The outline opens with a scene many providers will recognise: a Friday afternoon call from an anxious daughter asking why her mum’s “no showers after dinner” preference has been ignored—again. The point isn’t blame. It’s the system: the preference was in one file, the family contact notes in another, and the life story that explains the anxiety lived nowhere staff could actually see. From there, the post steps into the New Aged Care Act (commencing 1 November 2025) and the Strengthened Quality Standards, arguing that compliance will increasingly hinge on continuity of identity—not just completion of tasks.

1) The quiet crisis: ‘fragmentation of the person’ in aged care services

Across many aged care services, a quiet crisis sits underneath day-to-day tasks: the “Fragmentation of the Person”. In task-based systems, an older person’s identity is broken into separate “bits” that live in different places. Staff may know how to complete care tasks, but still miss what makes that person feel safe, respected, and in control. This is the opposite of person-centred care, which depends on identity, choice, and continuity being visible and usable in everyday work.

What “Fragmentation of the Person” looks like on the floor

Fragmentation is not usually caused by poor intent. It is caused by systems that store information in silos, forcing staff to hunt for context. A common three-way split looks like this:

On the ground, this shows up as:

• handover notes that carry “critical context” because the system doesn’t
• paper folders that are out of date by the time they are filed
• unsearchable PDFs where key wishes are buried
• staff relying on memory or “asking the daughter again”

The human cost for Older People: dignity becomes conditional

When identity and preferences are scattered, Older People can experience distress that looks “behavioural”, but is often a predictable response to being misunderstood. A missed routine (how someone likes to wake up, shower, eat, or be addressed) can quickly become agitation, withdrawal, or refusal of care. Patricia Sparrow captures the real test of quality:

"Real quality in aged care shows up in the everyday—when older people don’t have to keep explaining themselves to be treated with dignity."

The family cost: conflict grows in the gaps

Families often carry emotional load when wishes are not recorded clearly or consistently. Disagreements escalate when one sibling believes “Mum wanted this” and another says the opposite—because the service has no single, trusted record of preferences, boundaries, and decision-making roles. Families then repeat information across shifts, which increases frustration and reduces trust.

The staff cost: burnout from holding the system together

Fragmentation pushes staff to become the “integration layer”. They juggle context in their heads, repeat questions, and patch gaps with workarounds. A manager’s sticky note wall can feel like control, but it is a symptom, not a strategy. It signals that the service is relying on informal memory aids instead of a coherent identity system.

Why this matters now: Quality Standards and the Aged Care Act

With rising expectations and a new regulatory model increasing provider accountability, the Quality Standards and the Aged Care Act sharpen the “why now”. Compliance is no longer just about having documents—it is about proving that systems reliably support choice, continuity, and dignity in everyday practice. Fragmented information makes that proof difficult, even when staff are working hard.

2) Why 1 November 2025 changes everything (New Aged Care Act, Strengthened Standards)

1 November 2025 is the sector’s hard reset. The New Aged Act commences on this date, replacing older legislation and lifting expectations from “good intent” to provable, repeatable practice. On the same day, the Strengthened Standards (new Quality Standards) also commence, with seven clearer, more detailed standards. For providers, this is a forcing function: fragmented information and “it’s in someone’s head” workarounds become audit risks, not just operational frustrations.

The New Act: rights, access, and a new baseline

The New Act is built around the rights of older people, supported by a Statement of Rights and clearer expectations about dignity, choice, and safe care. It also aligns with a more consistent pathway into services (a single entry point) and a stronger focus on culturally safe assessment (high level). In practice, this means providers must show how a person’s identity, preferences, and decisions are respected across time—not only at admission or during care plan reviews.

From “values language” to audit reality: show the system

Person-centred care is no longer assessed as a vibe. Auditors will look for operational proof: where information sits, who can see it, how it is updated, and how it travels across shifts and settings. This is where the sector’s “Fragmentation of the Person” becomes visible—life story in one place, care wishes in another, family contacts elsewhere, and key context trapped in verbal handovers.

Janet Anderson: "Regulation doesn’t just ask whether care was done; it asks whether the organisation can reliably prove it, across shifts and across time."

