program, with it’s indecipherable stats and massaged data, continues our long tradition of information filtering and selective omission.

    Do it properly or don’t bother.

Leave a Reply