Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Discuss applications to the clearing house (and to courses that are not in the clearing house system), screening assessments, interviews, reserve lists, places, etc. here
Post Reply
Alex
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:01 pm

Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Post by Alex »

Clearing house/HEE have announced a shift in eligibility for funding. So that if you were on a HEE funded course (e.g. PWP training, HI training) you need to had two years of post qual practice before applying to DClinpsy.

See below for details.

https://www.leeds.ac.uk/chpccp/entry.html

Changes to HEE funding of those who have already embarked on another NHS funded professional training in the psychological professions

The Clearing House has received the following statement from Health Education England (HEE) regarding eligibility for funding (statement dated 31 August 2021). Please note: this only affects course centres in England. The Clearing House has NO further information available regarding this. If you have queries, please see the final sentence from HEE below.

Health Education England has undertaken to fund trainees in psychological professions commissioned professional training based on them having completed two years of qualified practice after completing any previous NHS funded psychological professions training. Therefore applicants who have started another NHS funded psychological professions training in any of the following but who have not completed two years of qualified practice (two years from the date of the qualifying exam board) will no longer be eligible for HEE funding of their training place and salary from the 2022 intake. The affected programmes, where NHS funded, include the following. This list may be updated periodically:

Adult Psychotherapy
Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy
Children's Wellbeing Practitioner
Clinical Associate in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
Core counselling training
Counselling psychology
Education Mental Health Practitioner
Family and Systemic Psychotherapy (qualifying level)
Forensic Psychology
Health Psychology
Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner

Steps will be taken to mitigate any potential short term unintended impact of this change on inclusion of financially disadavantaged entrants to clinical psychology training by extending the funding of paid experience programmes for disadvantaged aspiring clinical psychologists in 2021-22.

Queries from individual applicants should be directed to the Higher Education Institutions that they are applying to.
lakeland
Posts: 966
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:18 pm

Re: Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Post by lakeland »

What does this bit mean?
Steps will be taken to mitigate any potential short term unintended impact of this change on inclusion of financially disadavantaged entrants to clinical psychology training by extending the funding of paid experience programmes for disadvantaged aspiring clinical psychologists in 2021-22.
Alex
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Post by Alex »

lakeland wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:50 pm What does this bit mean?
Steps will be taken to mitigate any potential short term unintended impact of this change on inclusion of financially disadavantaged entrants to clinical psychology training by extending the funding of paid experience programmes for disadvantaged aspiring clinical psychologists in 2021-22.
HEE have recently funded assistant posts with certain criteria e.g. self-identity BAME and will continue to it seems.
User avatar
miriam
Site Admin
Posts: 8135
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Bucks
Contact:

Re: Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Post by miriam »

I can see the importance for HEE of reducing turnover and increasing the IAPT workforce, and not making PWP training a funnel for aspiring clinical psychologists. So I think that this is probably the right decision, and perhaps should have been built into the PWP training contracts from the start.

But it is just a small change in a complex system. It won't resolve all the issues with IAPT, which is sorely in need of caseload caps, better support systems for staff and better resourced mental health services to take on the more complex cases that are increasingly offered IAPT or a ridiculously long waiting list for any longer-term, more skilled or multi-disciplinary support from adult mental health services. Nor does it address the wider issues of limited training numbers in clinical psychology compared to the level of mental health need in the population, or the numbers of aspiring trainees of the calibre who could be successfully trained. Or the issues of diversity (although we have finally seen some progress with short term boosts to funding numbers tied to diversity targets, and some long overdue moves towards contextualised assessment of applications, as well as the sponsored AP posts Alex mentioned).

And even though I understand the rationale that led HEE to this decision, I agree with those highlighting on Twitter that it is unfair to change the rules without notice, as some people may have already made career choices that they would not now make in light of the new rules, and are now excluded from applying for training in the cohort they expected to. Some people who chose PWP training as a route to clinical psychology doctoral training may now have a pathway involving an extra year or two in lower paid work, when it was seen as a better paid and more certain path than support work and applying for AP posts. The sponsored AP posts may mitigate some of the diversity issues, but they don't help the people who are currently training as PWPs or working in IAPT who have aspirations towards clinical psychology.

For that reason I have signed and shared Jason's petition to delay the changes or consider excluding those who are already on HEE funded courses. Another option might be to provide exemptions or supports for those facing financial or demographic barriers to access the profession. Please take a look and add your signature if you support this suggestion, or just think they need to do a more thorough impact assessment.
Miriam

See my blog at http://clinpsyeye.wordpress.com
jason712
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 2:04 pm

Re: Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Post by jason712 »

Thanks for Sharing Miriam. I and many others agree with you. The measures themselves are fine, but we should have known in advance.

While many are saying the PWP roles and similar roles should pay more (which I agree with), it also needs better protection around everything you suggested. Let us hope HEE listens, not only to delaying this measure but also with better protection for these roles.
Alex
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Post by Alex »

With the level of shock and outrage I have seen on social media, I am disturbed at how many prospective DClinpsy applicants had planned to leave straight following a HEE funding course e.g. PWP., or soon after. I certainly do think there should have been notice. However, even without notice is it that shocking that the HEE is expecting people to stay in their job for a short period of time?
lakeland
Posts: 966
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:18 pm

Re: Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Post by lakeland »

Thanks Alex, I hadn't made the link that HEE were funding the additional AP posts, and I'm glad that this will continue.

It seems like there are lots of competing issues here as Miriam has said - for those already in posts with plans to apply, it's unfair that they haven't been given any notice ahead of the changes. But clearly this is a big issue for IAPT if they've made an nationwide decision to not allow people to leave within two years. I wonder if some services are already concerned about recruiting applicants with a Psychology degree, knowing that they are likely to leave after a short time.
hawke
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Post by hawke »

I think this sounds like a good decision for IAPT and their clients, as well as HEE financially. I was told it cost over £9k to train me as a PWP on top of me being paid a full time salary to do 3 days of clinical work. It was in my contract that I had to do at least 6 months with the service afterwards, and the university already had a rule about PWPs needing 2 years qualified experience before applying for funded HI training. I ended up doing 4 years in IAPT and I actually wish I'd done more, rather than buying into the narrative of the race to clinical training.

IAPT (and the other professions mentioned) needs to be and be seen as a viable long term career option for psychology graduates and people from other backgrounds. A band 7 HI post, with supervision and management potential, is really quite an attractive career option on paper, and I think with some small to moderate changes could be so for more people in reality. (I appreciate that for many, big changes are needed, but I think that's probably true of psychology as a whole.)

In terms of diversity, I can see why people have reacted so strongly against it - the competition for training places forces people to be more and more experienced both academically and clinically, and IAPT training has come to be seen as the more (only?) financially accessible option to get the clinical experience. So I hope we see more carrots to help make clinical psychology accessible to a broader range of applicants, alongside the stick of reducing access to funding. I don't think IAPT training should be a stepping stone, but we need to create more stepping stones and make those more equitable. I am hopeful that universities are starting to think about how they can recruit in ways that don't just incentivise collecting qualifications and job titles, and those of us who have benefited from that system in the past need to think about how we can help change that status quo.

But obviously none of that will matter if you've just started PWP training this year, and that really sucks that the rules of the system have shifted suddenly when we're all just trying to do our best to get to where we want to be.
Last edited by hawke on Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
peggk
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:00 pm

Re: Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Post by peggk »

Does anyone know what their cut off is regarding the two years work following completion of the qualification? Eg 2 years at the time of handing in the clinical application or 2 years by the time the clinical course is expected to start? I can’t seem to find any information on this whatsoever.
musbury
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:24 am

Re: Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Post by musbury »

Wonder why counselling psychology is on the list? its not funded by HEE!
Tangleteezer
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2020 1:13 pm

Re: Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Post by Tangleteezer »

peggk wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:02 pm Does anyone know what their cut off is regarding the two years work following completion of the qualification? Eg 2 years at the time of handing in the clinical application or 2 years by the time the clinical course is expected to start? I can’t seem to find any information on this whatsoever.
King’s replied to someone on Twitter with this:
“ Further clarification will be provided by HEE on a number of the questions being asked. Our understanding is that the gap between entry date (not application date) and the exam board of the funded training course must be a period of 2 years.”
Alex
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Post by Alex »

Quick U -turn! There are no changes, well for now.

HEE have updated that there will be no restrictions this year.

https://www.hee.nhs.uk/our-work/mental- ... programmes
User avatar
miriam
Site Admin
Posts: 8135
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Bucks
Contact:

Re: Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Post by miriam »

Yes, amazing change and a sign of exactly how vocal and united the opposition to imposing the change without notice has been. Well done all!
Miriam

See my blog at http://clinpsyeye.wordpress.com
jason712
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 2:04 pm

Re: Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Post by jason712 »

miriam wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:46 pm Yes, amazing change and a sign of exactly how vocal and united the opposition to imposing the change without notice has been. Well done all!
I echo Miriam's post. I am humbled and emotional by everyone's response. Really shows what an amazing force to be reckoned with we all are. I never imagined the support but with a united voice, we couldn't be ignored. I think there's more to be done. I've written a long post with my thoughts here (hope it's okay to share, if not Miriam please delete it) twitlonger.com/show/n_1srqco8
quald
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:43 pm

Re: Changes to entry to DClinpsy

Post by quald »

Hi everyone,

For anyone still interested to read in relation to HEE funding:

Open Letter by UH Trainees here: https://medium.com/@hertsdclinpsy/an-op ... c0f5c314fd

Reflections by aspiring clinical psychologists here: https://medium.com/@hertsdclinpsy/our-v ... 7ea0f094f6
This article is conversational and aims to invite and encourage people to take part in the discussion and share their experiences (in the comments area).

Cheers everyone,
qualdx
Post Reply