Hi,
Counselling and psychotherapy is due to be regulated by the Health Professions Council in the near future, and there is a big debate going on within the profession as to whether it is a "good thing" or not.
Having struggled to become BACP accredited, I find myself on the fence. But either way, I hope the BACP can drop their regulatory role asap. I find it incongruous that a counselling organisation adopts a disciplinary system that names and shames its "wrongdoing" members, even when a minor educative task is the "punishment" given. Its about time that they were able to represent their members in their hour of greatest need, which is the opposite of what happens now.
Hi,
Counselling and psychotherapy is due to be regulated by the Health Professions Council in the near future, and there is a big debate going on within the profession as to whether it is a "good thing" or not.
Having struggled to become BACP accredited, I find myself on the fence. But either way, I hope the BACP can drop their regulatory role asap. I find it incongruous that a counselling organisation adopts a disciplinary system that names and shames its "wrongdoing" members, even when a minor educative task is the "punishment" given. Its about time that they were able to represent their members in their hour of greatest need, which is the opposite of what happens now.
What do you think?
Hi David,
The Health Professions Council (HPC) may seem a good thing for emerging professions who may want to become one of the Professions allied to Medicine establishment.
I've been registered with them since inception. In truth they do nothing for the public which they claim to protect, and nothing much for the Professions which they register.
Far be it for me to suggest that the HPC is just another tier of Civil Service minions polishing seats with their backsides before retiring and picking up a juicy pension.........
They are very happy to publish your details if you as a practitioner are called before them for any misdemeanour. Your details will be in full view of anyone who bothers to go to their website, along with the charges against you, for up to two years (which can be as long as it takes to come to Hearing).
It costs me something like £140 every two years to belong. I have to because I work in Private Hospitals and they require an HPC registration number. This is in addition to my yearly Professional Body membership fees.
I definitely wouldn't belong if I didn't have to.
On the plus-side, the staff are usually friendly and helpful on the phone.
I recently complained to the BACP about one of their members and they refused to get involved, it was a very clear case of wrong doing so it's left me wondering what the point is in the organisation existing.
I recently complained to the BACP about one of their members and they refused to get involved, it was a very clear case of wrong doing so it's left me wondering what the point is in the organisation existing.
Love
Rebecca x
Well, I think its best that they get rid of the regulatory function altogether, because then a. they are free to support their members in the event of a complaint, and b. those who complain might be happier if their complaint was dismissed by a body seen to be independant.
If I resign from all that stuff, my supervisor will deal with any complaints made against me.
Would you care to say any more about "your" complaint, in necesarily vague terms (particularly as I practise in that area of the country ) - I'm interested. I can assure you that whoever it was you complained against probably has had several difficult months to examine and possibly improve their practice, while the bacp made their minds up, even if it didn't procede to a formal hearing.
For those who have not been following the continued journey towards HPC regulation, there have been some interesting developments.
1. The HPC has drawn a distinction between counselling and psychotherapy based on tick-box competancies and level of training.
Readers will be aware that not only is there no evidence that there is any difference in terms of outcomes between counselling and psychotherapy, but that the competancies and level of training of the therapist are the least significant factors in the quality of the therapeutic outcome.
The HPC, then, is actually seeking to legally redefine the words "counsellor" and "psychotherapist" to make it easier for them to take a tick-box approach to regulation.
For those who say they will make up another title for themselves that is not regulated so they can continue to practice unregulated, and just call themselves "coaching therapist" or "listening friend" or "change facilitator" or some such, the HPC say that they will be looking at the activity itself to decide whether the law is being broken. Am I the only person to see that this won't work? Tarot cards, anyone? After all, this is historically how the word "counsellor" came to be used, i.e. to avoid regulation in the US.
2. The BACP has criticised the HPC's record thus: in terms of numbers of complaints, the BACP found that 70% had a case to answer, whereas the HPC found that 30% had a case to answer. My opinion is that given the unethical policy that the BACP follows in terms of naming and shaming counsellors who are then found only to require a bit of a brush-up before being welcomed back into the fold (ignoring the effect that such a policy must have on the present and indeed past clients of that counsellor) this is a point in the HPC's favour.
3. There has been a great letter published in Therapy Today which with great insight and wit lays bare the psychological basis of the posturing that is going on between the various parties, and offers a solution. http://www.therapytoday.net/article/show/1615/
The Council approached the task by considering four regulatory ‘building blocks’ and looked at: how the Register could be structured; which professional titles should be protected; what standards of proficiency (SOPs) would be appropriate; and what standards of education and training (SETs) would be appropriate.
