HPC blog

Professionalism in healthcare professionals

2011-11-23T11:25:00.003Z

What is professionalism?

There has been renewed interest over the last few months in the ‘professionalism’ of health care workers. One YouGov poll reported 41% of those surveyed thought that nurses were ‘less professional than they had ever been’. Whilst today’s wave of interest may be focused on nurses, it is in all our interests to reflect on why health and care workers are currently perceived in this way. The issues which have been a cause for concern – treating patients and service users with respect, communicating clearly, involving people in decisions about their own care, keeping accurate records of treatments and interventions – are all fundamental to good professional practise for all health and care professionals, and they are clearly articulated in the HPC’s standards.

One of the questions worth exploring in this complex arena is: what do professionals themselves think ‘professionalism’ means? As part of our commitment to building the evidence base of regulation, we commissioned researchers at Durham University to take a qualitative look at perceptions of ‘professionalism’. Specifically, we asked them to explore what the concept meant to students and educators in three professions; occupational therapists, paramedics and chiropodists / podiatrists. One hundred and fifteen students and educators participated in twenty focus groups.

What emerged from the research was that ‘professionalism’ was seen not so much as a competency but a judgement, a set of behaviours influenced by context, rather than a fixed, defined characteristic. These behaviours were strongly influenced by the particular care group, peer group, and knowledge and skills of an individual. How peers behaved, for example, could strongly influence how an individual viewed ‘professional’ behaviour, and what was appropriate in one context might not be in another. The use of humour, calling a patient by their first name, and dress codes, were all examples of behaviours which needed to be adapted depending on the context, and the skill of professionalism was in knowing when to do what. The report gives illuminating examples of unprofessional behaviour and why it was judged to be so. Standards and codes were seen as an important, if more remote, influence on behaviour – a baseline level of professionalism that would not be breached.

Why is this research important?

It is the first study of its kind into professions regulated by HPC. There has been a great deal of research on professionalism, but most of it in relation to doctors and nurses, very little specifically looks at the professions we regulate. The findings reveal more similarities than differences between students and educators from the three professions. We hope it will provoke further thinking about the centrality of behaviour, ethics and conduct in delivering good care.

There is a lot of discussion about whether or not support workers and assistants should be registered – mainly arising from reports about poor conduct, abusive relationships, and dishonest dealings with vulnerable people. There seems to be a renewed interest in defining and securing professional behaviours in our health and social care workforce, whether EA trained doctors, healthcare assistants, or paramedics. As a UK-wide regulator, we have an interest in promoting professionalism, stimulating debate and discussion about what part we play, and how this overlaps with the role played by others – systems regulators, employers, peers, patients and carers. I hope that many of you will see this report as an opportunity for debate and discussion about what professionalism means for you, in your context, and how it can be enhanced across the whole workforce. It is through debate and discussion that our individual and collective understanding of this important aspect of practise can develop still further.

Anna van der Gaag
HPC Chair

The research is available to download from the HPC website

Standards of proficiency for social workers in England: Reflecting the complexity of social work practice

2011-10-14T11:18:00.006+01:00

As you may be aware, next year the regulation of social workers in England is due to transfer from the General Social Care Council (GSCC) to the Health Professions Council. We are also due to be renamed the Health and Care Professions Council to reflect our new role. As part of getting ready for the transfer, we are currently consulting on standards of proficiency for social workers in England.

Each profession regulated by the HPC has their own specific standards of proficiency and this is a legal requirement. The standards of proficiency will set out what a social worker needs to know about, understand and be able to do when they become registered for the first time.

We will use these standards when we approve undergraduate degree and masters degree programmes in social work to make sure that someone who successfully completes their degree has met the standards they need to practise safely and effectively as a social worker.

We know that once a social worker becomes registered their practise might develop in lots of different ways – for example, they might work in different settings, specialise in a particular area of practise or become involved in training social work students. Because of this, once a social worker is registered with us we will expect them to continue to meet the standards of proficiency, but only those that continue to apply to their particular scope of practice.

The draft standards of proficiency include standards about ethics, communication skills, team working and safeguarding vulnerable people. Some examples of these standards are listed below:

• knowing the limits of practice and seeking advice or referring to another professional where appropriate
• recognising workload and resources
• understanding the importance of maintaining their own health and wellbeing
• Being aware of the characteristics and consequences of verbal and non-verbal communication and how this can be affected by disability, culture, age, ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs and socio-economic status.
• Being able to contribute effectively to work undertaken as part of a multi-disciplinary team.

These are just a few examples. We set up a working group involving key stakeholders from social work to help us to put together the draft for consultation

The standards play a specific and important role in how we regulate but very much complement other standards such as the Professional Capabilities Framework (PCF). We have written a short statement with the Social Work Reform Board setting out the role of the standards of proficiency and the PCF
http://www.hpc-uk.org/mediaandevents/statements/hpcandswrbjointstatement/

Currently social workers have to meet the GSCC’s code of practice for social care workers and our standards of conduct, performance and ethics (SCPE) will replace this code. These standards describe how the public and professionals alike expect someone who is registered with us to behave. They include standards such as the need to act in the best interests of service users, protect confidentiality and behave with integrity and honesty. The standards apply to all of the 15 professions we currently regulate and once social workers in England join the HPC register they will also have to meet these. Next year, we plan to review these standards so there will be an opportunity for social workers to help us shape these standards for the future.

We are really keen to hear what social workers and others think about the draft standards. It provides a great opportunity for individual social workers to get involved and to help us to make sure the standards are fit for purpose and reflect the values and context of social work.

The consultation closes on 18 November 2011. Please do respond and help us in shaping these important standards for social workers.

Link to the consultation:

http://www.hpc-uk.org/aboutus/consultations/

Link to our standards of conduct, performance and ethics
http://www.hpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/standards/standardsofconductperformanceandethics/

By Michael Guthrie
HPC's Director of Policy and Standards

HPC builds an iPhone App

2011-08-08T15:25:00.011+01:00

Modern mobile devices like the iPhone are changing the way people access and share information. There is already an expectation that organisations should make their services available online, but now more than ever people expect those services to be fully functional from their mobile device.

At the HPC we are seeing the number of people accessing our services from mobile devices increasing. As an organisation looking to extend our reach to the public and our stakeholders to raise awareness of our regulatory role, it is a communications channel that we simply cannot ignore.

Mobile apps allow organisations to tailor information and services specifically for mobile devices, not only to ensure that the information is fully accessible from a smaller device, but also to utilise the specific strengths of these devices, such as GPS technology, social media integration and multimedia capabilities.

