Talk:Person Centred Planning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Person Centred Planning has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Nov 07: Edits

I realise that the changes I made today are just a little more significant than moving a few words around - but there have been some things about the entry which have been bugging me for a long time. I'm particularly aware that the first edit I carried out was to the first line. However I decided that the easiest way to see what people approved of would just be to go for it. I don't think that what I added is finely tuned - so if anyone can do better then I say go for it.

I wanted to make it clearer that person-centred planning is useful for everyone, and to start to clarify the difference between real person-centred planning and the many pseudo-person-centred planning efforts that I've seen (such as adding a small box about dreams onto an assessment form).

I'm happy to collaborate on some work on this page if others feel inclined.

Rowmn (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

These were great changes Rowmn - I think you have strengthened the article considerably
Max Neill 30th Nov 2007

Thanks. There's more to do I think - but I thought a pause was in order. Good work removing 'service users'. Perhaps we should have a conversation here and invite comments? See if others have strong feelings?

Rowmn 15:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia means that every entry is a co-created happening, very much like a piece of Person Centred Thinking so this would be a great place for a conversation.
I'm wondering if we need to update the article with more information on Person Centred Thinking Tools, and things like One Page Profiles and Person Centred Reviews. Person Centred Thinking Coaching could be another angle - or maybe this deserves a Wikipedia entry of it's own?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Neill (talk • contribs) 16:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dec 07: Should We Link to Maslow?

Here's a question that might generate some discussion - I notice we have a link to 'Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs' in this article.

Maslow's work was done in the time when the philosophy of Eugenics held sway across the whole scientific and medical establishment, and Maslow himself wrote "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy".

Do these deeply offensive values invalidate the ideas contained in Maslow's hierarchy? Can we win the Hierarchy of needs back for everyone if we assert that Maslow was wrong to dismiss most of humanity with such vicious language, and that Self-Actualisation needs are universal? I'd be interested in people's views.

For the duration of the discussion, I'll leave the link in. Add your comments here

Max (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Max:
I suggest taking it out - mainly because there is no discussion of Maslow in the text, and because there are few links between Maslow's work and person-centred planning. However, you've prompted me to go back to see what Maslow actually wrote Maslow's own work(to contrast it with what he's said to have said).
I have never found Maslow's heirarchy helpful - mainly because I don't think of these needs as being a hierarchy, and I find the idea that "the higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus when the lower needs in the pyramid are satisfied" (quote from the entry on Maslow's hierarchy on Wikipedia) to be unhelpful. But in going back to Maslow's own work that really wasn't what he said (at least not in this first key paper). And he certainly wasn't saying that the 'higher' needs were less important - for instance late in the paper he says "Who is to say that a lack of love is less important than a lack of vitamins?" And we surely can't argue that there is absolutely no hierarchy in play either. A person faced by a charging bear might very well in sheer terror leave their friend behind to be eaten - safety before friendship. I'd guess that the problem is in how Maslow has been interpreted - and perhaps that he overemphasised the hierarchy (does anyone know whether it was Maslow who drew the hierarchy as a pyramid by the way?).
I do find that a contrast with Maslow's idea of a hierarchy is useful in explaining to people that person-centred planning sees needs for love, friendship, contribution, being somebody, & freedom to be just as important as 'adequate housing' or 'adequate diet' or 'good health care'. (I tend to say that "this isn't the same as how Maslow described needs".)
I do feel strongly that it isn't reasonable to reject all of Maslow's work because he said some objectionable things. Just like I'm not going to reject his paper because he writes about 'man' rather than 'people'. I also have a picture of him writing at a time when his peers were forgetting about needs like 'love' and 'being valued' - so perhaps the main purpose of his paper was to remind people of the importance of these things. I've seen other writers dismissed when their audience expands to reach people for whom their writing isn't helpful.
All of that said, it's worth an additional comment about the idea of 'self-actualisation'. So far as I can see, Maslow extended his ideas about this after the first paper. In the first work he seems to be emphasising how important it is that people have the opportunity to make your unique contribution to the world:
"Even if all these needs are satisfied... a new discontent and restlessness will soon develop, unless the individual is doing what he is fitted for. A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy. What a man can be, he must be. This need we may call self-actualization."
This fits well with the idea of 'gifts' which is so key to person-centred planning. However, it seems that later Maslow separated this idea of self-actualisation off, viewing it as something concerning only a few people. I think that this might be where his work goes badly wrong.
To conclude - Maslow's writing isn't as helpful - in this context - as the work of people like John O'Brien and Judith Snow. There's no harm in a link to his work, but little benefit either.
Rowmn (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken out the reference to Maslow, for the reasons Rowmn suggests.

