Person‐Centred Plans From the Perspective of Persons‐Supported in a Community Care Setting: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In partnership with PHSS, a community care agency in London, Ontario, we describe the person-centred planning model. Person-centred plans (PCPs) are mandated in the community care sector and created annually through discussions with the person-supported, staff, family/friends and community members. PCPs are individualised, integrated into daily activities and contribute towards larger goals. METHODS: We interviewed 18 persons-supported and one family member. Participants were individuals with developmental, medical, or complex physical needs and supported by PHSS. We explored goals, accomplishments, the individualisation of PCPs, experiences with the process, and supports/barriers. RESULTS: PCPs are tailored to the person-supported's needs and preferences, linked to daily activities, and guide larger goals. PCPs are facilitated by the person-supported's goals and capacity and organisational factors (e.g., funding, staffing). CONCLUSIONS: This study evaluates person-centred planning from the perspectives of persons-supported, providing insights to enhance these processes within community care settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".