There are four main approaches to person centred practice, “Pathway” planning, “Maps” planning, “Person centred portfolios” (otherwise known as “Essential Lifestyle Planning”) and “Personal Future Planning.” Discussion will prove that “ each shares characteristics that explicitly emphasise the personal empowerment of service users, in which the principal direction for support generates from those for whom planning is being carried out.”(Langley, 2001) However the use different formats means that each approach focuses on different aspects and my comparison will note strengths and weaknesses, and how they are designed for implementation in different scenarios of person centred practice and planning. The earliest and most rudimentary approach to person centred planning is “Personal Futures Planning” or “PFP.” This approach is comprised of picturing what a meaningful community life for the person being supported would look like to them and writing it down on a simple grid. (See example below) Insert picture
This grid is used as the basis on which to search for opportunities the person can take to integrate with, and contribute to the community, leading to a” valued social role” (Sanderson and Lewis 2012) It gathers information into different categories, (such as the person’s relationships, favourite places, gifts and capacities). This simple structure is beneficial in keeping information and support to a minimum, simply identifying a “window for change.” (Sanderson and Lewis 2012) as patterns and oppurtunities become obvious from the layout. This in turn simplifies the process of identifying the support needed as the person’s gifts and capacities are clearly marked, which reduces the risk of under or over-supporting the person, both of which would hinder progress. For example, someone (Person A) who has moved to a new community identifies that they would like to be part of a local sports team or club but is unsure of how to do so .The layout of the information is helpful in highlighting someone’s own strengths to themselves, and should in theory give them motivation to take advantage of the opportunities identified. For example, person A’s gift and capacities section shows that they are friendly and easy-going (gifts) and very good at swimming (capacities). Having this information so plainly recorded may encourage the person to take the daunting step to join a team by boosting their self- esteem, and would for example perhaps identify the local swimming team as a good opportunity based on their strengths. Having identified the person’s gift as swimming in the grid for example, means that the person will receive “just enough support” (for example getting to and from the swim team practices) but they are free to independently partake. If this information where not so clear, there is a chance of over-supporting the individual, (perhaps getting into the pool with them) which would infringe on their independence. The “PFP” therefore concentrates on what the person can give to the community, and identifies where these gifts can be utilised, which gives positive results for the person, who gets to indulge in their hobby, and make solid community connections. They are less likely to fail from the approach of concentrating on the strengths and gifts, rather than highlighting what might be beyond their reach. Planning around the person, not the community, means their needs are fitted to mutually beneficial, meaningful for the person role in the community, by locating where they already “fit” rather than trying to force them to in other ways. This is a strong approach to the central idea of “seeking the potential that is in every single individual.” (Ladyman, 2004) of person centred practice. The simplicity of presented information this leads to quick and easy understanding of the person (which is paramount to person centred approach) it can mean it is an unsuitable approach for a person with high support needs ,who would...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document