I should point out from the start that I don't know a lot about all of this. I can see that it might not be too difficult to come up with SETs. That would just be about agreeing standards of education and training. This would be fairly arbitrary.
However, surely it is going to be pretty hard to come up SOPs. This is because, as I understand it, there is no scientific evidence base for counselling or psychotherapy. And if there is no such measure of outcomes it follows there is not identifiable set of causes (in this case proficiencies) that can be identified and therefore regulated. There would therefore be no way of distinguishing counsellors from psychotherapists. Furthermore, can you say counsellors and pyschotherapists are health care workers at all if there is no measureable health benefit or identifiable cause of the benefits of their work? It would certainly be very difficult from a medical ethics perspective to regulate something that has no identifiable cause or effect. This does all seem a little odd!
Unless of course you decide, by consensus of course, that councillors should be able to say the the alphabet backwards and psychotherapists must wear pointy hats. And perhaps other things too, but I wouldn't want to be too prescriptive about this.
For those who have not been following the continued journey towards HPC regulation, there have been some interesting developments.
1. The HPC has drawn a distinction between counselling and psychotherapy based on tick-box competancies and level of training.
Readers will be aware that not only is there no evidence that there is any difference in terms of outcomes between counselling and psychotherapy, but that the competancies and level of training of the therapist are the least significant factors in the quality of the therapeutic outcome.
The HPC, then, is actually seeking to legally redefine the words "counsellor" and "psychotherapist" to make it easier for them to take a tick-box approach to regulation.
For those who say they will make up another title for themselves that is not regulated so they can continue to practice unregulated, and just call themselves "coaching therapist" or "listening friend" or "change facilitator" or some such, the HPC say that they will be looking at the activity itself to decide whether the law is being broken. Am I the only person to see that this won't work? Tarot cards, anyone? After all, this is historically how the word "counsellor" came to be used, i.e. to avoid regulation in the US.
Just as an example - unregulated chiropodists can still practice the activity of chiropody legally, but can't call themselves the protected title of Chiropodist. There are also foot health practitioners.
So the HPC may include counsellor and psychotherapist as protected titles, but then the same would apply?
Another point is that if someone has a qualification in something, the HPC can't take that away......
Example: (Name) (qualification) (whatever non protected title is chosen.....).
Like a lot of BACP members I expect, I'm still signed up because it helps my practice, but there were a lot of things I didn't like about the BACP even before all this came up.
I'm trying not to let myself get too CROSS about it all and just waiting to see what happens. I did try and make contact with the more maverick organisation the IPN, which some counsellors whom I very much admire are in... and I wonder if once regulation has gone through some schismatic new body will emerge.
This is because, as I understand it, there is no scientific evidence base for counselling or psychotherapy.
Sorry, Norbu, but there is a huge and growing evidence base for the health benefits of counselling and psychotherapy. For instance, Proof that Therapy is VERY cost-effective! . The research tool in common use is CORE, detailed here, and is free for therapists to use and confirm the effectiveness of their own practice, etc etc. http://www.psyc.leeds.ac.uk/ptrc/research/core.htm .
No, the problem is not that it cannot be proven that counselling and psychotherapy are effective, its that no-one has been able to demonstrate that different levels or modalities of training make any difference whatever to that proven effectiveness! You can see what a problem this is for a tick-box regulator. It has been shown, and recently written about by John Rowan amongst others, that the factors influencing therapy are, in order of importance:
1. The readiness and motivation of the client (estimated to be as much as 40%!)
2. The quality of the relationship between therapist and client (about 30%)
3. The quality of the interventions made by the therapist
4. Other factors (place, time, etc etc)
and yes, Norbu, all this is based on good research. So the influence of techniques in training comes way down the list, and once past a certain rudimentary level of skills, you cannot say that further training increases effectiveness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayWhitaker
and I wonder if once regulation has gone through some schismatic new body will emerge.
I'm with you on the BACP all the way, and the IPN too, although the AHPP is more to my core values nowadays. But I'm BACP accredited and don't quote me but that counts higher than personal integrity in the job market!
I think that many of us are hoping that this schismatic new body will be the reincarnated BACP, having shed its incongruent and unethical regulatory role. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.
Regulation of Counselling and Psychotherapy
. In truth they do nothing for the public which they claim to protect, and nothing much for the Professions which they register.
Linear Mode
Learn about therapies
and find a therapist