Search results

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.

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 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.

Individual programme planning (IPP), or person‐centred planning, is widely recognised as a tool for assisting learning disability services to structure and co‐ordinate the support offered to service users. This paper reviews the research evidence, to assess the extent to which planning processes are considered person‐centred, and how services ensure that users have a major say in planning and determining the help they receive (Blunden et al., 1987). It is suggested that services need to take a more flexible and creative approach, using working groups to make decisions with or on behalf of service users. A case study describes the role of working groups and the importance of communication in determining specific person‐centred planning processes.

Providers and service users associated with supported housing are increasingly using tools to measure outcomes against targets with indicators that equate change with progress. This article reports and reflects on a small research project undertaken by London South Bank University for Carr Gomm, using the World Health Organisation's Quality of Life Application Model to assess outcomes of support in relation to person‐centred planning, the chosen principled support approach adopted by Carr Gomm. The evaluation is based on a small number of case studies which serve to prompt providers and commissioners of supported housing to ask what constitutes quality of life from the client's perspective, and how in turn this challenges the priorities inherent in the supported housing service.

This article describes a project that explored the views, experiences and aspirations of young people with Down's Syndrome and their family carers. Each young person had gone or was going through the transition to adulthood. Following a scoping study, young people who were leading the lives of their choice, for example through use of person‐centred planning or direct payments, were interviewed, and their stories were published in a booklet. The next phase brought other young people and their families together in workshops to support them in planning for their future, based on the information from the booklet. Interviews with the young people and their families dispelled the myth that parents are obstacles to progress and change. All families actively supported their son or daughter to achieve their aspirations and had high expectations for them.

Protection of those deemed vulnerable has received increasing attention since 2000. This article reports this aspect of a research study in which care staff views relating to vulnerability and abuse of adults with learning disabilities were explored. In this study, informants' perspectives were explored using semi‐structured interviews. The aim of the study was to conduct a detailed analysis of interpretations of the terms vulnerability and abuse within learning disability services. The results revealed that most informants felt that all people with learning disabilities are vulnerable and that this definition allows staff the authority to take protective measures in order to ensure their safety, based on risk management approaches. An alternative person‐centred approach to safety planning is proposed.

This paper provides reflections on the implementation of an active support staff training programme for staff working in community residential facilities for adults with an intellectual disability. Outcomes for the people with an intellectual disability were consistent with recent research findings indicating that active support can lead to improved opportunities for participation in everyday activities within the home. We propose that the success of the training programme was largely influenced by three key elements: ensuring that there is expertise in, and support for, this approach to service provision among key service managers, provision of in vivo one‐to‐one practical staff training in addition to classroom‐based theoretical input, and inclusion of elements of person‐centred planning approaches in combination with active support. Future research should focus on how best to maximise the effectiveness of active support staff training.