Mapping the 7 Strengthened Quality Standards to practical touchpoints

The Regulatory Model shift: oversight and enforcement are real

The new Regulatory Model increases provider accountability through stronger oversight, including universal registration, a clearer Code Conduct, and whistle-blower protections. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission is also strengthened, with more power for system oversight, enforcement action, and fines. This changes the risk profile: gaps in documentation, unclear consent, and inconsistent communication can quickly become reportable issues.

Mini-scenario: “If it’s not findable, it didn’t happen”

A resident’s daughter says her father’s shower preferences were ignored. Staff recall the conversation, but it was recorded in a progress note on one shift, while the care plan still shows the old routine. The auditor asks for evidence of the preference, when it changed, who approved it, and how it was communicated. If the organisation cannot produce a single, coherent record, the finding is not about kindness—it is about system reliability.

3) Audit readiness that doesn’t feel like a theatre production for the Residential Community, Home Care or Seniors Living Clients

Aged care audit readiness should not mean a last-minute clean-up where folders are polished and staff rehearse answers. Under the Aged Care Act and the Quality Standards, auditors are looking for proof that systems protect older people’s rights, choice and safety every day—not just on audit week. A practical way to get there is to treat audit preparation as a pre-audit reality check, using the Person-Centred Infrastructure Audit Checklist as a test of continuity, not a test of effort.

A pre-audit checklist that spots fragmentation early

The checklist is designed to show where the “Fragmentation of the Person” is happening—when identity, preferences and essential information are split across places and people. It focuses on six high-signal indicators. If an organisation answers “yes” to several, it usually points to continuity failures in the system (not staff caring less).

• Identity beyond care needs: Do residents have a structured way to share who they are, not just what tasks they need?
• Repeat info: Do family members have to repeat the same information across shifts or teams?
• Verbal handover reliance: Do staff rely on verbal handovers for essential context?
• Scattered documentation: Is key information spread across multiple systems, files or folders?
• Family disagreements: Do disputes arise because wishes were not clearly recorded or easy to find?
• Rigid procedures: Are procedures limiting autonomy when a resident could safely choose differently?

Professor Linda Kristjanson: "Continuity is a safety issue and a dignity issue—people shouldn’t disappear into paperwork just because care gets busy."

Why “yes” answers are a systems problem (and how to fix them)

When information is scattered, staff compensate by memorising details, chasing family, and leaning on verbal updates. That increases risk, drives burnout, and adds cost through rework. The fix is not more reminders—it is better design: an integrated model with clear boundaries that still keeps all facets of a person under one coherent identity.

A simple conversion rule helps turn checklist findings into action:

• One field: capture each key detail once (e.g., preferred morning routine, decision-maker, cultural needs).
• One owner: assign who maintains it (resident where possible, otherwise a nominated family member or key worker).
• One workflow: define how updates flow to everyone who needs them, with permission-based access.

This is where platforms like Evaheld act as quiet infrastructure: a single structure for story and identity, care wishes and preferences, and essential documents—without turning person-centred care into extra admin. The “Rooms” approach (Personal, Care, Essentials) supports privacy and autonomy while improving shared understanding.

Run a shadow audit using real resident journeys (not policy binders)

For Quality Standards assessment, a “shadow audit” is often more useful than reading policies. Follow one resident journey end-to-end: entry, Single Assessment and referrals, first week, a change in condition, a family concern, and a preference update. Track where information is captured, repeated, lost, or delayed.

Informally, the most useful audit tool is often an honest morning tea conversation: ask staff and families where they waste time searching, repeating, or guessing. Those answers usually map directly to the six checklist indicators—and to the system fixes that make audit readiness real.

4) Building a ‘single identity spine’ (without turning life into a file)

Fragmented care often starts with fragmented information. In many Aged Care Services, an Older Person’s story sits in one place, care preferences in another, and key contacts somewhere else again. Staff then rely on memory, verbal handovers, or “who knows them best”. This is not a people problem—it is a systems problem.

Person-centred care principle: integrate what must be shared, protect what must be private

A practical operational principle is simple: unify the facets of a person under one coherent identity, while keeping necessary boundaries clear. This is how person-centred care becomes real day-to-day, not just a value statement.

A useful mental model is:

• Identity spine: the stable “who I am” information that supports dignity, culture, relationships, and continuity.
• Care layer: routines, preferences, and care wishes that guide safe, consistent support.
• Essentials layer: critical contacts, documents, and instructions needed in urgent or high-risk moments.