For me the key to building a successful mobile app is to focus it around a specific audience, and not to attempt to do too many things for too many people. The best apps that I have used tend to focus on a specific utility and perform it very well.

With the public as our primary audience, our focus was getting across our key messages, namely, who we are, what we do and how to raise a concern about a health and care professional.

However our strongest message is to encourage people to check that their professional is currently registered, ensuring that they are practising legally, safely and effectively, and they are entitled to use a protected title.

When we recently redesigned our online Register (accessed through our microsite hpcheck.org), we built new infrastructure which allows us to integrate this utility through other channels, and our new mobile app was perfectly placed to make full use of this.

The challenge for us was to design a mobile interface that made searching the Register easy, clear and accessible, and I would like to think that we've achieved that.

We were also able to integrate our RSS feeds giving users access to the latest news and media releases from the HPC. There is also the added benefit of users being able to save any relevant news items, as well as share items with friends and colleagues.

We have also managed to make use of the iPhones’ multimedia capabilities by including our ‘raising a concern’ brochure for download, and our video on 'understanding fitness to practise hearings' which can be viewed directly from the app.

We feel the new app uniquely extends the reach of the HPC Register, as well as providing another communications channel for our stakeholders.

We do not, however, see this as a finished product, and we are already looking at ways in which we can improve and extend the app in the future. You can download it free from the iPhone App Store now, and please tell us what you think by emailing us at: app@hpc-uk.org

Tony Glazier
Web Manager, Health Professions Council

Making regulation more accessible

2011-07-14T17:29:00.005+01:00

‘Accessible’ is a word that most people associate with physical access to buildings or buses. People with disabilities campaigned for decades to afford the right to equal access in public places, and as a result, society has become more ‘accessible’ to many more people, whether through markings on pavements for people with visual impairments, or ramps outside public buildings for people who use wheelchairs. Communication ‘access’ is a less familiar term, and still less understood by the majority of people, despite the fact that there are an estimated 2.5 million people in the UK with communication difficulties of some kind or another. In broad terms, ‘communication access’ refers to the right to information – to have information in formats that make sense – whether in a different language, or in pictures or symbols.

Governments in the UK have been promoting this kind of access, albeit less visibly than others. More than ten years ago, the Scottish government published an important document called ‘Same as You’, a policy statement on the future of services for people with learning disabilities. It represented a new step towards a more inclusive and accessible future. It made an important reference to the role of communication and information;

‘Better information, communication and advocacy are central to making any changes and putting principles into practice. If we are to include people with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorders more fully, they need to have accurate information so that they can make informed choices and decisions’ (Same as You, 2000, p42).

The following year, a very similar policy statement was published by the Department of Health in England in ‘Valuing People’ (2001). Both of these were heavily influenced by the All Wales Strategy for people with learning disabilities, also groundbreaking policy which set the scene for many of the reforms of services for people with learning disabilities in the 1990s and beyond.

One of the key initiatives which grew out of this reform agenda, - became known as ‘Easy Read’ – ensuring that public services provided information that was accessible to people who, for whatever reason, found written English difficult to understand. My colleagues within speech and language therapy have been instrumental in promoting this over many years. Today there are a large number of organisations, many employing people with disabilities, who provide help and guidance on making information more accessible. Last year, HPC commissioned Inspired Services Ltd, to produce an Easy Read version of the HPC’s public information leaflet. This was developed with and by service users in collaboration with members of the HPC Fitness to practise team. Making information about how to complain ‘accessible’ was a challenging task for all those involved. HPC has made a clear commitment in its strategic objectives to make information about its processes more accessible, so that people know how to complain, and where to complain. It is essential for a regulator to take steps to ensure that information on how to complain is as ‘accessible’ as possible. I am delighted to see that the easy read version is now available on line and my thanks to all those who made it happen.

Anna van der Gaag
Chair
HPC

BLOG update: Stop kissing the carpet

2011-06-03T09:58:00.003+01:00

Panorama programmes have a reputation for shocking audiences. Last nights’s programme, ‘Undercover care’ was no exception. It told the story of systematic abuse in a residential care home for people with learning disabilities through graphic, disturbing footage, secretly filmed. Restraint of the ‘patients’ included a routine called ‘kissing the carpet’, in which vulnerable young disabled adults were pinned to the floor, sometimes under a chair, with their hands pinned under the feet of a support worker. The programme reported weeks when 24 such restraints took place – when one would have been shocking enough on its own. Professor Jim Mansell, one of the UK’s authorities on caring for people with learning disabilities and author of numerous reports and studies, was interviewed on the programme. He described the pattern of abuse as one he recognised - in which a senior long serving unqualified member of staff creates the model for others to follow, and no-one dares to challenge or report such abuse to the outside world.

I found this programme particularly shocking in part because I worked as a speech and language therapist with people with learning disabilities in the 1980s. At that time, institutional care was still common and stories of abuse were also widely reported in the press – although without the benefit of clever hidden cameras. I vigorously supported the campaign to close these long stay hospitals, many of which I had visited as part of a three year research study. Thankfully, almost all these large institutions had gone by the mid 1990s, replaced by smaller, more home-like residential facilities, closer to communities and families, more accessible to visitors, more transparent in their management.

But still the abuse continues. The Panorama programme has already led to a series of apologies, suspensions and soul searching. For me, it highlights yet again the importance of regulating individuals as well as institutions. On the spot inspections of care homes will only go so far in uncovering systematic abuse, because it can only ever be periodic inspection, whether unannounced or not. Castlebeck’s home had been inspected three times in the previous 2 years and there was ‘no evidence of systematic abuse’. We need to have regulation of all those employed in the care of vulnerable people, not just those whose qualifications give them more responsibility. We need a system which makes raising concerns about colleagues clear, simple and decisive and acceptable. We do not have a mandatory system of regulation for support workers in England. I look forward to the time when we do.

Anna van der Gaag
Chair
HPC

New Standards of Proficiency for social workers in England: Reflecting the complexity of social work practice

2011-04-12T16:54:00.002+01:00

Many people will be aware that the Government has proposed to transfer responsibility for the regulation of social workers in England to the HPC. As part of the preparations for this transfer, we established a working group (known as a Professional Liaison Group) of experts in the field of social work to assist us with the drafting of new standards of proficiency for social workers in England. This group met for the last time this week, having met four times since November.

