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

Abstract

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 keyworkers 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.

Getting the picture: Photo‐assisted conversations as interviews

“…Though people with intellectual disabilities are reported to be both willing and able to tell about their lives and activities, many authors still report of problems inherent in interviewing such informants (e.g. Azmi, Hatton, Emerson, & Caine, 1997;Biklen & Moseley, 1988;Carnaby, 1997;Flynn, 1986;Jahoda, Markova, & Cattermole, 1988;McVilly, 1995;Sigelman et al, 1981;Tøssebro, 1990;Tøssebro, 1992;Wyngaarden, 1981).…”

Flexible Client-Driven In-Home Case Management: An Option to Consider

“…These investigations have examined case management strategies aligned to the brokerage model (Bigelow & Young, 1991;Braun & Rose, 1994; Challis, Darton, Johnson, Stone, & Traske, 1991a; Challis, identified the client's potential for involvement. Evidence from research (Auton, 1995;Cahill, 1996;Carnaby, 1997;Davies, Laker, & Ellis, 1997;Gilmore, 1991;Hurst, 1996;Jirsch, 1993;Jones, Dougherty, & Martin, 1997;Kane, Caplan, Urv-Wong, Freeman, Aroskar, & Finch, 1997;Lathrop, Seufert, MacDonald, & Martin, 1991;Tidikis & Strasen, 1994) and observation of case managers who intuitively implement a more client-driven partnering approach to creating, implementing, and evaluating the service plan (Rose, 1992a(Rose, , 1992b suggests that more cost-effective service delivery may result. While recent investigations of client-centered hospital care strategies have produced mixed results (Jones et al, 1997;Snyder & Lathrop, 1995;Twyman & Libbus, 1994) the evidence suggests that such strategies are cost-justified, and increase quality and service levels (Snyder & Lathrop, 1995).…”

Participation in transition review meetings: a case study of young people with learning disabilities leaving a special school

“…Studies at the systems leve l raise concerns about the ways in wh i ch indiv i d u a l planning processes operate (for ex a m p l e, Sutcl i ffe & Simons, 1993) and the assumptions made (de Kock, Saxby, Fe l c e, Thomas & Jenkins, 1985;Carn aby, 1997a). In addition, there can be a tendency to set 'service-related' rather than 'service-user-related' goals (O'Brien & Lovett, 1992), inadequate involvement and consultation of service users in the process (Crocker, 1990;Carnaby, 1997b) and a bias towards focusing on the person's needs rather than strengths (for example, Wilcox & Bellamy, 1987).…”