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

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 Carestaff18P.E. Teacher1 Speech Therapist1CNM28 Named Nurse Unit Based53Psychologist2 Occupational Therapist5Social Worker1 Named Nurse Day Service9CNM33 Psychiatrist1Manager1 Total103 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

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

12 Collaboration

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

25 Accountability

26 Spirituality -Friendships

27 Terminology- “Nurse”

28 Where Do We Go From Here????

29

30

31