Person-Centred Care

Overview

Today learners explore what person-centred care means in health and social care settings and why it matters for outcomes, dignity, and decision-making.

Learning intentions

• WALT understand the principles of person-centred care and how they guide practice.
• WALT analyse how barriers (assumptions, communication gaps, risk-focused choices) can reduce person-centred outcomes.
• WALT apply person-centred concepts to a realistic care scenario, justifying decisions.

Success criteria

• I can describe key features of person-centred care (preferences, needs, rights, individuality).
• I can explain how communication and involvement support better care outcomes.
• I can identify potential conflicts between care goals and a person’s autonomy and resolve them ethically.
• I can use evidence and professional reasoning to justify a care plan choice.

Curriculum links

• Relationships and health education: understanding respect, consent, and safeguarding in care contexts.
• Fundamental British values: recognising individual rights and supporting fair, inclusive practice.
• PSHE skills: critical thinking, discussion, and respectful engagement with differing views.
• Health and wellbeing: considering the impact of attitudes and behaviours on others.

Lesson structure ({total minutes})

1. 0–5 | Starter: “What would you choose?”

• Students choose between two care-support options for a fictional person (e.g., same-day help vs preferred time) and briefly justify their choice.
• Teacher links answers to the idea that care should reflect the individual, not just routines.

2. 5–12 | Mini input: Person-centred care principles

• Teacher explains core principles: individuality, preferences and needs, dignity, rights, shared planning, and evaluating outcomes with the person.
• Emphasise how person-centred approaches support consent, build trust, and reduce distress.

3. 12–22 | Concept mapping: “From principle to practice”

• In pairs, students build a quick concept map showing how a person-centred principle affects daily actions (communication, care planning, decision-making, review).
• Whole-class share-out: teacher records 5–7 high-quality practice links (e.g., “involve the person in choices” → “clear options and realistic expectations”).

4. 22–40 | Scenario workshop: ethical decision-making

• Groups of 4 receive a short scenario: a learner/“service user” has specific preferences, but staff are worried about time, risk, or capacity to decide.
• Task: groups answer three prompts:
• What does person-centred care require here?
• Where might staff unintentionally be non-person-centred (assumptions, rushed communication, “best interest” choices without involvement)?
• Propose 2–3 actions staff should take, and justify them using person-centred reasoning.
• Teacher circulates using guided questions and probes: “How does this honour choice?” “What will you do if preferences conflict with safety?”

5. 40–50 | Discussion: Challenge with respect

• Each group shares one proposed action. Other learners respond using a sentence frame: “I agree because… / I would add… / I’m concerned about…”
• Teacher steers towards balancing autonomy with safeguarding: involve the person as far as possible, communicate clearly, and keep the person’s views central.

6. 50–57 | Individual reflection: “My person-centred checklist”

• Students complete a short checklist for care decisions: involvement, communication, individuality, consent/assent, and review with feedback.
• They write one improvement they would make to a plan if they noticed it wasn’t person-centred.

7. 57–60 | Exit ticket

• One question: “Which person-centred principle is most often overlooked, and how would you spot it early?”
• Teacher collects responses to inform the next lesson.

Resources

• Printed scenario cards (one per group) with realistic health/social care context (no sensitive real-person details).
• Scenario prompt sheets with the three guiding questions.
• Highlighter pens or sticky notes for concept mapping.
• Sentence stems for discussion (agree/add/concern).
• Slide/board summary of person-centred principles and “practice examples”.
• Assessment checklist template for the reflection task.
• Dyslexia-friendly reading packs: larger font, reduced text, and an audio option (teacher reads key scenario paragraphs).
• Timer and group roles cards (facilitator, recorder, checker of “person-centred fit”, reporter).
• Scaffolding cue cards: communication prompts, consent/assent wording.

Assessment

• Formative assessment through observation of group reasoning and participation in discussion (focused questions and clarification).
• Scenario outputs assessed against success criteria: accurate principles, ethical justification, and clear actions.
• Exit ticket used to identify misconceptions (e.g., confusion between safety/risk management and ignoring preferences).

Differentiation

• Support:
• Provide a partially completed concept map for students to fill in key links.
• Offer a smaller choice of actions in the scenario (students select and justify rather than invent all solutions).
• Provide dyslexia-friendly scenario text (large print) and optional audio reading.
• Challenge:
• Ask advanced learners to include a “what if” variation: the person’s preferred option is unavailable, or the staff believe the person lacks capacity, and then revise actions.
• Require justification using trade-offs (autonomy vs safety) and show how to still be person-centred.
• EAL:
• Use sentence starters and model examples of respectful discussion.
• Pre-teach 6–8 key terms in a simple way (preference, choice, dignity, involvement, consent, review) with visuals.
• SEN:
• Role cards to reduce cognitive load and ensure each student contributes (e.g., recorder focuses on writing only).
• Allow short verbal responses instead of extended writing for the reflection, if needed.

Extension (optional)

• Students write a 200–250 word “staff briefing” recommending a person-centred care change for a busy service (e.g., how to build in time for choices and communication without delaying support). They must include one safeguarding consideration and one review step.