The purpose of the standards of proficiency is to establish threshold standards necessary for safe and effective practice. They must reflect existing requirements and training provision, and must be flexible enough to apply to the different environments in which social workers practise. Each profession regulated by HPC has developed standards, written as part of the overarching standards which apply to all. This is a legal requirement, and the standards are specified in the legislation, which is why they had to be developed in addition to existing frameworks and standards, such the Professional Capabilities Framework or the National Occupational Standards. The HPC standards of proficiency serve a particular purpose – they are threshold standards for safe and effective practise for social workers in England – and although they do relate to the existing frameworks they have to be created for each profession regulated by HPC.

The key challenge is to ensure that the standards reflect the values of social work, the complexity of practice and diversity of contexts and settings in which social workers find themselves.

The process of drafting standards requires individuals who are able to focus on the nuances of the meaning of a sentence whilst holding the big picture of what lies at the heart of social work practice. Over the years I have taken part in many PLG meetings at HPC. I have rarely seen a group work so well together so quickly on what is ahugely challenging task. The representatives from the social work community included social work managers, employers, academics, professional body, regulatory body and union representatives. The group was well chaired by Professor Jeff Lucas, a lay member of the HPC Council and included three Members of the HPC Council. The feedback from members on the process and the way it was conducted by the HPC Executive was positive and constructive.

The next step is to ensure that the standards are thoroughly reviewed by a wide range of stakeholders before being approved by the HPC’s Education and Training Committee and Council. Once published, the standards will be subject to ongoing reviews and updates to ensure that they continue to develop and change with the profession. There is more work to be done in ensuring that the standards are clearly situated within existing standards and frameworks for social workers in England, and that the relationships between these different standards and their particular purpose is clearly understood. I have no doubt that the collaborative spirit in which this first stage has been conducted will continue to influence the process as it unfolds, and I am grateful to all those who have taken the draft standards thus far. The beginning is always the hardest part.

Anna van der Gaag
Chair
HPC

BLOG update: Counsellors and psychotherapists working group meets for the last time

2011-02-09T17:09:00.003Z

Last week, the tenth and final meeting of the HPC professional liaison group on counsellors and psychotherapists took place before a packed public gallery of observers.

Since the meeting in December last year, the counsellor and psychotherapy members of the group have held meetings to undertake further reviews of the draft standards of proficiency.

There were three substantive items on the agenda – consideration of a new draft set of standards for psychotherapists working with children and young people, the draft standards of education and training, and the revised draft standards of proficiency for counsellors and psychotherapists, aligned with the new version of the generic standards of proficiency.

The Group had already made an in principle decision that the profession specific standards of proficiency should be drafted for counsellors at Level 5 and Level 7, and Level 7 for psychotherapists, effectively creating two level of entry points for counsellors, and one for psychotherapists. This meeting provided an opportunity for the whole group to review these draft standards with a view to making recommendations to the HPC Council in due course.

As ever there was a wide ranging discussion on almost all of these issues, and at several points the group felt it was important to take an indicative vote amongst those from the counselling and psychotherapy professions around the table. The outcome of this voting was as follows
• There was agreement (one abstention) that the first entry point for counsellors should be set at Level 5.
• There was agreement (one abstention) that there should be different entry points for counsellors – one at Level 5 and the other at level 7

These outcomes represent significant progress in the work to describe different levels of practise.

On the other two substantive points, - creating a separate set of standards of proficiency for child psychotherapists and holding two separate sets of standards of proficiency for counsellors and psychotherapists at Level 7 - the group did not reach a consensus. . These matters were therefore referred to the HPC Council for further deliberation.

There were passionate views round the table, not least over the importance of the language of the standards, and a clear feeling that there were differences in identity, philosophy and semantics between counsellors and psychotherapists. There were also differences in practise, which some felt could be more clearly articulated in the draft standards at Level 7. However, the opposite view was that that differentiation at entry level 7 was not supported by evidence from the field – there were currently counsellors and psychotherapists who use the title interchangeably, applying theory and practise from both fields, depending on the context.

The disparity continues to centre around describing differentiation – and specifically how and what differentiates a counsellor and a psychotherapist trained to Level 7 when they qualify from a training programme. For me, the debate is a philosophical and ideological one – tied up closely with identity. I did not hear anyone say that there was no difference between the two – only disparate views on how and what distinguishes them at the point of entry to practise.

Since the outset of the work of the PLG, references have been made to the ‘building blocks’ of regulation – standards, levels of entry to the Register and the structure of the Register being examples of these. It struck me after the meeting that the standards could also be described using the analogy of a climbing wall. The standards are something like the footholds and hand-grips on a climbing wall. If the wall is ‘professional practise’, and the climbers are practitioners – there are an almost unlimited number of ways that the wall can be climbed. For counsellors and psychotherapists, we may not yet have agreement on where the foothold and hand grips should be placed on the wall, but we are significantly closer now than we were a year ago.

This debate will therefore continue well beyond the ending of the PLG. I very much believe that this further work will bring us to a pragmatic solution that is acceptable to the majority. Members of the PLG have been tenacious in their commitment to this work, and have created new milestones, new agreements, new clarity. Without clear standards, there can be no robust regulation. On behalf of the Council, I would like to thank them for their personal investment and considered contribution to this important work.

Anna van der Gaag
Chair
HPC

A day in court

2010-12-17T10:32:00.002Z

On Friday, I attended a hearing in the Administrative court to address the question of whether the case brought by six psychotherapy and psychoanalysis practitioner groups should proceed to a full judicial hearing. HPC argued that the claimants were ‘out of time’ in legal speak, in other words they had not lodged their complaint within the timeframe for a judicial review. The Judge decided that, although as he put it “there was a great deal of common ground between the parties”, there was not enough to conclude the case at this stage and therefore it should proceed to the next stage, namely a full hearing. We can expect a delay of about four to six months before this hearing will be listed in the High Court. In the meantime, the HPC is committed to the process of finding ‘the common ground’ as Justice Burton directed.

What struck me about the exchange in court was that the claimant’s real argument is with the government, and not the HPC. We can and probably will continue to argue on points of law, about who did what and when and according to which process or guidance or directive, but the decision over statutory regulation is not and never has been a decision for the HPC. It is a decision for government. The frustration is that we are now involved in an expensive process which will not, in the end, solve this.

Since this work on regulation began, there has been significant progress both in working relationships and in the practical development of standards. In September, the UKCP invited the HPC to an education event for its members, something which would not have been possible earlier this year. There have been many other initiatives which suggest to me that the level of disquiet about HPC is subsiding, and the level of mutual respect and shared aspiration is increasing.

