Goal Setting within Care Environments for Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Effective person-oriented goal setting in care environments is challenging owing to the complexity of the environment, and the requirement of supportive person-centred care. Health and social care settings, such as the community-care sector, aim to holistically address persons’ care needs, however, much of the guidance in the literature focuses explicitly on health. Effective person-centred care should consider all goals of the person, whether these goals focus on career, relationship, and/or health domains. Person-centred care responds to a person’s wants/needs, with a consideration for how these revolve around their goals. However, little is known about how community-care organizations use tools such as person-centred planning (PCP) to meet the needs and goals of persons-supported. Aim and Methods: To understand how a person-centred participatory goal setting process is carried out in a care environment, we used an integrated knowledge translation approach to collaborate with community care leaders. Our co-designed qualitative descriptive research project explored a community-care’s approach to person-centred goal setting in Ontario, Canada. We conducted 11 semi-structured interviews with community-care staff to understand their perspective of the PCP process, including key components, facilitators, barriers, and impacts. Results: The interviews with staff provide a thorough understanding of the PCP process used by the community-care organization from beginning to end, including the creation and implementation of PCPs. Five themes were strongly exemplified in our study: organizational culture, flexibility, accountability, utilizing staff characteristics to their maximum potential, and the positive impacts of PCPs. The PCPs displayed benefits not only for the persons-supported, but for the people who support and surround them, including family, friends, staff, and the wider community. Moreover, our study demonstrates how a community-care organization has been able to balance the needs of the organization and the persons they serve within a government-mandated planning process. Implications: Our study highlights how a community-care organization can facilitate person-centred services through PCPs and has implications for a wider uptake of PCPs amongst individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The outcomes of this project will inform the spread of PCPs in community-care organizations and encourage other professionals to explore the use of PCPs in their own settings. Additionally, PCPs have the potential to be effectively implemented for other vulnerable populations. Next Steps: Future research should explore the use of a flexible framework to guide the use of PCPs in organizations. Moreover, governments should support organizations in evaluating their programs to support the spread of effective programs and to ensure that future implementation can be successful.
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 | 0,012 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».