I agree it would be wrong to totally condemn Maslow for reflecting the hegemonic ideas of his time, though I think it would be important to show how fundamentally different the values of PCP are from those professed by Maslow in his day.

I also agree that his identification of a set of different Needs has value, and was a step forward when it was written, and has been useful in a variety of fields, though whether it is genuinely useful to rank them as a 'hierarchy' is definitely open to question.

His restriction of 'self-actualisation' needs to a small minority of humanity was as you say a point where his ideas go badly wrong.

The key problem with the link is that it adds very little, if anything, to understanding of what PCP is all about. The Maslow reference has therefore been removed simply because it is not directly relevant to any of the content of the article, unlike the other references cited.

Max (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jan 08: Suggested changes

Max/everyone: I've been wondering what we can do to emphasise how the main effects of person-centred planning aren't any paperwork that is created. Any thoughts?

Rowmn (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added this in the 'Outcomes section' to emphasise the need for planning to lead to action:

Person Centred Thinking and Planning is founded on the premise that genuine listening contains an implied promise to take action. Unless what is learned about how the person wishes to live, and where they wish to go in their lives is recorded and acted upon, any planning will have been a waste of time, and more importantly a betrayal of the person and the trust they have placed in those who have planned with them.

Feel free to edit to make this message clearer! Max (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jan 08: Peer Review

I've listed this article for peer review. I think it's good enough for the intense scrutiny this invites from Wikipedia editors, and that it will benefit from any amendments they suggest. Max (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Max,
Thanks for the FYI on the peer review. I will put it into my schedule and take some time to see if I can be of help. One of the first points of discussion would be the term used for the individual for whom the plan is being developed. I mainly use "individual" and in reference (general terms, when explaining the process) the consumer. One point that isn't made clear in the article is that the most important person on the Person Centered Plan (interdisciplinary meeting) is the "individual". Without that clear point the purpose of the PCP is lost and some folks attending said meetings will loose focus of this fact.
Last point to ponder is there is no mention of the goals, nor the objectives to reach said goals, nor the quarterly process review or the need to meet sooner if a goal is not appropriate to modify the plan.
Perhaps a to do list maybe a good idea.
PEACETalkAbout (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments received

I think a To Do list would be a good idea. There are a lot of helpful suggestions from Scartol and Roger Davis on the Peer Review Page - I'm reposting them here.

I think most of these comments are fair and constructive, and will be helpful in making the article better, though some of the 'vagueness' complained about is due to the openness of PCP - it's up to the person to fill it with content, depending on their own priorities (rather like Wikipedia again!) - we need to find a clearer way of explaining this deliberate vagueness. It's definitely going to take some time though - might take a few of us to really sort this article out, and I'd love it to reach 'featured article' status one day soon! Max (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review from Scartol

Per your request, I've had a look at this article. It appears to be focused on an important topic, but as a layperson with absolutely no knowledge of the field being discussed, I feel lost and confused by it. Much of the prose is vague, and I feel as though it's been written largely by people in the field for people in the field. Let's look at the lead, for example:

Person Centred Planning (PCP) is a process designed to assist someone to make plans for their future. This is a very ambiguous sentence. I feel that the first sentence should give a phrase about who generally uses it, and what specific purpose it serves. "someone" is perplexingly unclear. "make plans" about what? Vacation destinations? Education paths? Diet choices? This needs to be more specific. It is used most often as a life planning model to enable individuals with disabilities to increase their personal self-determination and improve their own independence. Okay, this is better – but is there really much of a difference between "increase their personal self-determination" and "improve their own independence"? If so, does this distinction really belong in the first paragraph of the article? A better use of the valuable first few sentences (which will either draw the reader in or repulse her/him) is to explain how PCP differs from other leading models of "life planning" (a phrase which is pretty unclear to me as well). Person Centred Planning was adopted as government policy in the United Kingdom through the 'Valuing People' White Paper in 2001, and is accepted as good practice in many countries throughout the world. The first part of this sentence is okay, but the second part is rather vague. Better to give other examples of governments which use it, or statements from advocacy groups(?) and/or health organizations(?) which endorse it. It is most often used for life planning with people with learning and developmental disabilities, You've already said this, right? So it's unnecessary. though recently it has been advocated as a method of planning personalised support with other sections of society who find themselves disempowered by traditional methods of service delivery, including older people. Very unclear to me. "Other sections of society" brings to my mind zip codes and area codes. I admit to having no idea what "traditional methods of service delivery" are; I'm envisioning a housekeeping company. Also note that the "including older people" phrase at the end will – in the minds of most readers – be applied to the noun closest to it, in this case "methods of service delivery", which makes no sense. I'd say something like "...with other individuals – especially older people – who are disempowered by...". I suppose my point here is – and this is something I've said frequently about software designers – it's vital to write about your topic in a way that the uninitiated will be able to understand. If this article has indeed been written by folks in the field of study being discussed, you'll need to find ways to think like an outsider: Question your assumptions about what's being discussed, and try to write sentences that require no prior knowledge (or as little as possible) about the concepts involved.