Operationalising respect: staff can see routines, without accessing private memories

Respect is not vague. It can be built into the system design. For example, staff should be able to quickly see routine preferences (wake time, shower choice, food dislikes, how the person likes to be addressed) without being taken into private family history that the resident has not chosen to share.

This aligns with the Statement Rights under the Aged Care Act reforms: Older People have the right to dignity, choice, and control—including choice about information sharing. It also supports culturally safe practice, where identity and cultural needs are recorded clearly and used consistently, rather than being “rediscovered” each shift.

Permission-based sharing: the practical fix for intergenerational expectations

Families often want access and clarity. Older People often want privacy and control. Permission-based sharing resolves this without conflict by making consent visible and workable.

Megan Corbett: "A good consent model lets older people be generous with their story without being exposed by it."

Hypothetical example: a resident wants their war stories shared with staff to build connection, but does not want details of a past divorce shared. A good system can hold both truths—warmth and boundaries—without staff guessing.

Make “structure” a kindness: what to capture, who updates it, when to review

Structure reduces re-telling, prevents arguments, and lowers staff stress. A single identity spine can include simple fields such as preferred name, cultural identity, key relationships, “what matters to me”, communication needs, and “do not share” topics. The care layer holds daily routines and choices. The essentials layer holds contacts, substitute decision-maker details, and key documents.

Updates should be shared work: residents (where possible) and families contribute; staff confirm what is used in practice. Reviews should be triggered at admission, return from hospital, and each care conference, so the record stays current as autonomy and decision-making change.

5) Evaheld as ‘quiet infrastructure’: Rooms, permissions, and less admin

Under the new regulatory model, provider accountability is no longer mainly about having policies on file. It is about proving that the service can deliver consistent, person-centred support across shifts, teams, and settings. With the Strengthened Quality Standards applying from 1 November 2025, residential aged care systems will be tested on whether they can protect identity, choice, and continuity in a way that is repeatable and auditable—not dependent on “who happens to be on”.

That is where Evaheld is positioned as quiet infrastructure: not a nice-to-have add-on, but the missing operational layer that holds the person together. It does this by organising information into Evaheld Rooms—clear, practical spaces that stop the classic scatter across folders, handovers, and disconnected software.

“When identity lives in the workflow—not in someone’s memory—you stop losing the person every time the roster changes.” — Dane Douglass

Evaheld Rooms: three bundles that match real work

Evaheld’s architecture is simple on purpose. It unifies three core content types—without forcing everything into one messy file:

• Personal Room (story/identity/legacy): what matters to the person, their background, culture, relationships, values, and the details that help staff connect without guessing.
• Health & Care Room (routines/preferences/care wishes): daily rhythms, communication preferences, “how I like things done”, and care wishes that support consumer-directed care and relationship-centred practice.
• Essentials Room (critical contacts/documents/instructions): key contacts, important documents, and practical instructions that reduce delays and confusion when decisions are needed.

This structure directly addresses fragmentation: life story in one place, care preferences in another, and documents somewhere else again. Instead, the three Rooms create instantly accessible information that is also evolvable—able to change as the person’s needs, wishes, and family roles change.

Permissions that reduce conflict and protect autonomy

In many services, family conflict is made worse by unclear access: one person has too much control, another has none, and staff are stuck mediating. Evaheld uses sophisticated permission-based sharing so the resident (and authorised representatives) can decide who sees what, and where.

That supports autonomy while still enabling safe care. For example, a family member may need access to the Essentials Room for contacts and documents, but not the resident’s private reflections in the Personal Room. This clarity helps meet Quality Standards expectations around dignity, choice, and psychosocial support, while also reducing complaints driven by “we were never told” or “we weren’t allowed to see it”.

Why rostering and meds platforms can’t carry identity

Most residential aged care systems are built for tasks: rosters, progress notes, medication charts, incidents. They are necessary, but they are not designed to hold identity, legacy, and nuanced preferences in a way that is easy to find and safe to share. Staff then rely on verbal handovers and personal memory—high risk under stronger provider accountability.

Evaheld’s promise is operational: unify story + wishes + docs in a permission-based structure without increasing administrative overhead. When the right information is in the right Room, staff spend less time searching, re-asking families, and rewriting the same context—reducing burnout and improving continuity.

6) Ageing as a long transition, not a care episode (and why families feel it)

Many Aged Care Services still run like ageing is a short “care episode”: an assessment, a plan, a set of tasks, then repeat. Families feel the gap because real ageing is a long transition. It includes changing identity, shifting roles, and ongoing decisions that do not fit neatly into forms or shift handovers. In a Residential Community, the risk is not poor intent—it is fragmented information that breaks continuity and leaves Older People having to “start again” with each new staff member or system.

From maintenance provider to life-transition partner

A person-centred care model treats the organisation as a life-transition partner. That means building systems that hold the person’s story, preferences, and decision-making boundaries in one coherent place—so support stays consistent even when staff change. This also aligns with the sector’s Statement of Principles: valuing workers, supporting carers, and building a sustainable, resilient system. When information is clear and shared properly, staff spend less time chasing context, and families spend less time correcting misunderstandings.

The 8 transitions families are living through (often all at once)

• Independence → supported living: routines change, and small losses of control can feel big.
• Redefinition of identity: “patient” or “resident” can start to replace “teacher”, “parent”, “neighbour”.
• Autonomy and decision-making shifts: who speaks, who signs, and what consent looks like day to day.
• Evolving family roles: siblings renegotiate responsibilities, often under stress.
• Cultural and generational expectations: different views on privacy, authority, and “good care”.
• Adult child → carer: grief, guilt, and vigilance can sit under every phone call.
• Legacy building through storytelling: values and life lessons become practical guidance, not nostalgia.
• Late-life meaning and relationships: friendships, faith, purpose, and belonging continue to develop.

“Who decides what?” is not a family problem—it’s a system problem

Conflict often starts when wishes are recorded in one place, contacts in another, and daily preferences are passed on verbally. Younger family members may expect digital access and quick clarity, while Older People may want tighter privacy and control. Person-centred care works when systems allow permission-based sharing: staff can see what they need for safe support, families can see what they need for peace of mind, and the older person stays in charge of what is shared.

Legacy as living guidance (not end-of-life admin)

Legacy is not just a folder for “later”. It is living identity: stories, beliefs, cultural practices, and “how Mum wants things done”. When captured early and kept current, it reduces repeated questions, supports consistent care, and helps families make decisions with less doubt.

Wild card analogy: the airport ground crew

Good aged care is less like a hero pilot and more like airport ground crew: safe handovers, clear signals, and the right information in the right hands. Heroics are unreliable; infrastructure is dependable.

Michael Bryant: "Trust is operational—families relax when the system makes the next right thing obvious."

That is the trust equation families respond to: transparency + continuity beats sentiment every time.

7) Clinical Care and Food Nutrition: where identity meets risk (and dinner)

Under the strengthened Quality Standards, Clinical Care and Food Nutrition sit side by side for a reason: meals are where health risk, daily routine, and identity collide. When a person’s “normal” is visible (how they eat, when they eat, what they refuse, what comforts them), clinical decisions become safer and less reactive. When that information is scattered across files, handovers, and kitchen notes, staff are forced to guess—and the resident wears the cost.

Cherie Hugo: “Meals are clinical, cultural and emotional all at once—systems that treat them as ‘just catering’ miss the person.”

Why Clinical Care improves when “baseline normal” is easy to find

Many incidents start as small changes: reduced appetite, coughing with fluids, weight loss, constipation, or refusing tablets. If staff can quickly see baseline preferences and routines (for example, “only eats after morning shower” or “won’t drink cold water”), they can respond early and document clearly. This supports escalation to the right Allied Health input—dietitian, speech pathologist, or OT—without waiting for a crisis.

Food Nutrition is not just compliance—it’s autonomy and dignity

Food Nutrition is often treated as a checklist: calories, supplements, and a menu cycle. But Nutritional Needs are met best when providers partner with the person on food preferences, not impose them. Culture, faith, appetite, and timing matter. A texture-modified diet may be clinically required, but the dining experience still needs choice: flavours, familiar dishes, and the right level of assistance.

Common friction point: Dining Experiences vs rigid procedures

A frequent failure is when procedures override the person. Examples include serving everyone at the same time, removing culturally preferred foods “because it’s not on the menu”, or insisting on a dining room seat that increases distress. These rigid approaches can reduce intake, increase behaviours of concern, and create family conflict—especially when families feel they must repeat the same information every shift.

