# 2026 Facility Audit Intelligence Index | Field | Detail | | ------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Type** | Intelligence index — rest home audit and certification framework | | **Status** | Reference | | **Date** | June 2026 | | **Classification** | Neutral business/campaign intelligence | --- ## Purpose This index explains **how rest home audits work in New Zealand**, what to look for in audit reports, and how to use HealthCERT data for provider monitoring and campaign intelligence. It supports the companion files: 1. **`2026 Tracker - Rest Home Audit Reports and Corrective Actions.md`** — Facility-by-facility tracker 2. **`2026 Source Brief - How to Interpret Rest Home Audit Reports.md`** — Detailed interpretive guide --- ## How Rest Home Certification and Audits Work ### Legal Framework Rest homes in New Zealand operate under the **Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2001**. All facilities providing aged residential care must be certified by the Ministry of Health (Manatū Hauora) and audited against the **Ngā Paerewa Health and Disability Services Standard** (formerly NZS 8134:2008). ### Certification Cycle - Facilities are certified for **1 to 4 years** depending on performance - A **certification audit** occurs at the start of each cycle - At least **one unannounced surveillance (spot) audit** occurs mid-cycle - Facilities must reapply for certification before expiry - **Provisional audits** occur on change of ownership - **Partial provisional audits** occur when services expand (e.g., adding hospital-level care) ### Audit Types | Audit Type | Announced? | Purpose | | --------------------------- | ---------------- | ------------------------------------------- | | Certification Audit | Yes (typically) | Full assessment for certification renewal | | Surveillance (Spot) Audit | No (unannounced) | Mid-cycle check on standards maintenance | | Provisional Audit | Yes | New provider taking over facility | | Partial Provisional Audit | Yes | New services, wings, or capacity added | | Ministry Inspection | No (unannounced) | Triggered by serious complaint | | District Issues-Based Audit | Varies | Under ARRC contract; requested by Health NZ | ### Standards Assessed Facilities are audited against **six key outcome areas** under Ngā Paerewa: 1. **Our Rights** — Resident rights, consent, privacy, complaints 2. **Workforce and Structure** — Staffing, training, governance 3. **Pathways to Wellbeing** — Clinical care, activities, nutrition 4. **Person-Centred and Safe Environment** — Safety, environment, equipment 5. **Infection Prevention and Antimicrobial Stewardship** — Infection control, hygiene 6. **Restraint and Seclusion** — Use of restraint, least-restrictive practice ### Attainment Ratings | Rating | Meaning | Implication | | ------------------------------ | ----------------------- | ------------------------------------------ | | **CI** (Continued Improvement) | Exceeds full attainment | Strong performance | | **FA** (Fully Attained) | Meets all requirements | Satisfactory | | **PA** (Partial Attained) | Improvement needed | Most common; corrective action required | | **UA** (Unattained) | Not met | Serious issue; mandatory corrective action | | **NA** (Not Applicable) | Not assessed | Service not provided | ### Corrective Action Requests (CARs) When a facility receives **PA** or **UA** ratings, a **Corrective Action Request** is issued specifying: - The specific criterion not fully met - The action required - The timeframe for correction - Risk rating (Negligible, Low, Moderate, High, Critical) ### Risk Ratings for Findings | Risk Level | Meaning | | ---------- | -------------------------------------- | | Negligible | Minimal impact on resident safety | | Low | Slight potential impact | | Moderate | Noticeable impact on quality of care | | High | Significant risk to resident wellbeing | | Critical | Immediate threat to resident safety | --- ## What to Look For in Audit Reports ### Red Flags (High Risk Indicators) - **High or Critical risk ratings** on any CAR - **Multiple UA (Unattained) ratings** across standards - **Repeat CARs** — same issue appearing in consecutive audits - **Staffing-related CARs** — chronic understaffing patterns - **Restraint-related issues** — inappropriate restraint use - **Infection control breaches** — especially in post-COVID environment - **Complaints handling failures** — systemic complaints issues - **Resident rights violations** — dignity, privacy, consent issues ### Green Flags (Positive Indicators) - **4-year certification** — highest possible certification period - **CI (Continued Improvement) ratings** — exceeding standards - **No or few moderate+ CARs** — clean audit - **Strong resident and family feedback** in interview evidence - **Consistent improvement** across consecutive audits ### Key Questions to Ask 1. What is the certification period? (1 year = red flag; 4 years = strong) 2. How many CARs were issued? What are their risk ratings? 3. Are the same issues appearing in consecutive audits? 4. What do resident interviews reveal about care quality? 5. Is the provider responding to CARs within required timeframes? 6. Has the facility had any Ministry inspections due to complaints? --- ## HealthCERT Database **Source URL:** https://www.health.govt.nz/regulation-legislation/certification-of-health-care-services/certified-providers/rest-homes The Ministry of Health publishes audit reports for all certified rest homes. The database allows searching by: - Facility name - Provider name - Region - Certification status **Important:** The HealthCERT database requires active searching to obtain current reports. The tracker file in this folder (`2026 Tracker - Rest Home Audit Reports and Corrective Actions.md`) contains known data sourced from research — **all entries should be verified against the current HealthCERT database** before use in advocacy or campaign work. --- ## Using This Intelligence ### Campaign Applications - Identify facilities with poor audit outcomes for targeted advocacy - Track corrective action completion rates by provider - Compare provider performance across regions - Identify systemic issues (e.g., staffing across multiple Ryman facilities) ### Submission Preparation - Cite audit findings in submissions on aged care regulation - Use audit data to support arguments for mandatory staffing ratios - Reference Health Committee inquiry findings alongside audit data ### Media Engagement - Identify facilities with concerning patterns for media investigations - Track provider responses to corrective actions - Compare market-leading vs. underperforming providers --- ## Regional Focus This intelligence focuses on five key regions: | Region | Major Providers | Key Concerns | | ----------------- | --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | | **Auckland** | Ryman, Summerset, Oceania, Bupa, Radius | High demand, workforce shortages, property costs | | **Waikato** | Radius, Bupa, Ryman, Heritage | Mixed urban/rural access, workforce challenges | | **Bay of Plenty** | Ryman, Summerset, Arvida, Metlifecare | Rapidly ageing population, retirement destination | | **Wellington** | Ryman, Summerset, Bupa, Oceania | Urban density, hospital interface issues | | **Canterbury** | Ryman, Summerset, Bupa, Heritage | Post-quake rebuild, rural access issues | --- ## Related Intelligence - **Aged Care Funding and Residential Care Tracker** (`07_Bills_Hansard_Votes_and_Questions/2026 Tracker - Aged Care Funding and Residential Care.md`) - **Health Committee Aged Care Inquiry report** (Nov 2025) - **Ngā Paerewa Standards implementation** monitoring - **Individual facility audit reports** from HealthCERT database --- _Part of the NZ Seniors Knowledge Base — Aged Residential Care layer_ _Location: `02 Aged Residential Care/Facility Audit Intelligence/`_ _Last updated: June 2026_