There are four main approaches to person centred practice, “Pathway” planning, “Maps” planning, “Person centred portfolios” (otherwise known as “Essential Lifestyle Planning”) and “Personal Future Planning.” Discussion will prove that “ each shares characteristics that explicitly emphasise the personal empowerment of service users, in which the principal direction for support generates from those for whom planning is being carried out.”(Langley, 2001) However the use different formats means that each approach focuses on different aspects and my comparison will note strengths and weaknesses, and how they are designed for implementation in different scenarios of person centred practice and planning.
The earliest and most rudimentary
It is facilitated in one meeting to which the person and anyone they wish to invite (family or friends) attend along with support workers/carers and any other relevant professionals (social workers etc) whom the person consents to attending. It is centred on identifying one positive and achievable goal, rather than listing all oppurtunities, as the PFP approach does. The process of how this will be achieved is discussed and broken down into steps (See appendices) with one person asking the questions, and one recording it on the graphic.
Like “PFP”, it has different sections for compartments of information, however some are more graphically prominent. Particular emphasis is put on “The dream” and “One year on” which shows the importance of the goal itself, plus leaves the person and those supporting them accountable for the outcome in a decided timescale. (See appendices). The “now” section also records what will happen immediately. For example, someone’s dream (person b) may be to do a cycle trek for charity. To achieve this dream a lot of small first things must be done, for example researching treks, equipment, training programs etc. The “Path” approach to person centred practice facilitates and records what first step will be taken, and just as importantly who will do these in the “now” section. As Sanderson stated