Person-Centered Plans from the Perspective of Persons-Supported in a Community Care Organization
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Person-centred plans (PCPs) are widely used in community care organizations and required for service providers in many jurisdictions, but there are very few guidelines, evidence, or formal evaluations of PCP creation and implementation practices. PHSS is a non-profit community-care organization in a large urban city in Ontario, Canada. Objective: To describe person-centred planning and implementation practices from the perspective of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and/or complex medical issues supported by community care organizations. Methods: We are an interdisciplinary team of researchers from Western University who partnered with PHSS. Our project team included community-care providers from PHSS and academic researchers. We involved PHSS staff at all stages of the study design, and persons-supported by PHSS were interviewed as part of the study. As part of a larger study evaluating the PCP process, we interviewed 18 persons-supported and 1 family member of a person-supported by PHSS. We asked participants about their goals, accomplishments, and experiences with the PCP process. We asked about the process used to create PCPs; examples of how the PCP is tailored to the individual; perceived benefits and challenges; and supports or barriers that facilitate or hinder the PCP process. Results: We identified three overall areas of the person-centred planning: 1) the process of creating a PCP, 2) PCP implementation, and 3) factors that support the creation and implementation of PCPs. PCPs are created annually with check-ins after 6 months. They are created through discussion with the person-supported, the staff who support them, friends, family, and community members. The PCP is shaped by the person-supported’s attributes including their likes, dislikes, and goals. PCPs could include different types of goals such as health-related goals, goals for daily living, and goals for hobbies and interests. The PCP goals are tracked both formally and informally. The process of creating the PCP is individualized and adaptable and centers the person-supported. The PCP creates a blueprint for daily activities with staff assisting persons-supported to participate in activities that align with goals and match preferences, personalities and capacities. Factors that facilitate the success of the PCP process include the nature of the person-supported’s goals, the person-supported’s capacity (i.e., physical and mental health status), and the organizational capacity (i.e., funding, staffing, organizational culture, and organizational infrastructure). Conclusions: This project offers a description of person-centred planning to improve standards of care and health equity for persons-supported by community-care organizations. Our next steps are to integrate findings from this study with findings from the other components of our project and to disseminate findings through knowledge translation strategies appropriate to the PHSS organization, other relevant community organizations, and policy stakeholders. Our findings will inform PCP process design and implementation for community care organizations both within Canada and globally. This project provides evidence for how person-centred planning can incorporate different types of goals and how those goals are translated into everyday supports for persons-supported in community care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,018 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».