Anna van der Gaag
Chair HPC

A meeting of minds

2010-10-26T10:25:00.001+01:00

On the 7th October, HPC held an information event for counsellors and psychotherapists in Glasgow. It was well attended. We began with a presentation on the purpose of regulation, and moved on to an update of the work of the Professional Liaison Group for psychotherapists and counsellors and a description of the HPC’s Fitness to Practise process. This was followed by an hour long Question and answer session with a panel. Brain McGee, Chief Executive of COSCA (Counselling in Scotland) and member of the HPC’s PLG, joined us on the panel.

The audience raised a wide range of issues about the proposals for statutory regulation. First, there were concerns about the potential financial impact of regulation on voluntary sector organisations and their volunteers. In Scotland there is a strong and well established infrastructure of volunteers who provide counselling services, perhaps more so than in other parts of the UK, and the issue of funding the fee could become a breaking point. There was discussion around whether the Scottish government could or would offer a subsidy, given the widespread use of volunteer counselling services in Scotland.
Some representatives from the voluntary sector organisations also asked about the timescale for the implementation of statutory regulation, and expressed frustration at the continuing delay. As well as the desire to fully address the complexity of some of the issues about regulating psychotherapists and counsellors the uncertainly around the current governments position in this regard was also noted by the audience.

There was discussion about some of the unresolved issues still being considered by the PLG, such as the criteria for selecting voluntary registers for transfer, differentiation between counselling and psychotherapy, and what individuals would call themselves post regulation. There was some feeling expressed that the result of the consultation exercise showing that 78% of individuals did not favour differentiation should be taken as a clear sign of the views of counsellors and psychotherapists. However, the HPC noted that these figures might not convey the full picture as a number of the current voluntary registers had asked individuals to respond directly to them and had collated views.

There was a discussion around the relationship between professional bodies and the regulator – with concerns expressed that regulation would diminish the role of the professional bodies. Clearly, HPC could not replace the services and support offered by these bodies. The panel responded by referring to previous experiences from other professions where the role of the professional body as the body focused on promotion of the standards and the reputation of the profession was enhanced once the disciplinary function was transferred.

Fitness to practise processes were also raised, in particular concerns about how the HPC supported those individuals for whom there was no case to answer. What was the duty of care to them? Kelly Johnson, Director of Fitness to Practise described the processes that had been put in place to support individuals and outlined the work being done exploring the role of mediation in a regulatory context. She acknowledged again the significant stress arising from any scrutiny of an individual’s practise.

I personally was heartened to hear that at least one individual who had attended one of our previous stakeholder events held in Manchester in 2009, said she felt this event showed that the HPC was listening to the views of practitioners and was more constructive in the dialogue. There has been the need for some culture shifts/changes in approach for us as an organisation in thinking about the regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors. I hope that such listening will continue on both sides.. The whole event did feel like a conversation that was illuminating for both listeners and speakers, and I was pleased to be part of it.

Anna van der Gaag
Chair HPC

Counsellors and psychotherapists working group meets again

2010-05-18T12:13:00.003+01:00

Anna van der Gaag, Chair of HPC writes:

On the 12 May 2010, the sixth meeting of the HPC’s working group (called the professional liaison group) on counsellors and psychotherapists took place in London. The purpose of the meeting was to review progress and to discuss the plan of activities over the coming months.

There was a consensus round the table that progress had been made over the past year. Areas where further work was necessary were now more clearly in focus. The HPC’s initiatives on reviewing the generic standards of proficiency, and the Council’s recognition that the generic standards needed to become more over arching and less orientated towards the language of ‘health’ were seen as a key to accommodating counsellors and psychotherapists within the existing structures. There was also an acknowledgement that HPC’s ongoing engagement with the professional associations was important to making progress on all the outstanding issues – differentiation between counsellors and psychotherapists, child and adult work, as well as consensus building on the standards of proficiency and the standards on education and training. Third, members of the group spent time discussing the wider debates taking place about regulation, and the need for ongoing engagement with those who currently oppose regulation. There was an acknowledgement of the range of reasons behind opposition to HPC as a regulator. Several members felt it would be helpful to know more of the detail behind the proposals for the alternative form of regulation being proposed.

The planned activities over the coming months will centre around the PLG’s further engagement with a range of stakeholders as well as further deliberations by the group on the outstanding issues outlined above. There was agreement that the group wished to invite service users to present their perspectives on these issues, as their voice had been under represented. Careful consideration would need to be given to how best to hear more from users on their experiences of counselling and psychotherapy and views on regulation. Other suggestions included employers and those with expertise in working with children, some additional perspectives on regulation of the profession across the world, and possibly additional input from educationalists when giving further consideration to standards from education and training.

The work of the PLG in gathering more expertise and hearing from a wider range of stakeholders will run in parallel with four public meetings across the UK. These public meetings will provide opportunities for further dialogue with the profession. Each meeting will include presentations from HPC on its work, a question and answer session and workshops.

My own observation was that there were several threads running through today’s discussions – one was the ongoing need for the PLG members and the HPC to engage with the profession. The second was the centrality of the relational element in counselling and psychotherapy – which was common across all modalities - and should be clearly recognised and articulated in the current debate. The meeting was, as ever, populated by a wide ranging and constructive dialogue and a desire to make further progress towards statutory regulation.

Anna van der Gaag
Chair
HPC

The proposed regulation of counsellors and psychotherapists: reflections from the Chair

2010-04-30T12:02:00.014+01:00

Anna van der Gaag, Chair of HPC writes:

In recent months I have benefited greatly from conversations with members of the profession, who have discussed the government’s proposals for statutory regulation. Several have asked me to write a brief statement, which may help to explain some facts to those unfamiliar with the HPC and in particular, to describe our underlying principles as well as practices.

When was the HPC set up?
The HPC was established in 2001, as the UK wide statutory regulator for 12 professions working in NHS, education and social care settings as well as private practitioners. From the start, it was given a remit to advise the government on the statutory regulation of additional professions and by 2010, it had assumed responsibility for regulating three further professions, including psychologists.

How do professions become regulated by HPC?
There are two ways in which a profession can be recommended for regulation by the HPC.

Firstly, the HPC itself has the legal power to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Health and to Scottish Ministers on the regulation of a profession. To help us in exercising this power we have a ‘new professions process’ through which professional bodies representing professions seeking regulation can apply and demonstrate that they meet 10 criteria for regulation. To date we have received unsolicited applications via this route from 11 professions, including dance movement therapists, and have made recommendations for their regulation to government.

