HCPC Standards Review - Have Your Say Please!

Issues related to pay, contracts, Agenda for Change, the NHS, the BPS, unions, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
BlueCat
Site Admin
Posts: 2844
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:42 pm

HCPC Standards Review - Have Your Say Please!

Post by BlueCat » Wed Sep 10, 2014 4:16 pm

Well, this completely passed me by. The standards of proficiency for Practitioner Psychologists are currently being reviewed by the HCPC and there is an opportunity for us all (registered or not) to have our say as to whether or not we think they are adequate to ensure the safety of the public.

The link to the consultation response proforma is on p.8 of this document

http://www.hcpc-uk.org/assets/documents ... ebsite.pdf

and the proposed revised standards begin on p.10 of that document.

The consultation ends on 17th October, and has apparently been open since July (did ANYONE know about this, or am I just being dull?)

I have always been a bit aghast that there was no specific requirement in the standards to receive appropriate professional supervision. I myself feel very strongly that minimum standards around receiving supervision should be enshrined in Standard 1, perhaps in line with the new DCP (2014) guidelines around supervision? I believe that practitioner psychologists should be required to access a minimum threshold of professional supervision from another HCPC registered practitioner psychologist as the basis for safe and effective practice. In the increasingly privatised health and social care landscape, non-governmental employers may see good professional supervision as an unnecessary luxury, and without the REQUIREMENT from our governing body (DCP is non statutory, so employers are free to ignore that) that HCPC registered psychologists engage in a minimum threshold of professional supervision, there may not be provision made, which I would consider unsafe.

So, you can guess that my general feedback was around the need to include minimum standards around accessing supervision (interestingly, there is already a requirement to supervise people to whom the registrant delegates work). I feel really strongly about this, it may be that you do too, or that you feel strongly about other aspects of the standards. Please, please, please add your thoughts - this is our opportunity to support the HCPC to get this right.
There's no such thing as bad weather, just the wrong clothes. Billy Connolly.

User avatar
Dr.Dot
Posts: 1511
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: Yellow brick road.

Re: HCPC Standards Review - Have Your Say Please!

Post by Dr.Dot » Thu Sep 11, 2014 1:28 pm

Thank you, I will indeed. And I will pass it on!
Dorothy: Now which way do we go?

User avatar
miriam
Site Admin
Posts: 7785
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Bucks
Contact:

Re: HCPC Standards Review - Have Your Say Please!

Post by miriam » Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:14 pm

I hadn't heard of it either. I've made a personal response highlighting the lack of standards around supervision, and also the risks involved in expert witnesses who are not regulated, along with psychologists who offer therapy services to the public but do not fall under the HCPC remit, which is something I think they need reminding about at every turn. I also commented on how they need to contact members by post and via the BPS to request comments on something so important, rather than just hope we stumble upon it.

Would others be happy if we compiled a response on behalf of the 6000 members of clinpsy.org.uk?
Miriam

See my blog at http://clinpsyeye.wordpress.com

User avatar
BlueCat
Site Admin
Posts: 2844
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:42 pm

Re: HCPC Standards Review - Have Your Say Please!

Post by BlueCat » Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:09 pm

That's a really good point about regulation of the title "psychologist"! In my tizz about no requirement for supervision in the standards, I completely forgot to have a rant about the need to regulate the title "psychologist". D'Oh. Might re-feedback from a different e-mail address :)
There's no such thing as bad weather, just the wrong clothes. Billy Connolly.

User avatar
Borrowed Cone
Posts: 1269
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:05 pm
Location: M25

Re: HCPC Standards Review - Have Your Say Please!

Post by Borrowed Cone » Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:48 pm

miriam wrote: Would others be happy if we compiled a response on behalf of the 6000 members of clinpsy.org.uk?
Excellent idea.


I had heard of this but hadn't read through just yet. I think I stumbled across it on twitter by chance.
"We can rebuild him. We have the technology. But I don't want to spend a lot of money..."

Ruthie
Moderator
Posts: 3100
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:32 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: HCPC Standards Review - Have Your Say Please!

Post by Ruthie » Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:49 pm

I'm tweeting about the supervision standards - find me and retweet - lets get the word out and make sure we have our say!

Ruthie (@BelieveCBT on twitter)
If God invented marathons to keep people from doing anything more stupid, the triathlon must have taken Him completely by surprise.

User avatar
RossPsych
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:31 pm

Post by RossPsych » Fri Sep 12, 2014 8:28 am

Have also given this a shout out on EPNET too - thanks for highlighting everyone!

