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

The implementation of a model of person-centred practice in older person settings
that they believed were not being interpreted accurately. This was a remarkable
change especially as the nurses involved were so accepting of the feedback and
challenge and the whole group were engaging as a team of equals. Interestingly this
group were least resistant to undertaking the exercise.
Debriefing in another PD group highlighted the issue of members unable to identify
issues they had regarding what they liked least about individual contributions. When
this was discussed it became obvious the extent of the culture of reluctance to
challenge in this site. This group had the most opposition to undertaking the process
review exercise and some members wanted to leave the group there and then if the
exercise was continued. The issue of challenge became so obvious that it became
impossible to ignore and the quality of the learning from this positively influenced the
quality of engagement within the group:
...”I never realised what it feels like to get feedback from a colleague” “It wasn’t as
bad as I thought”. “I am more aware of how to give feedback that is supportive rather
than criticism”.
Facilitation evaluation – Heron’s Matrix
One of the methods used to map developments in facilitation within the PD groups
was the use of an adapted form of Heron’s Matrix (1999) originally developed as a
self-assessment guide for facilitators and used in this programme for the same
purpose and adapted to suit the context. This matrix was very useful in identifying
the level of facilitation and learning within the group. Evidence on how adults learn,
strongly indicates that it is no longer acceptable to just impart knowledge and do
things to students but to facilitate their self-directed learning (Heron, 1999).
The matrix assisted the facilitators initially and then is one site the whole group to
identify where their facilitation development was in relation to six dimensions:
planning, structuring, meaning/making sense, challenging/confronting,
supporting/valuing and meaning under three evaluation areas: hierarchy,
cooperation, autonomy with a heading for issues identified. Figure 2.4 outlines the
guide used to start incorporating the matrix in the end-of-day evaluation of our PD
sessions. The benefit of using this matrix is that it can give a clear picture of how the
group is developing and raises awareness for facilitators of their style of facilitation so
that it is varied according to the progress of the group. This matrix was used towards
85