Secondly, the government can make a decision to regulate a profession itself, normally via a White Paper. In 2007, this was the route chosen by the government for the regulation of several professions, including psychologists, counsellors and psychotherapists. Direct reference is made to the government’s desire to regulate these professions in the White Paper entitled ‘Trust Assurance and Safety – The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century’ .

What do we do?
The four key functions of a statutory professional regulator are to
• Set and monitor standards for the professions regulated by them, including standards on continuing professional development
• Keep a register of those who meet the standards
• Monitor and approve education programmes
• Run a fitness to practise process

Underlying principles
There are several key principles underpinning our work. First, many of our standards are ‘generic’, that is they are designed to apply to all the professions that we regulate. This recognises the similarities between many professions, and allows for greater consistency and clarity from the public’s perspective. Second, our legislation is compliant with Human Rights principles and law, and is designed to protect the public and not to ‘punish’ practitioners. This compliance underpins all our processes – from the way in which standards are agreed and set, to the organisation, language and delivery of fitness to practise processes. For example, there is no reference in the fitness to practise process to ‘punishment’ or ‘guilt’ ‘ ‘defendant’ or ‘charges.’ The emphasis is on establishing whether the person’s ‘fitness to practise’ is ‘impaired’ and whether public protection is ‘required’ in relation to that individual.

How does the Fitness to Practise process work?
Anyone can make an allegation against any practitioner on our register. We decide whether the allegation meets our standard of acceptance for an allegation and if it does, we start a process to assess whether or not the practitioner does, or does not meet our standards. We do recognise that any examination of a professional’s work is going to be stressful and will have an impact on all those involved.

The process involves a number of stages, and we make sure that we communicate with the individuals concerned so that they know what is happening at each stage. It may involve a full public hearing at which all sides have an opportunity to have their views heard by a panel. There are certain circumstances in which hearings are heard or part heard in private, for example, when panels are required to consider details of a professional’s physical or mental health, or where the identity of witnesses need to be protected. However we adhere to the ‘open justice principle’ used throughout the United Kingdom, which means that in general our hearings are held in public.

The panels are made up of professional and lay people. They will always include a person who is from the same profession as the practitioner, and where appropriate there will be experts from the field who are invited to give their views at the hearing. The HPC has well over 400 Partners, many drawn from the professions themselves, who undertake the work of inspecting education programmes, assessing applications to join the register, as well as sitting as panel members at fitness to practise hearings. There are also many ‘lay’ Partners, who come from a wide variety of public service and independent sector backgrounds, and are all given training in HPC’s principles and processes. If we were to regulate counsellors and psychotherapists, we would recruit new Partners from the various counselling and psychotherapy modalities and disciplines to undertake this work.

Onora O’Neill, in her book ‘A Question of Trust’, talks about the importance of having ‘individuals with knowledge’ responsible for making judgements. HPC is wholly committed to ensuring that this is the case in all its day to day decisions – whether about education standards or ethical standards or standards of competence or – ‘proficiency’ as it is called in law – for a particular profession.

Where panels identify that a registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, they must determine what degree of public protection (if any) is required. Panels should approach this in a proportionate manner and as so far as possible, registrants should be allowed to remain in practice subject to any necessary restrictions if that is consistent with public protection.
HPC’s approach to justice, para 9.0, 2010.

When determining what action to take, the panel have a range of sanctions which it can apply to practitioners, including placing conditions on practise, or requiring a period of supervised practise, or suspending the person from work until such time as they are ready to return to work.

The approach to justice at HPC is, in this sense, restorative, not retributive in nature (see illustration below showing the justice continuum). The panels of the HPC are not there to punish individuals, although a small minority of individuals (currently 0.03%) are taken of the register and are not able to continue practising. These individuals have in most instances been identified as posing a serious risk to the public by an independent panel with representation from the profession itself.

We know from independent sources (Borys and Pope, 1989, Pope, 1991, Sarkar, 2004) that there is evidence that a minority of practitioners do present a risk to the public but it is only a tiny minority.

Recognising what is different about counsellors and psychotherapists
Many psychotherapists and counsellors have discussed with me the complex nature of their work with individuals. Depending on their ideology and discipline, they explain this in different language, but one of the common themes that comes across is that therapy can be a risky business – and we know that some argue that any kind of ‘talking’ therapy is inherently risky. People who come for therapy can be ‘damaged’ by events and circumstances, vulnerable, abused, and angry as well as searching for greater levels of insight and understanding. The risk therefore of misinterpretation, retaliation, or disappointment is often high, and the therapist enters into therapy with a degree of awareness that the client may, or may not derive benefit, and may or may not find the experience of therapy to be a positive one. Indeed, many will undergo therapy which becomes difficult, painful, confusing and challenging, though in the majority of cases the outcome will leave the person feeling that therapy has been a rewarding and strengthening experience.

If one introduced a system of statutory regulation into this therapeutic environment, then the concern is that there will be therapists who are ‘blamed’ by their clients for disappointment or disorder in their lives which may have nothing to do with the therapist’s behaviour or competence. It is the relational element in counselling and psychotherapy, common across all modalities and central to the therapeutic process itself, that gives rise to great complexity and therefore greater potential for misrepresentation.

HPC is aware that theses are some of the concerns amongst practitioners. However, I believe that the system of regulation delivered by HPC is able to accommodate this, whilst still offering the level of public re-assurance and protection. I believe this for a number of reasons:

Firstly, our fitness to practise process is about deciding whether a professional remains fit to practise. Sometimes a client might be unhappy about their therapy or their therapist, for example, they are unhappy because they didn’t find their therapy helped them. We have to consider the complaints we receive individually but we only need to take action where a practitioner’s fitness to practise might be impaired and where we might need to take action to protect other members of the public.

The HPC cannot address all complaints, and nor does it wish to. It is concerned only with investigating impairment in practise which has consequences for public protection. For example, the fitness to practise of a therapist who borrows money from their client or who engages in sexual activity with a client during therapy sessions is very likely to be impaired.
In these examples most members of the public and indeed fellow therapists would reasonably conclude that this was unacceptable behaviour. These are the kinds of issues of impairment that have consequences for public protection.

Secondly, we have experience in regulating arts psychotherapists, a group of therapists with whom there is certainly some commonality with counsellors and psychotherapists. From this experience we know that the number of allegations against these professions has been very small. For example, between 2005 and 2007, there were four allegations against arts therapists. The assertion that the HPC is receiving many dozens of complaints against talking therapists is unfounded.