Allied Health continuity: notes that must travel with the person

Allied Health recommendations often sit in separate systems. Continuity improves when dietitian goals, speech path texture and fluid levels, and OT routines (positioning, adaptive cutlery, pacing) are stored in a shared “Care Room” style structure—permission-based, current, and visible at point of care, including during care conferences.

Mini-check: what’s documented vs what happens at meal times

• Documented: texture level and fluids vs Observed: correct meal delivered and supervised.
• Documented: cultural/religious needs vs Observed: real menu choices offered.
• Documented: assistance level vs Observed: enough time, dignity, and positioning.
• Documented: weight/appetite monitoring vs Observed: action taken when intake drops.

8) Provider accountability without punishing the frontline

Provider Accountability under the Aged Care Act: risk shifts to systems, governance and proof

Under the strengthened Aged Care Act and the evolving Regulatory Model, Provider Accountability is less about individual mistakes and more about whether the organisation can show safe, consistent systems. The expectation is clear: providers must demonstrate how identity, choice and continuity are supported day to day—not just state it in policies. This is where many services feel the pressure, because “proof” often sits across scattered documents, informal workarounds, and verbal knowledge held by long-term staff.

The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (often referred to as the Safety Commission) has strengthened powers for System Oversight. That means audits and monitoring increasingly test whether the service can reliably deliver the Quality Standards across shifts, sites and staff changes. If continuity depends on “ask Mary, she knows”, the risk sits with the provider—not the person rostered on.

Continuity of information reduces reliance on verbal handovers

Fragmented information is a hidden driver of incidents, complaints and burnout. When life story sits in one place, care preferences in another, and family contacts in a third, staff are forced to patch together context under time pressure. Better structure reduces dependence on verbal handovers by making essential knowledge findable, permissioned and current.

Tools like Evaheld are positioned as infrastructure for this: a single identity-based record with clear boundaries (Personal, Care and Essentials “Rooms”), so staff can access what they need without overstepping privacy. This supports audit readiness because the service can show how information is captured, shared and updated—without adding more admin.

Code of Conduct and whistle-blower protections signal a maturing sector

The strengthened Code of Conduct, alongside Whistle-Blower Protections and moves toward universal registration, are signals that the sector is maturing. The intent is to lift safety and trust by making it safer to speak up early, before harm escalates. For providers, this reinforces the need for clear reporting pathways, consistent documentation, and a culture where raising concerns is treated as risk control—not disloyalty.

Rhonda Parker: "Accountability doesn’t mean catching people out—it means designing a system where doing the right thing is the easiest thing."

A no-blame implementation approach: fix structure first, then train

A practical approach is to remove system friction before asking staff to “do better”. Quality teams often inherit a mess not of their making: legacy forms, duplicated fields, unclear permissions, and processes built around old software limits.

1. Fix forms: remove duplicates, standardise key fields (preferences, decision-makers, escalation notes).
2. Add triggers: prompts for review after hospital return, behaviour change, family conflict, or new diagnosis.
3. Set permissions: define who can view/edit what, aligned to privacy and autonomy.
4. Then train: short, role-based training focused on “where to find” and “how to update”.

Lightweight KPIs that show accountability without blaming staff

9) A practical rollout plan: from scattered docs to shared continuity

Under the Aged Care Act and the Quality Standards, continuity is not a “nice to have”. It is the basic infrastructure that makes person-centred care real across residential aged care systems, home support, and every Residential Community. The rollout should start where pain is loudest: admissions, returns from hospital, and the end-of-week family calls where everyone is trying to piece together what matters, what changed, and who agreed to what.

Start with the moments that break continuity

Many people first enter the system after eligibility for an aged care assessment from age 65, often while still living at home. Access is now simpler across homes, community, and residential settings, but information still gets split as people move between services. A practical rollout targets these transition points so home care continuity is not lost the moment someone enters respite or permanent care.

Step-by-step: from inventory to review

1. Inventory current systems: list every place “core person information” sits—paper files, care plans, progress notes, admin folders, handover sheets, and family emails.
2. Choose a single source of truth: decide where identity, preferences, and essentials will live so staff stop relying on verbal handovers for context.
3. Set permissions: protect privacy while enabling access. Staff should see routines and care wishes without needing private family memories.
4. Train for real shifts: train around admissions, hospital return, and weekend roster gaps, not ideal scenarios.
5. Review and tighten: after four weeks, check what is still being duplicated, missed, or argued about.