Some other points in the body of the article:

I would retitle "Theoretical basis" as "Background". Start by discussing the people who came up with it, and explain what they described as the shortcomings with the existing methods. any methods used must be reflective of the individual's personal communication mechanisms What on earth is a "personal communication mechanism"? Is that anything like "talking"? I worry that we may be overdoing it with the jargon here. (Or, it's also possible that – as above – specific terms are being used with which the layperson isn't familiar. In such a case, explanation or alternative wording is necessary.) The article needs many more citations. They should also be in one consistent format; currently it has some footnotes, some parenthetical citations, and large blocks of text with no sources cited at all.

Blockquotes should only be used when the quotation is four lines or more, and it should be set apart from the article with the

{{{1}}}

template (or one like it). See Wikipedia:MOS#Quotations.

Good luck with this article – the editors involved obviously have a great knowledge about and passion for this subject. The next step is to translate it into a format that the rest of the world can access. Please let me know if you have any other questions. – Scartol • Tok 15:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Roger Davies

Thanks for the invitation to peer-review this. I'll comment very broadly as my suggestions (and they are, of course, only suggestions) will considerably change the content and structure of the article.

First, I echo Scartol's remark about citations. In a nutshell, see WP:V for what to cite and WP:REF for how to cite it. The intro needs to explain unambiguously and in jargon-free language what PCP is. Simply calling it a process designed to assist someone is not clear enough. The introduction needs to explain what steps the process involves. Generally, article introductions are two to four paragraphs in length, so the current one needs expanding to summarise the sections that follow. I recommend a new Background section to explain the pre-PCP problem and then go on to explain the PCP solution. To be honest, the current Theoretical basis section reads like extracts from a Powerpoint presentation. It should be dispassionate: that is, read less like a brochure or prospectus and more like an entry in a global encyclopedia. The list of founding parents needs considerable explanation. Names without context don't mean much. Some of these could be wiki-linked, if articles exist, others could have some explanation of their credentials. The second paragraph of Methods is almost entirely jargon. I suggest it is expanded and clarified – with wiki-links, text, or both – so that the curious lay-reader can grasp the principles. The Limitations section says only what its advocates, um, advocate. I have concerns about neutrality. What are the drawbacks of PCP? What do critics say? These views need to be sought out and included within the article. The Outcomes section would greatly benefit from some peer-reviewed material from the healthcare press. Discussion of studies would also be good. As ever, if you have any questions, please contact me, --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Person_Centred_Planning")

  • These are very useful comments - and we definitely need to get this article reading less like a 'powerpoint presentation' and more like an encyclopedia entry! I hope to do a little of this myself, but it will take time - in the meantime I hope there are plenty of people out there ready to BE BOLD and make the neccessary edits. Max (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jan 08: Life Planning

The Life Planning article is stub class, wondering if this should be linked as it seems to be related. Jasonaltenburg (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I think you're right that PCP relates to Life Planning - and a lot of Person Centred Approaches are now being applied to the everyday life of people with or without disability labels, as well as to building teams at work. (Most recent example of this kind of application is a book called 'Celebrating Families' by Sanderson and Taylor). However the Life Planning article as it currently stands focusses purely on the use of the approach by Financial Advisors, and reads a little bit like an advert for particular financial advisers or trainers - it needs looking at by some practitioners of life planning I think. Max (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I was thinking about this (the link with 'life planning' as a general concept) after reading the comments generated by the peer review process. But as you say Max, the current life planning article needs some work before we can do anything. Rowmn (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feb 08: Comments/discussion of edits

OK! I had a go at the 'theoretical basis' (now 'background') section. Didn't mean to spend more than 10 minutes on it, but then couldn't stop. The 'diff' page makes it look like I deleted what was there, but most of it actually remains. Feel completely free to undo/edit/redistribute new text/etc - I'm under no illusions that it's right as it stands. Have a feeling that the older text (now at the bottom) might need to move into the next section which is actually about the details of the processes. Rowmn (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)