Lastly, the standards we use are ‘enabling’ standards, not prescriptive standards. We do not and would not prescribe what should happen during each therapy session, for example, and we recognise that professionals on our register might meet our standards in a variety of different ways, depending upon, for example, their professional background, their personal preference, and the needs of individual clients.

In a recent article published in the spring edition of ‘New Associations’, Val Huet, group psychotherapist and Chief Executive of the British Association of Art Therapists, told New Associations, the new publication from the British Psychoanalytic Council ,

‘Nobody from HPC is going to stand at your elbow and say you must do this or that. Their concern is public protection.”

Furthermore we are in the process of reviewing our standards to make them more overarching and to remove the language of health and disease which has caused concern.

HPC’s plans for Mediation research
There are some disputes between therapist and client that may be more amenable to different means of resolution, such as mediation. Such alternatives will be more appropriate in some circumstances than others, and will depend upon factors such as the nature and severity of the allegation and whether or not both parties agree to such an approach. They can reduce the impact of the experience of bringing an allegation for both parties and provide a way of resolving conflict. We are looking at how and when such approaches are applied in other fields of work, and will then make a decision as to whether or how they might be piloted by HPC. We will be working closely with the professions on this, and there will be further updates on the progress of this work later in the year.

References

Department of Health (2007)
Trust Assurance and Safety – The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century’ .

HPC Fitness to Practise Annual Report 2009
www.hpc-uk.org/publications

HPC’s Approach to Justice and Impairment
Council papers, March 25 2010, Enclosure 9.

New Associations – News analysis and opinion from the psychoanalytic community. ‘Forging as modern profession’, Spring Issue 2010, p6-7.

O’neill, O. (2002) A Question of Trust. Reith Lectures 2002

Safety must come first in Chinese Herbal Medicine

2010-03-01T14:11:00.003Z

This week has seen renewed calls for the regulation of Chinese herbal medicine in the UK. Press interest arose from a court case involving Ying Wu, a Chinese herbal medicine practitioner, who was alleged to have given noxious substances to her patient, Patricia Booth, causing her to suffer kidney failure and cancer.

At present, herbalists and traditional Chinese medical practitioners are not regulated. Anyone can set themselves up in this field of practice, with no qualifications or training, no accountability and no quality assurance monitoring of their work with the public. Many high streets across the UK have shops advertising alternative and complementary therapies, of which Chinese herbal medicine is just one. And yet, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has been warning for many years that substances offered by such practitioners can be toxic to patients, resulting in severe adverse reaction and even death. There have been numerous reports from those who have considerable expertise within the field supporting the move towards regulation, including those from the profession itself.

It strikes me as particularly poignant that this story emerged in the same week that Professor Mike Pittilo, Chair of the Department of Health Steering Group on Statutory regulation of complementary practitioners, died as a result of a long illness. Mike had for many years been arguing for statutory regulation, and was deeply concerned about the delay in reaching a decision on this. For him, as for all of us at HPC, the decision is clear. Public safety must come first. Without statutory regulation, the public are not protected, and are at risk of being harmed by a minority of practitioners who, knowingly or unknowingly, administer a toxic mix of medicines.

HPC was recommended as the regulator of choice for Chinese herbal medicine, herbal medicine practitioners and acupuncturists by the Department of Health Steering Group in May 2008. Since then, we have been working with these professional groups, discussing how regulation works and what the implications might be for them. For the vast majority of competent practitioners, there is nothing to fear from a system of statutory regulation which will ensure UK wide, consistent standards of training and practice, as well as a swift mechanism for dealing with practitioners who fall below those standards and put the public at risk.

For the sake of clients and patients, we must take decisive action to introduce greater protection for the public, before there is another patient like Patricia Booth, who suffered long term harm or worse still, a loss of life.

Anna van der Gaag
Chair
HPC

Could we be any safer?

2010-02-02T11:24:00.002Z

In last Saturday’s Guardian, (30.1.2010) an article by Elizabeth Weil entitled ‘Could we be any happier?’ explored the benefits of couples therapy for a marriage that was, in Weil’s words ‘doing ok.’ It was, as you might expect, a very personal, honest account of a relationship, and a very clear analysis of some aspects of one couple’s’ journey towards greater understanding and insight into their marriage. It barely mentioned the therapist, who, over six weeks, listened and offered feedback. However the therapy appeared to trigger a particularly powerful conflict within the marriage, which in turn led to new insights into the way the relationship worked. At one point the author describes marital therapy as ‘helpful but toxic’ but goes on to say that the subsequent combination of self help books and further therapy helped the couple to arrive at the ‘good enough marriage’, one in which ‘each allows the other to keep growing’ and to afford the other some of the strength and bravery required to face the world.

There are a number of reasons why, for me, this article illustrates important points relevant to the current debate on statutory regulation of the so called ‘talking therapies.’ It provides a particularly personal account from a client’s perspective about a highly personal and very common experience. Twenty years ago, an article like this would not have appeared in a newspaper. More and more clients and patients are telling their stories, sharing their experiences in very public places. Articles and books are increasingly being written by people on the receiving end of therapy, not just those providing it, and they all increase our collective understanding in some way – both of therapy and often of ourselves. This reflects a wider change within society – empowerment is not a word we like to use anymore but it is, some would say, a social movement towards greater transparency, greater involvement and power sharing, and greater public analysis of private, intimate moments in human experience. The expert or professional voice is no longer centre stage in the public narrative on well being. Most of us, most of the time, would see this as a positive development for us as a society.

Those who are arguing that psychotherapy and counselling should not be subject to the same levels of public accountability as doctors, psychologists, osteopaths or social workers seem to me to be ignoring these changes within wider society – the social movement towards greater public accountability and transparency across all industries paid to serve the public. With the rise in those who seek to share their experience, there comes a greater demand for shared responsibility for growth and personal development. This is happening for a huge variety of individuals, from those like Weil who shared her thoughts on her marriage, to others who talk about their experience of living with Parkinsons disease, or arthritis, aspergers syndrome or cancer.

This is one of the reasons why psychotherapy can no longer claim to be different, at least, not in relation to the public demand for accountability. The world has changed. Those opposed to public accountability have nothing to fear from the regulatory model being proposed by the Health Professions Council. We are not going to be prescriptive, we do not have a list of 450 rules, we are not going to require any therapist to conform to a medical model.