In many services, Evaheld fits as the missing operational layer because it unifies story, wishes, and documents without adding heavy admin. Its “Rooms” model supports clear boundaries: Personal Room (identity and story), Care Room (routines and preferences), and Essentials Room (contacts and critical documents), with permission-based sharing.

Define roles so information stays current

Continuity fails when “everyone” is responsible. The resident and/or family should curate identity and life story (with support if needed). The RN, care coordinator, or case manager should update care preferences and care wishes, because these link directly to risk, consent, and daily practice in residential aged care systems and in-home services.

Make it routine: the quarterly Resident Profile Day

This short check-in keeps identity current, captures changing preferences, and reduces “surprises” that trigger complaints or distress.

Escalation pathways for family disagreement

When families disagree, the service needs a clear pathway: record the resident’s wishes in the agreed source of truth, document who was consulted, and set a review date. Clear recording reduces conflict because staff are not forced to interpret competing stories during a busy arvo shift.

Kate Swaffer: “When a person’s story is treated as core information, care stops being a sequence of tasks and becomes a relationship with context.”

The central promise is simple: shared continuity protects dignity and saves time. When identity, preferences, and essentials are structured and accessible, the Residential Community runs with less friction, families repeat themselves less, and staff can focus on care rather than chasing context.

A Final Word — And the Right Next Step

What this guide makes clear is simple: the expectations placed on organisations have already changed.

Across generations and life stages, people now expect the organisations they trust to respect autonomy, preserve truth, and support continuity through life’s transitions — not merely deliver services, products, or care. This shift is no longer emerging. It is already shaping trust, reputation, and long-term relationships.

For organisations, this creates both a new responsibility and a new risk.

When life transitions are unsupported, people fill the gap informally. Context is held in conversations, inboxes, and memory. Boundaries blur. Trust becomes fragile. Well-intentioned support turns into exposure.

The purpose of this guide was not to persuade. It was to make visible what is already happening — and to offer a clearer, more ethical alternative.

If the reflections and diagnostics in these pages have highlighted gaps in how your organisation currently supports people through change, the next step is not a product demo or a sales discussion. The next step is clarity.

We offer a confidential partner briefing to examine what life-transition infrastructure looks like inside your specific professional, organisational, or care context. This includes where clear boundaries must sit, what should never be held by your team, and how autonomy and consent are preserved at every point.

In that briefing, we explore:

• how this framework integrates alongside your existing workflows without expanding scope, responsibility, or liability;
• how structured, opt-in support can be introduced in a way that strengthens trust rather than dependency; and
• how Evaheld’s partner infrastructure — including dashboards, oversight, analytics, automated support, and emergency-readiness capabilities — enables continuity for the people you serve without creating administrative, emotional, or ethical burden for your organisation.

This is not a sales presentation. It is a continuation of the thinking this guide has begun, applied carefully, responsibly, and with intent.

To arrange a briefing, contact the Evaheld Partnerships team at [email protected].

Experience the Evaheld Legacy Vault

To understand the human experience this infrastructure supports, you are invited to explore the Evaheld Legacy Vault — the environment your clients, patients, residents, members, or families use directly.

This allows you to see how personal story, values, care preferences, and essential information are organised into clear, permission-based Rooms, with individuals in full control of what is shared, when, and with whom.

Behind this experience sits Evaheld’s partner platform, providing your organisation with structured oversight, analytics, management, automation, and emergency-readiness — without exposing teams to personal content.

Explore the Evaheld Legacy Vault

No setup. No obligation. Explore at your own pace.

Evaheld exists to provide the infrastructure that allows organisations to honour life — not just manage it.

TL;DR: Aged care under the New Aged Care Act (from 1 Nov 2025) and Strengthened Quality Standards will reward providers who fix information fragmentation. Build a single, permission-based resident identity structure (story + wishes + essentials), use an audit checklist before the auditors do, and treat aged care as a life-transition partnership. Platforms like Evaheld (Personal/Care/Essentials Rooms) can cut family conflict, reduce staff burnout and improve provider accountability—without adding admin.