Search results

This study aims to describe how person-centred care, as a concept, has been adopted into discourse in 23 European countries in relation to their healthcare systems (Beveridge, Bismarck, out of pocket).

A literature review inspired by the SPICE model, using both scientific studies (CINHAL, Medline, Scopus) and grey literature (Google), was conducted. A total of 1,194 documents from CINHAL (n = 139), Medline (n = 245), Scopus (n = 493) and Google (n = 317) were analysed for content and scope of person-centred care in each country. Countries were grouped based on healthcare systems.

Results from descriptive statistics (percentage, range) revealed that person-centred care was most common in the United Kingdom (n = 481, 40.3%), Sweden (n = 231, 19.3%), the Netherlands (n = 80, 6.7%), Northern Ireland (n = 79, 6.6%) and Norway (n = 61, 5.1%) compared with Poland (0.6%), Hungary (0.5%), Greece (0.4%), Latvia (0.4%) and Serbia (0%). Based on healthcare systems, seven out of ten countries with the Beveridge model used person-centred care backed by scientific literature (n = 999), as opposed to the Bismarck model, which was mostly supported by grey literature (n = 190).

Adoption of the concept of person-centred care into discourse requires a systematic approach at the national (politicians), regional (guidelines) and local (specific healthcare settings) levels visualised by decision-making to establish a well-integrated phenomenon in Europe.

Evidence-based knowledge as well as national regulations regarding person-centred care are important tools to motivate the adoption of person-centred care in clinical practice. This could be expressed by decision-making at the macro (law, mission) level, which guides the meso (policies) and micro (routines) levels to adopt the scope and content of person-centred care in clinical practice. However, healthcare systems (Beveridge, Bismarck and out-of-pocket) have different structures and missions owing to ethical approaches. The quality of healthcare supported by evidence-based knowledge enables the establishment of a well-integrated phenomenon in European healthcare.

Our findings clarify those countries using the Beveridge healthcare model rank higher on accepting/adopting the concept of person-centered care in discourse. To adopt the concept of person-centred care in discourse requires a systematic approach at all levels in the organisation—from the national (politicians) and regional (guideline) to the local (specific healthcare settings) levels of healthcare.

Person‐centred planning is central to Valuing People. This has resulted in lots of planning activity, but implementing plans in services is deeply challenging. Developing person‐centred teams is a key to implementing plans. This article presents a model for developing person‐centred teams based on research. Examples of how teams worked to implement plans are shown to illustrate this process and clarify why it requires a change in thinking as well as a change in practice.

This review reflects on current progress with person‐centred planning from the perspective of the Valuing People Support Team, and raises some of the challenges being faced. It reminds us that planning is not a panacea and must be used as part of broader strategies to bring about person‐centred services and supports which can help people get the lives they want. Finally, suggested priorities for key groups are proposed and linked to future assistance from the Valuing People Support Team.

This mainly conceptual paper summarises the current conceptualisation of personalisation as it applies to people with learning disabilities. It goes on to map out how the drive towards the personalisation of services, its most recent iterations of person‐centred planning, person‐centred funding and person‐centred action, contributes to a better quality of life for people with intellectual disabilities, using the domains and indicators of quality of life set out in the Schalock et al (2002) international consensus. In doing so it describes what you would see in services where person‐centred approaches were being successfully implemented.

This chapter reports on a hybrid sector of disability provision in Australia and the changes to the sector due to the shift to person-centred care in Australia. It explains the significant changes to the way the sector will respond to government and to client demands and how the organisations are responding to this by re-structuring and building new performance measurement systems including Social Return on Investment.

The first part of the chapter is descriptive of the change to person-centred care in the Australian disability sector using public reports. The second part of the chapter looks at the change at a micro level using an analysis of the literature.

Findings illustrate how the National Disability Insurance Scheme has brought about significant change between sectors of government and between providers, both government and non-government. Organisations have had to make significant changes to adapt to the government’s policy and especially funding change. This includes setting new governance and leadership models, changed human resource management practices and performance measurement systems.

The paper is a report relatively early in the transition phases, and therefore, more evidence is needed as the system change progresses. Still, the Australian disability sector provides a powerful example of significant hybridisation changes as a result of a shift to person-centred care.

This is a dramatic change from the Australian government to impose person-centred care. The adaptations of Australian organisations provide an interesting insight for the international community.

Capture, consumption and use of person-centred information presents challenges for hospitals when operating within the scope of limited resources and the push for organisational routines and efficiencies. This paper explores these challenges for patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) and the examination of information that supports successful hospital discharge. It aims to determine how the likelihood of readmission may be prevented through the capturing of rich, person-specific information during in-patient care to improve the process for discharge to home.