Our interest is simple: we want to put in place a legal framework to protect the public from the tiny minority of therapists who fail to treat their clients as equals, who abuse their position of power, and do not recognise the changes within society which demand that all professions who serve the public must be accountable to those outside their own ranks. If Elizabeth Weil had so chosen, she could have opted to complain about her therapist. She had no reason to, but if she had, the UK would have had no legal framework for allowing her to do so. In an age of greater transparency, this cannot be right and it cannot be good for psychotherapists any more than it is bad for the public.

Anna van der Gaag
Chair HPC

Confer Conference State Regulation: The Issues

2010-01-26T11:06:00.003Z

23 January 2010, Conway Hall, London

This conference provided an opportunity for members of the counselling and psychotherapy professions to ‘clarify the facts about statutory regulation, explore concerns and to put questions to a panel’. It was well organised and well attended by some 250 delegates from a wide range of modalities and backgrounds. The panel consisted of Lynn Gabriel, Chair BACP, Andrew Samuels, Chair UKCP, Marc, Seale, Chief Executive, HPC, Julian Lusada, Chair BCP, Darian Leader, Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy Against State Regulation, Michael Fischer, psychotherapist and researcher from Kings College and Di Waller, HPC Council Member and Chair of the HPC PLG.

During the morning the panel offered their views on some pre-set questions followed by a general question and answer session, and in the afternoon participants took part on café style conversations followed by feedback.

Michael Fischer described his observations of a small sample of doctors and their fear of the growing ‘blame culture’ in society. Julian Lusada spoke about the need for regulatory processes which were ‘sensitive and thoughtful’, but offered protection to both patients and therapists. Lynn Gabriel reiterated the need for counsellors and psychotherapists to be of equal value in whatever system emerged, and the need to address the mis-perceptions which existed about the HPC. Andrew Samuels proposed that there would be ‘independent statutory regulation’ in some form in the future.

My observation was that there was more agreement than disagreement on the need for some form of regulation beyond the status quo. Various options were presented and discussed – HPC regulation, regulation by a new independent regulator, ‘alternative professional accountability’ as well as reference to profession led forms of regulation elsewhere in the world. There was also agreement than whatever form regulation in the future might take, it must, in the words of Darian Leader, ‘respect the diversity which exists within the field’.

It came as no surprise that the panel expressed very different views on almost all topics. However, I was struck by the amount of misunderstanding there was amongst some members of the panel on, for example, the continuing misperception of the universal use of the medical model by HPC regulated professionals, the suggested lack of a contribution from the counselling and psychotherapy professions to the drafting of the current version of the Standards of Proficiency, the mistaken assertion that ‘user groups’ were denied access to the PLG, and the somewhat confused and therefore confusing discussions about the application of the criteria used by the HPC for assessing readiness or otherwise of a profession for regulation.

Despite this, several clear and constructive themes emerged from the panel and from the delegates. First, there was a call for more dialogue, more discussion between the HPC and members of the profession in order to achieve a regulatory process that was ‘fit for purpose’. Second, there was a call for re-assurance that HPC were listening and would address ongoing concerns from the professions. During the feedback sessions in the afternoon, the word ‘trust’ recurred more often than any other. Trust was acknowledged as fundamental to progress. Third, there were calls for the professional bodies to work together and agree more on a way forward.

I found the café conversations particularly helpful. There were discussions about the impact of statutory regulation on the ‘relational space’ in therapy, and the importance of preserving its unique contribution to society. There were also concerns about clients who might have become obsessed with litigation during or before therapy, others who might use litigation as a means to play out other more unconscious and unresolved conflict in their lives. Regulation needed to address these complex areas. On the other side there was acknowledgement that the professions had not to date made much progress themselves with regulation and that perhaps an independent body might actually provide the impetus for positive change. Overwhelmingly however I felt the discussions highlighted to me the mis-understanding and lack of accurate information about HPC regulation and the desire for further discussion and dissemination of facts. If we are to achieve this, we must pursue the facts and work harder to build trust on all sides.

I would like to thank the organisers of the conference for offering this opportunity for dialogue and debate. We look forward to continuing the dialogue at other meetings in the future.

Anna van der Gaag
Chair HPC

Conclusions on the proposed statutory regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors

2009-12-11T16:00:00.004Z

As followers will be aware the HPC Council met on 10 December 2009 to review the responses to the consultation on the recommendations of the Psychotherapists and Counsellors Professional Liaison Group. The Council concluded that there are no specific issues that would prevent psychotherapists and counsellors from coming into the system of independent statutory regulation operated by the HPC. The Council is confident that it can accommodate the regulatory needs of these practitioners.

Having reviewed the responses to the consultation, the HPC has concluded that if the decision is taken to proceed with statutory regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors, then:

• one additional Part of the Register should be established for “Psychotherapists and Counsellors” and these titles should be protected;
• modalities should not be reflected in the structure of the Register;
• the HPC should adopt the approach to dual registration;
• the inclusion of names in the HPC register from other eligible registers should be performed by means of a three-stage process; and
• the ‘grandparenting’ period for those professions should be three years.

In addition, the HPC has concluded that any further consideration of draft standards of proficiency for psychotherapists and counsellors should be deferred until the Council has concluded the current review of its existing generic standards.

Government stated in the 2007 White Paper ‘Trust Assurance and Safety – The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century’ that it intends to introduce statutory regulation for psychotherapists and counsellors. Hence the HPC was not asked by Government to look at whether the profession should be statutorily regulated, but instead at how they should be regulated.

The HPC set up a working group of stakeholders, known as a Professional Liaison Group or ‘PLG’ to consider and make recommendations to the Council about how psychotherapists and counsellors might be regulated, in light of the conclusions made in the White Paper. The HPC held a public consultation on the PLG recommendations which ran for three months in 2009 and as previously mentioned the consultation received more than 1,000 responses.

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.

This work was intended to be a feasibility study rather than to produce final drafts of either SOPs or SETs. Further work and consultation on those standards will need to be conducted after government has finalised any regulatory proposals in the form of a Section 60 Order.

I do believe the purpose of statutory regulation is to protect the public. Statutory regulation will protect members of the public by setting standards, protecting commonly recognised professional titles and providing a way in which complaints can be dealt with fairly and appropriately.

At the moment, a psychotherapist or counsellor who is removed from the membership of their professional body for any reason can simply continue in practice without there being any legal means for preventing potential harm to members of the public. The protection of titles mean that someone who is ‘struck off’ the Register is unable to continue using the title related to their profession and could be prosecuted if they do so.

