1 Person-Centred Planning Processes in Action: A Description and Analysis of processes used to...
-
Upload
hilda-glenn -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Person-Centred Planning Processes in Action: A Description and Analysis of processes used to...
1
Person-Centred Planning
Processes in Action:A Description and Analysis of
processes used to implement person centred planning in a residential centre
2
Research Questions
• What are the implementation processes of St. Vincent’s Approach to Care?
• What appear to be the strongest and weakest aspects of these processes?
• What, if any, are the barriers to successful implementation of the processes?
3
RESEARCH DESIGN
Review of the literature on PCP Q uestionnaire Instrum ent Holburn et al (2000)
Instrum ent required adaptation
Focus Group Interview N=10
Analysis of data- Form ulisation of 1st draft of IPPCPS
1st Draft of IPPCPS distributed - Pilot Study- N=21
Further Adaptation of Q uestionnaire Instrum ent
Final Draft of IPPCPS Instrum ent distributed -M ain Study- N=147
N=103 com pleted IPPCPS inputted into SPSS Statistical Package-Process Analysis of Data
4
IPPCPS Instrument• Section A:Organisational Framework.
• Section B: Personal Planning.
• Section C:Collaboration.
• Section D:Spirituality.
• Section E: Demographic data of respondents
5
Presentation of Significant Findings
Carestaff 18 P.E. Teacher 1
Speech Therapist 1 CNM2 8
Named Nurse Unit Based 53 Psychologist 2
Occupational Therapist 5 Social Worker 1
Named Nurse Day Service 9 CNM3 3
Psychiatrist 1 Manager 1
Total 103
No of respondents and relationship with service user
6
Section A: Organisational Framework
•The study found that a number of core systematic processes were employed across nearly the entire organisation, which could be conducive to person-centred planning.
7
A Lack of systematic processes were found:
• An advocate is the least proposed person to be at IPP meetings.
• Extra funding is seldom made available enabling the service user achieve his/her outcomes.
• Most nurses have had training in person-centred planning whereas only a few multidisciplinary team members and care staff attended training sessions.
• Responses varied in agreement relating to the presence of a skilled facilitator guiding the group in creating a common vision for the service user.
8
Section B:Personal Planning (Significant Findings)
• Staff place more emphasis on identifying priorities and setting goals than identifying preferences and perspectives of the service user.
• Priorities are set and goals are achieved to the relative neglect of taking the service users preferences and perspectives into account. – Interestingly
• Staff who had attended training sessions in spiritual awareness/ reflective learning tended to place more emphasis on identifying preferences and perspectives of the service user.
9
identifying outcomes(2)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
alw
ays
usua
lly
50%
of t
ime
seld
om
neve
r
mis
sing
%of
res
pond
ents
N=1
03
Personal outcomes aredefined by the person
evidence is availabledetermining how theperson defined his/heroutcomes
10
Cross Tabulation:Identifying Outcomes
• Highest numbers of nurses report that evidence is available determining how the person has defined his/her outcomes
• In contrast:
• Highest numbers of the multidisciplinary team members report evidence is rarely available.
11
Processes supporting the achievement of personal outcomes
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% o
f res
pond
ents
N=1
03
The service specif ically applies itspolicies and procedures to enablethis person to achieve his/heroutcomes
The person and/or those w ho knowhim/her best make decisions aboutboth major and minor uses ofresources
The person and/or those w ho knowhim /her best about major & minoruses of funding
A copy of the minutes of Individualprogramme meetings are sent tofamily
contributions of supportingmembers concentrate on w hat'simportant for the person from theperson's perspective
12
Collaborationinformation sharing across disciplines
020406080
100el
ectr
onic
mea
ns
pers
onal
file
care
plan
% o
f res
pond
ents
TRUE
uncertain
not true
missing
13
Variations in Responses:• More clinical nurse managers and named nurses
unit based have more beliefs regarding a service users preferences and perspectives of quality of life issues than multidisciplinary team members, named nurses day service and care staff
• More nurses and care staff report that evidence is available determining how the person has identified his/her outcomes than multidisciplinary team members and managers who report that evidence is rarely available determining how the person identified his/her outcomes.
• Disparities are present relating to whether or not personal outcomes are defined by the person irrespective of his/her level of disability.
14
Highest no’s “Don’t know” Highest no’s • N=28 (27.2%) “don't know” how many personal
friends the service user has.• N=58 (56%) “don't know” if the service user has
a meaningful regularly recurring relationship with another person with L.D. living outside the centre.
• N=46 (45%) “don't know” if the service user has a meaningful regularly recurring relationship with somebody from the community other than family.
• N=29 (28.2%) of staff “don't know” if the service user has access to pets.
• N=42 (40.8%) of staff report that the service user would “properly not” be allowed have an intimate relationship.
15
Recommendations
16
Education
17
Advocacy
18
Get Big Ears and Listen until we HEAR
19
20
Personal Vision -Competent Facilitation
21
Common vision
22
Family Involvement
23
It’s My Money!!!!
24
UNDERSTANDING HOW A PERSON WANTS TO LIVE
COMPARE WITH HOW THEY LIVE NOW
ADDRESS ISSUES OF HEALTH/SAFETY IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW THE
PERSON WANTS TO LIVE
A LIFE THAT MAKES SENSE TO THE
INDIVIDUAL (O’Brien, 2000)
25
Accountability
26
Spirituality -Friendships
27
Terminology- “Nurse”
28
Where Do We Go From Here????
29
30
31