The authors combine four research data collection and analysis techniques: one, an analysis of the patient record; two, semi-structured longitudinal interviews; three, an analysis of the patient's journey using process mining to provide analytics about the discharge process, and four, a focus group with nurses to validate and confirm our findings.

The authors’ contribution is to show that information systems which support discharge need to consider models focused on individual patient stressors. The authors find that current discharge information capture does not provide the required person-centred information to support a successful discharge. Data indicate that rich, detailed information about the person acquired through additional nursing assessments are required to complement data provided about the patient's journey in order to support the patients’ post-discharge recovery at home.

Prior research has focused on information collection constrained by pre-determined limitations and barriers of system design. This work has not considered the information provided by multiple sources during the whole patient journey as a mechanism to reshape the discharge process to become more person-centred. Using a novel combination of research techniques and theory, the authors have shown that patient information collected through multiple channels across the patient care journey may significantly extend the quality of patient care beyond hospital discharge. Although not assessed in this study, rich, person-centred discharge information may also decrease the likelihood of patient readmission.

Recent research (Robertson et al, 2005) has demonstrated that person‐centred planning (PCP) leads to positive changes for people. This research shows how PCP is associated with benefits in the areas of community involvement, contact with friends, contact with family and choice. This paper briefly describes this research and its recommendations. In addition it explores the implications for managers and professionals supporting people with learning disabilities.

This paper seeks to demonstrate the role of person‐centred assessment in improving the standard of care for people with dementia in acute hospitals.

The paper offers a review of recent research and literature on person centred care highlighting its role in acute hospital settings. Case studies are also used by way of illustration.

Acute hospitals are inherently complex environments which pose particular challenges for the care and management of people with dementia. Evidence drawn from the literature and recent research suggests that person‐centred assessment has the capacity to enhance the quality of care for people with dementia and improve outcomes. Patients who are understood, listened to, and responded to tend to display lower levels of challenging behaviour, are calmer, more receptive to accepting treatment and have higher levels of well being. Although experienced nurses working in acute wards often have in‐depth knowledge of older peoples' health‐related needs, a reliance on inflexible “assessment frameworks” can distract them from focusing on the individual. The routinised nature of many ward environments, shift patterns, high staff turnover and weak clinical leadership also act as barriers. Person‐centred assessment can be employed to identify the needs of people with dementia based upon their life history and patterns of daily living; it can also underpin the design and delivery of person‐centred care and treatment throughout their hospital stay.

The capacity of person‐centred care to improve care suggests that it needs to be embedded in gerontological nursing practice in acute hospital settings as a clinical and managerial priority.

Person-centred care is a fundamental component of any service. This case study aims to explore the delivery of person-centred care in the voluntary sector, discussing how integrating support can be achieved to benefit individuals. It identifies challenges, best practice and learning that can be applied across sectors and promotes further enquiry.

This case study is the result of a service audit at a mental health charity. The findings are a blend of reflections, observations and examples from service delivery, synthesised with national policy to provide evidence of best practice and processes that enable person-centred care.

A focus on need not diagnosis, creating accessible and inclusive services, employing dual trained practitioners, having a varied skill mix along with holistic self-assessment tools are all enablers for integrated person-centred support. Multi-agency assessment frameworks, collaboration across services, cross-agency supervision and a shared vision for integration and person-centred care support services to coordinate more effectively. Barriers to integrated person-centred support include complex physical and mental health needs and harmful risk and safeguarding. The diversity of the voluntary sector, a lack of resources along with complex and competitive funding also hinder integration.

This case study provides a valuable insight into the voluntary sector and shares its findings to enhance best practice. It aims to promote interest and invites further research into health and social care delivery by the voluntary sector. As this delivery continues to increase, it is vital to examine the interface between the voluntary and statutory sector. Through better understanding and further research across all sectors, the author can identify how they can achieve person-centred outcomes and deliver the national policies.

Due to the need for the development of person-centred integrated models of care with a population health approach, this paper explored contemporary literature in this arena.

A systematic literature review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Papers included in this review focused upon person-centred integrated care and a health promotion/public health approach (January 2018–October 2020). Papers were excluded due to not being written in English, not fitting the age criteria and not being peer reviewed.

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and three overarching themes were identified with regards to person-centred integrated care as a health promotion/public health approach: Core components; Development, implementation, and evaluation of models of care and relationship to population health and wellbeing outcomes.

The need for person-centred integrated care as a health promotion/public health approach, to enhance population health and well-being outcomes requires further research to continue to develop, implement and evaluate models of care.

The international scope of this contemporary review brought together the three concepts of person-centred integrated care and public health, exploring the translation of policy into practice (WHO, 2016). The juxtaposition of public health approaches in the background/consequential or foreground/active agent demonstrates how promotion, prevention and population health can be re-valued in integrated people-centred health services (WHO, 2016).