Safeguarding professional titles is an important way in which statutory regulation protects members of the public, improving upon a voluntary system in which such titles can continue to be used without any means of redress.

The HPC remains confident that, as a multi-professional regulator and given its experience and approach to regulation, it is well placed to regulate psychotherapists and counsellors should it be instructed to do so. The HPC has a strong track record in bringing new professions into regulation and currently regulates arts therapists, including arts psychotherapists. It also recently took on practitioner psychologists and has successfully integrated them onto the Register.

The HPC agrees with Government that the regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors is important for the protection of the public. However, the final decision about the statutory regulation is one for Government.

Anna van der Gaag
Chair of HPC Council

Update on the potential regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors

2009-11-18T12:50:00.003Z

The consultation on the recommendations of the Professional Liaison Group (PLG) has now closed. We received more than 1,000 responses to the consultation, the majority from individual practitioners in the field as well as from service users, charities and professional bodies.

Our analysis of the responses we received is ongoing, but it is clear that a variety of different views have been put forward which we need to properly take into account in determining the most appropriate way forward. In particular, the area of potential differentiation between psychotherapists and counsellors has drawn significant interest and debate.

The Council will meet on 10 December 2009 to consider the analysis from the consultation. It is likely that the Council will also ask the PLG to undertake further work.

Subject to a decision from government to proceed with statutory regulation, we would consult again, following the publication of a Section 60 Order under the Health Act 1999, on the proposed standards of proficiency and educational thresholds. The Department of Health itself would also consult on the draft Section 60 Order.

The purpose of statutory regulation is to protect the public. Statutory regulation will protect members of the public by setting standards, protecting commonly recognised professional titles and providing a way in which complaints can be dealt with fairly and appropriately. The HPC agrees with government that the regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors is necessary for the protection of the public. The final decision about whether regulation goes forward is one for government.

Michael Guthrie
Director of Policy and Standards

Summary points of the event on the statutory regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors by the HPC, hosted by Anne Milton MP

2009-11-09T15:38:00.010Z

Health Professions Council (HPC), quote:

“The HPC saw the meeting as a helpful opportunity to review the progress made in introducing the statutory regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors. Anne Milton MP, Shadow Health Minister concluded the meeting by stating that ‘we are 80% there’ and ‘that there was clear support for independent statutory regulation from the majority of those present at the meeting’. This is an indication of the progress that has been made towards achieving better levels of public protection than exist under the current system."

The meeting was attended by a wide range of psychotherapy and counselling professionals, service users, professional body representatives and representatives from Mind. The participants numbered over 50 individuals. The Chair and Chief Executive of HPC also attended the meeting, at the request of Anne Milton MP.

Brief presentations were made by Marc Seale, Chief Executive of the HPC, Lynn Gabriel, Chair of BACP, Colin Walker of Mind and Darian Leader of the College of Psychoanalysts.

The key messages from the audience were as follows:

There was a strong consensus that statutory regulation by an independent body was the way forward for psychotherapists and counsellors. Self-regulation was not viewed as a viable option.
There was considerable criticism and concern expressed by both Mind and by members of the profession that the current system of voluntary self-regulation through the professional associations was failing to protect the public.
There were varying views on the most appropriate mechanism for achieving independent statutory regulation.
There was concern expressed that there would be any doubt whatsoever as to whether abuse existed in the UK. A service user who attended with representatives from Mind, herself a victim of abuse, gave a short account of her experience of the current self-regulatory system, highlighting the difficulties that she faced. Her account was reinforced by several professionals who confirmed similar experiences of inadequate handling of complaints by professional associations. A chief executive of one of the professional associations said that member organisations were not in a position to fund fitness to practice processes, despite the disagreement with the Government’s proposals. Several members of the profession said that they welcomed HPC’s work and did not see the HPC standards as ‘stifling’. Another said he welcomed the introduction of independent regulation and expressed frustration at the length of time the process had taken.
A minority appealed for further exploration of regulation by the profession itself through other means, such as a ‘voluntary internet based Disclosure system’, asserting that the HPC proposal ‘privileges politics over the best interests of patients’, but with little explanation over the basis for this assertion. One individual also expressed concern that statutory regulation was disproportionate to the size of the problem. Several individuals proposed that there was no evidence from the UK that psychotherapists were abusing their clients. They called for a halt to the current proposals and a ‘convention’ to discuss the future regulation of the profession. There was also a proposal for further research to establish whether or not abuse was occurring in the UK.
There were three substantive concerns about the current proposals that the HPC was consulting on. They were as follows:

Many of the generic standards were not appropriate for the psychotherapy and counselling profession, for example the standard on infection control.
The proposed differentiation between psychotherapists and counsellors in the structure of the Register was not supported by the majority of practitioners and it was perceived as potentially divisive and hierarchical. The titles ‘counsellor’ and ‘psychotherapist’ were used interchangeably in practice, to a large extent.
Some of the professions wanted more involvement in the continuing development of the standards.

One further point was made:

There should be separate standards for counsellors working with young people and child and adult psychotherapists.

Anne Milton MP emphasised that the amount of correspondence and lobbying that she had received on the issue of the regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors was different from any previous subject she had dealt with as an MP, both in terms of strength and quantity, and that the HPC needed to take note of this. However, she conceded that, despite the volume of correspondence she had received, there was a significant degree of consensus around the need for statutory regulation, both within the professions and particularly amongst service users.

Anna van der Gaag
Chair, HPC

The regulation of Psychotherapists and Counsellors

2009-09-11T15:48:00.001+01:00

In February 2007, the White Paper, ‘Trust, Assurance and Safety – The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century’ stated psychotherapists and counsellors were a priority for future regulation. The government White Paper also said that these professions should be regulated by the Health Professions Council (HPC).

In preparation, in autumn 2008, The HPC established a working group, known as a ‘Professional Liaison Group’ or ‘PLG’ to discuss and make recommendations to the Secretary of State and Ministers in the devolved administrations about the regulation of these groups. This working group is made up of registrant and lay members of the HPC Council, as well as representatives from professional bodies representing psychotherapists and counsellors, education providers and service users.

To date, the group has made good progress in discussing and making decisions about the structure of the Register, protected titles, voluntary registers, the grandparenting process, standards of education and training and standards of proficiency. It is planned that the group will report to the HPC Council in July 2009.

Recommendations will then be subject to a further public consultation before proposals are finalised in December 2009. Once the HPC makes final recommendations, the final decision about the regulation of these groups will rest with government.