Fake news: Is media sensationalism impacting aged care’s trustworthiness?

Since the Aged Care Star Ratings system was introduced, mainstream media coverage has often defaulted to headline-grabbing summaries. While such headlines drive clicks and public interest, they often oversimplify the situation and fail to unpack what the ratings actually mean.

Some media outlets have also published “ranking” lists of providers, without context about data limitations or the methodologies used to derive the scores. The most recent example is ‘Every aged care home in Australia ranked on how safe residents feel’. 

In what is penned as an ‘exclusive’ based on the results of a ‘shocking survey’ — My Aged Care, the Star Ratings system and the Residents’ Experience Survey are never directly referenced as the source of the data – the article goes on to say that aged care residents in more than 200 homes across Australia never feel safe.

This can unfairly tarnish the reputation of providers who may be actively improving or who serve high-needs populations that inherently pose more care challenges.

Resident feedback, but not real-time

The data for most of the offending articles is sourced directly from My Aged Care where the general public can search for and compare providers. 

At first glance, the star ratings system appears consumer-friendly: facilities are given an overall score out of five stars, determined by four key subcategories: Compliance, Quality Measures, Residents’ Experience, and Staffing. 

The aim was to create an easy-to-understand metric for families navigating the complex and often emotional decision of choosing aged care. Data is pooled from sources such as Quarterly Quality Indicator reporting and the annual Residents’ Experience Survey.

But just how relevant is it?

The 2024 Residents’ Experience Survey is where the question ‘Do you feel safe here?’ was posed to residents. For context, over 2,400 homes participated in the question, equating to roughly 35,000 individual responses out of at least 450,000 aged care residents. 

In a statement provided to Hello Leaders by a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Aged Care, the department said the Star Ratings data is dynamic and updated daily on the Find a Provider tool of the My Aged Care Website.

While the timing varies for each section and the collection methodology, Residents’ Experience data is collected annually and updated quarterly for surveys that have been completed.

While the Residents’ Experience Survey is an incredibly useful tool for the sector — it’s a positive step toward promoting the voices of older people — information is collected annually and up until the 2025 edition it represented just 10% of residents. From this year onward, 20% of residents will be surveyed. 

This means the data itself could be anywhere from 3 – 12 months’ old and it reflects a small sample of the residential care population. It’s even smaller when the percentage of negative responses are singled out. 

“The Department of Health and Aged Care (the department) notes that approximately 96% of residents responded ‘Always’ or ‘Most of the time’ to the question, ‘Do you feel safe here?’ in the 2024 Residents’ Experience Survey,” the department spokesperson added. 

Media portrayal: Sensationalism vs substance

The Star Ratings system was introduced with good intentions: to empower families with better information. But as it stands, the system oversimplifies, lacks full transparency, and is too vulnerable to misinterpretation, particularly when filtered through the lens of sensationalist media.

“Mainstream media wants to show aged care in the worst light but reinforces this by selectively choosing the data that reflects the worst,” explained Adjunct Professor Rodney Jilek of Aged Care Consulting & Advisory Services Australasia

“The Minister for Aged Care does the complete opposite and designed a system to deliver a politically palatable result that suggests her reforms are working.

“Neither really represents the whole truth and why I always deliver our reports with all the data – I represent ALL facilities in the data table including those where the star rating appears to be accurate.”

It is important to note that Dr Jilek’s criticism of the Star Ratings system is unwavering, but it is built on transparency as per his most recent report “Groundhog Day” The Continuing Failure of the Aged Care Star Rating System shows. We covered this in another story last week. 

Yet without the substance behind its data, mainstream media is arguably missing the mark when it comes to providing older people with reliable information.

For example, a table created by NewsCorp showcases that Yeoval Community Nursing Home has a ‘National Safety Rank’ of 1, a ‘Safety Score’ of 4 and a 4-star Overall Star Rating. 

The Overall Star Rating was most recently updated on February 3, 2025, representing the most accurate data possible. Residents’ Experience data was updated on September 21, 2024, where it achieved a 5-star rating and 100% of surveyed residents said they ‘Always’ feel safe.

There is no context in the table that suggests a Safety Score of 4 equals a 100% response rate, particularly when the star rating is out of 5. Creating a ‘National Safety Score’ is also a relatively crude indicator when it relates to one multiple choice question.

The provider let down by the media

Australian Regional and Remote Community Services (ARRCS), which operates nine aged care sites in the Northern Territory, is a provider who arguably copped the worst coverage. As per the NewsCorp article, “the lowest ranked three homes in the NT are all run by the ARRCS”.

Ultimately, the difference between the “safest home” and the second-lowest performer was just three percentage points: Old Timers received 93% of positive responses and Juninga Centre 90%. 

In response to NewsCorp, ARRCS said it takes the “safety and wellbeing of our residents and staff very seriously”.

“To strengthen how we respond to and learn from incidents, our Workplace Health and Safety team recently completed specialist training to help us better understand what causes incidents and how to prevent them from happening again,” the spokesperson added.

In response to Hello Leaders, ARRCS Chief Executive Officer Wendy Hubbard expressed her thoughts over their portrayal in the NewsCorp article published via NT News.

“The recent article in the NT News, raises concerns about the potential misuse of publicly available data,” Ms Hubbard said.

“It’s important to recognise the limitations of this data, including the very small sample size and inconsistencies between what is gathered locally and what has been published. 

“Additionally, the lack of cultural context in the way these surveys are applied means that important nuances are being overlooked. In regions like the Northern Territory, where cultural safety and understanding are critical to good care, this can lead to deeply misleading conclusions.

“At ARRCS, we remain committed to transparency and continuous improvement, but we also call for fair and responsible use of data — especially when it affects the confidence of the community in our care and the pride of staff who are working hard to support older Australians in complex and remote environments.’

Ms Hubbard also emphasised that ARRCS has not flagged any concerns about resident safety following data releases linked to the Residents’ Experience Survey.

What needs to change?

Gleaming knowledge from lived experience is crucial in aged care as it helps providers determine where improvements are required. It’s why providers should never shy away from complaints or poor survey results as it reveals exactly what residents or clients are lacking.

Unfortunately, the relatively crude nature of the Star Ratings fails to capture the broader picture, at least when one single response is highlighted in an article. And as Dr Jilek added, it doesn’t help when the data itself is often unverified. 

“I agree that it is a crude way to represent data but would argue that it is no worse than the system that selectively chooses residents to provide feedback that the provider knows is going to be overwhelmingly positive, or a system that allows providers to submit unverified data that is not vetted at all by the regulator before being published as fact,” he added.

“The Royal Commission called for a system of transparency and we are still nowhere near that. The general public doesn’t have a hope in hell of making an informed choice based on reliable data when it comes to residential aged care.”

The department did confirm that it undertakes data assurance processes to check self-reported data. This process takes roughly five months and in that time data is not published publicly. The department will seek data resubmission if concerns are flagged.

So what needs to change? Improved data integrity and contextualised media reporting are both essential. So too is the ability to acknowledge data limitations and explain rating components that are essential to informing the general public about the quality of aged care. 

Negative media portrayal can create unnecessary fear among current and future residents and their families. For many Australians, moving into aged care is already an emotionally fraught experience. Sensationalist reporting risks deepening anxiety and distrust in the system, potentially discouraging people from seeking help when needed.

To truly serve the public and improve aged care outcomes, the system needs reform — and so does the way we talk about it.