User avatar
BlueCat
Site Admin
Posts: 2844
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:42 pm

Re: HCPC Standards Review - Have Your Say Please!

Post by BlueCat » Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:41 am

Thanks RossPsych. I can't believe more people aren't as shocked by this omission as I am! C'mon people, get responding to that consultation with your thoughts......we won't get this chance to influence very often!
There's no such thing as bad weather, just the wrong clothes. Billy Connolly.

User avatar
Spatch
Posts: 1406
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:18 pm
Location: The other side of paradise
Contact:

Re: HCPC Standards Review - Have Your Say Please!

Post by Spatch » Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:55 am

Done and will raise it at my place of work.

Cally
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: HCPC Standards Review - Have Your Say Please!

Post by Cally » Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:07 pm

Sent a response.

For anyone else considering responding....
- Its a short document
- On page 8 there is a list of different ways to respond: it can be as simple as sending an e-mail or completing a survey
- You don't have to be qualified to respond - they are asking for the view of any stakeholders

Better to spend 10 minutes scanning the document and firing of an e-mail than not to respond at all

:D

User avatar
choirgirl
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:41 am
Location: Midlands

Re: HCPC Standards Review - Have Your Say Please!

Post by choirgirl » Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:55 pm

Just a quick post to say thank you BlueCat for posting this here (and other places) and highlighting the lack of specific professional supervision requirements/guidance in the Standards of Proficiency. I alerted my colleagues at work to this, and we spent part of our last team meeting re-clarifying our views around the issue of supervision, resulting in a formal 700+ word Service response which I emailed in to the HCPC consultation yesterday.

Let's hope our contributions make a difference.....
"Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life." - Red Auerbach

User avatar
CatFace
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:26 pm

Re: HCPC Standards Review - Have Your Say Please!

Post by CatFace » Mon Oct 06, 2014 4:07 pm

sorry if this is a silly question, but can trainees fill this in, or is it just for qualified psychologists?

User avatar
Toria
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:00 am

Re: HCPC Standards Review - Have Your Say Please!

Post by Toria » Mon Oct 06, 2014 4:38 pm

CatFace wrote:sorry if this is a silly question, but can trainees fill this in, or is it just for qualified psychologists?
Anyone can submit a response - it's a public consultation :)
You can't stop the waves, but you can learn to surf - Jon Kabat-Zinn

User avatar
miriam
Site Admin
Posts: 7785
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Bucks
Contact:

Re: HCPC Standards Review - Have Your Say Please!

Post by miriam » Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:06 pm

Why does the audience for practitioner psychologist standards include education providers but not health providers?

As there were no other suggestions on the thread, I have written a general expression of concern to capture the discussion here and in LiveChat on this topic:
I am writing on behalf of the 6,500 members of www.clinpsy.org.uk (a website for those who have an interest in the practise of clinical psychology in the UK, where the membership includes psychology graduates, trainee and qualified clinical psychologists as well as undergraduate and post-graduate students, researchers and practitioners within IAPT).

Our first comment is a very general concern that the scope for regulating psychologists does not extend far enough to protect the public. Many people offering psychological services adopt titles that sound similar to qualified psychologists and the public are unable to discern the difference to know who is properly qualified, regulated and reputable. We have some terrifying examples of poor quality psychological therapists who fall outside of the scope of any regulation and cause terrible harm (one almost killed a child due to their incompetence). Thus we would urge reconsideration of more inclusive coverage of anyone offering psychological services to the public using the term "psychologist", not just the practitioner groups within the current guidance.

We would also note that the court system does not use the terms you protect to appoint psychological expert witnesses, and that expert witnesses who give psychological expertise are not necessarily covered by your scope. We feel this is a serious and potentially dangerous omission, as expert witnesses contribute to life-changing decisions like whether to remove a child from his/her parents.

The other major concern is that you do not insist on supervision or peer review for practitioners, and that can lead to isolated and dangerous practise (especially as the public sector fragments and many psychologists move into private practise or working for smaller providers). This needs to be specified as a minimum obligation on anyone in practise. Not just awareness of supervision, but active engagement in it at regular intervals, in a way that can be verified.

The other suggestion is that the guidance is amalgamated across all practitioner groups where there is only the most minor of variation between them, such as in the text about power differentials, to make it clearer for the public and a shorter document.

Finally, I would note that on your website it says the audience for the standards includes education providers, but does not include health providers, which seems a significant omission.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Miriam Silver
on behalf of www.clinpsy.org.uk
Miriam

See my blog at http://clinpsyeye.wordpress.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest