28.06.2014 Views

The Implementation of a Model of Person-Centred Practice In Older ...

The Implementation of a Model of Person-Centred Practice In Older ...

The Implementation of a Model of Person-Centred Practice In Older ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>The</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> a model <strong>of</strong> person-centred practice in older person settings<br />

Category 4 = Meaningful Relationship<br />

Category 4 = Meaningful Relationship<br />

• Communication – PCC Language<br />

Active Listening<br />

• Teamwork - Tasks or systems <strong>of</strong> work<br />

Time<br />

Staff attitudes and<br />

behaviour<br />

Lack <strong>of</strong><br />

Autonomy/decision<br />

making<br />

• Routinised Care - Authority and rules<br />

• <strong>In</strong>tentionality - Positive <strong>Practice</strong><br />

• Communication/language<br />

• Staff Attitude<br />

• Rituals<br />

• Lack <strong>of</strong> Privacy and Dignity<br />

• Communication<br />

• <strong>In</strong>dividuality<br />

• Communication<br />

• Patient Satisfaction<br />

teamwork, routinised care and intentionality.<br />

<strong>The</strong> final category ‘meaningful<br />

relationships’ links with and in<br />

many ways consolidates the<br />

previous three categories<br />

(choice, belonging &<br />

connectedness, and hope &<br />

hopelessness) as the focus <strong>of</strong><br />

the category is that <strong>of</strong> the place<br />

<strong>of</strong> older people having the<br />

opportunity for meaningful<br />

relationships. Key themes<br />

underpinning this category<br />

include – communication,<br />

<strong>In</strong> the practice development programme, a key focus <strong>of</strong> development activities was<br />

that <strong>of</strong> ‘language’. <strong>The</strong> baseline observation data demonstrated the contradiction<br />

that existed between the person-centred values espoused and the language used in<br />

everyday ‘talk’. <strong>The</strong> use <strong>of</strong> words such as ‘feeding’, ‘nappies’, ‘the heavies’ are all<br />

illustrative <strong>of</strong> a non-person-centred approach to practice. Throughout the programme<br />

this language was challenged and staff were facilitated using high challenge/high<br />

support strategies to change this language to more person-centred talk, such as<br />

‘helping residents to eat and drink’, ‘having a meal’, ‘incontinence aids/pads’ etc. <strong>The</strong><br />

data demonstrates that significant changes did occur in the way language was used<br />

by staff:<br />

“<strong>The</strong> care worker is helping a resident out <strong>of</strong> bed. She is working in a calm way and<br />

giving the resident lots <strong>of</strong> encouragement. <strong>The</strong> language she is using is very person-<br />

centred and is focused on the resident’s needs – very respectful” (observation note)<br />

<strong>The</strong> use <strong>of</strong> more person-centred language was seen to enable active listening and<br />

engagement with residents on a more equal footing.<br />

Staff chatting to residents as they wheel them in the wheelchairs. All seems very<br />

friendly. Nurses communicating well with each other and with support staff.<br />

159

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!