'What do you think?': a qualitative approach to evaluating individual planning services

An established individual planning service was evaluated using a service‐user‐centred approach, which looked at the extent to which people are involved in the process and their understanding of its nature and function. Responses recorded during interviews with service users, their key workers and so...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of intellectual disability research 1997-06, Vol.41 (3), p.225-231
Main Author: Carnaby, S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Case Management
Consumer Behavior
Evaluation
Female
Humans
individual planning services
Individual programme plans
Intellectual Disability - psychology
Intellectual Disability - rehabilitation
Learning disabled people
London
Male
Medical sciences
Mental health
Organization of mental health. Health systems
Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care)
Patient Care Planning
Patient Care Team
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Quality Assurance, Health Care
Service provision
service-user-centred approach
Social Environment
Social psychiatry. Ethnopsychiatry
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:An established individual planning service was evaluated using a service‐user‐centred approach, which looked at the extent to which people are involved in the process and their understanding of its nature and function. Responses recorded during interviews with service users, their key workers and some family members are complemented with data collected from participant observation of individual planning meetings. The findings suggest that the majority of service users able to speak for themselves who were interviewed have a good understanding of the planning process and find it a positive experience; this is supported by participant observation data. Those speaking on behalf of people unable to speak for themselves are unclear as to how much understanding the group has of the process. Observation data suggest that people needing others to speak on their behalf are excluded from discussion during meetings more often than they are included. Recommendations are made for developing the service and providing additional support for keyworkers, building upon the considerable progress made during the service's inception.
ISSN:0964-2633
1365-2788
DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2788.1997.03636.x