New Recruitment for London?

This section is for discussion relating to the Layard report, and subsequent schemes like Improving Access to Psychological Therapies where lower intensity inteventions are offered in primary care
LIWY
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:13 am

Re: New Recruitment for London?

Post by LIWY » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:25 pm

People I know who have applied have between 2 & 3 years experience as a PWP of which 1st year was training but working one to one with patients throughout the training year. All have previous MH experience as far as I know, there is a wide range in age and previous experience, although can't speak for friends of friends in other services.

I think everyone downgraded their expectations when we read the IAPT guidance put out in June telling services that a PWP with one year post training would almost certainly not be good enough - and also made clear their agenda that they want to stop PWP attrition:
http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/silo/files/recru ... -intensity trainee-posts-from-pwpsv2-june-2011.pdf

The fear in PWPs I know is that this will be the last round of high training sponsored by the NHS and that once it goes back to GP commissioning, there will be no will to fund new primary care therapist training and that they/we will be stuck with no change, no widespread creation of Senior PWP posts, until they burn out. Let's hope that's just catastrophising on our part!

User avatar
Chilly
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:06 pm
Location: London

Re: New Recruitment for London?

Post by Chilly » Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:12 pm

Hi all,

I was wondering whether shortlisting for LI trainee posts has been completed?

Clothilde
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:33 am

Re: New Recruitment for London?

Post by Clothilde » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:47 pm

LIWY wrote:Thank you for the update. Wow, 4,000 applicants, that's frightening and quite some job to sift through those applications. Is that 4,000 over high and low intensity?
yes, that was for HI and LI posts

Clothilde
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:33 am

Re: New Recruitment for London?

Post by Clothilde » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:49 pm

In terms of PWPs applying for HI Trainee posts, the universities are being fairly brutal in culling people that don't have two years post qualifying experience (unless they have substantial other MH experience)

LIWY
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:13 am

Re: New Recruitment for London?

Post by LIWY » Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:28 pm

Clothilde wrote:In terms of PWPs applying for HI Trainee posts, the universities are being fairly brutal in culling people that don't have two years post qualifying experience (unless they have substantial other MH experience)
Is that really, truly the case? If so why wasn't the KSA part of the application pack and why weren't references taken up pre the cull? Don't they trust the judgement of qualified BABCP therapists who are supervisors acting as referees? Do they think the referees would be dishonest and say they thought someone had sufficient 1:1 skills through some fear of being disliked for anything but a glowing reference?

The word "on the street" is that it is the IAPT heads who strictly instructed not to promote PWPs because IAPT, already losing about 20% of PWPs to clinical this year, cannot afford to lose a whole lot more to hi.

It would be good if the IAPT powers that be could put out a statement about this as there is a whole lot of dissent and resentment in the ranks at the moment. Some PWPs I know are talking about going all out to try to transfer to AP or research posts so that, if the next round comes around, they won't be risking being held back due to their job title. So IAPT is risking losing a good percentage of their PWP workforce anyway.

Current PWPs know what they are getting into if they go to hi, they know CBT, they've worked alongside hi trainees and seen the pressure and demands of the course, they triage people into Step3 daily so know what presentations they'd be working with. With all due respect, my social worker friend who was invited to interview had a far hazier grasp of what the hi training and job was all about.

poandmove
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:27 am

Re: New Recruitment for London?

Post by poandmove » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:03 am

Wow. You’ve echoed my thoughts LIWY. I would really like someone to explain this to me. I can’t help but see this as discrimination against PWPs. It’s on two levels:

1. There is differential and unfair treatment of groups of KSA candidates; those who are PWPs compared to those who are not. I have read (but annoyingly can’t remember where I read this) that KSA applicants are expected to have a minimum of 4 years mental health experience (to be considered comparable to those with a core profession and 2 yrs postgrad experience). However, currently it doesn’t seem to matter how much total mental health experience a PWP has, if they have less than 3 years as a PWP, they won’t be considered for a high intensity training post. (Cothilde if you have examples of this not being the case then I apologise and would really like to hear about them)

So you have the unfair situation of someone with 4 years in a non psychologically therapeutic substance misuse role getting shortlised, and someone with 4 years as mental health support worker and assistant psychologist plus 2 years as a PWP not getting shortlisted. Given that PWP training and experience is arguably some of the most relevant experience you can get to being a KSA-route high intensity worker, this is a crazy situation.

2. There is discrimination between those with a core profession and KSA route applicants. The idea of providing evidence that you meet the KSA criteria is to ensure those without a core profession meet certain knowledge and skills based standards those with a core profession are assumed to have. Recruiters have to have some system for assessing an applicants suitability, the KSA evidence provides such a system in lieu of comparable professional qualifications. However, a number of the core professions would actually struggle and probably fail to meet some of the KSA criteria (social work and psychiatric nursing seem the obvious ones). I have heard this voiced from a number of friends with such core professions.

In fact there is an article in CBT Today supporting this idea
http://www.babcp.com/Media_Centre/files ... r-2010.pdf

In the article, Mike Davison says “membership of a “Core Profession” is not and never has been a reliable indicator of suitability for CBT training.” This article also questions the relevancy of some of the KSA criteria as prerequisites for competent CBT practice.

Thus, those without a core profession have to demonstrate a lot more than those with a core profession to get a high intensity training job, or to apply for accreditation with the BABCP.


So, the question remains whether these barriers to PWPs becoming high intensity therapists, are an artefact of clumsily put together policies, or an agenda to stem the flow of PWPs leaving their posts. Is this discrimination? And it won't work anyway. All the PWPs I know have become very demoralised and unhappy in their work. In the last year, half of the PWPs have left my service, have left IAPT and not gone on to clinical training. More would leave if they had better options. So, the money invested in training them is now lost anyway.

I’d really like to know what others think? I appreciate that I may not hold a balanced view due to said demoralisation, and would really love some evidence to the contrary.

jamesivens
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 8:40 pm
Location: London

Re: New Recruitment for London?

Post by jamesivens » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:43 am

I can kind of see your point there poandmove.

when you say "someone with 4 years as mental health support worker and assistant psychologist plus 2 years as a PWP not getting shortlisted" I am inferring that this is your situation? in which case, I can see that it can be disappointing not to be considered for the hi-intensity, as it sounds like you've got some great experience to bring to the role. Particularly as you will no doubt have a very good idea on what a high intensity worker does.

However, I wouldn't necessarily say that this is purely down to not being a PWP for the 3 years required, despite having previous MH experience.
poandmove wrote:However, currently it doesn’t seem to matter how much total mental health experience a PWP has, if they have less than 3 years as a PWP, they won’t be considered for a high intensity training post


This is often the case with any job interview which we dont get offered despite feeling that we are completely suited for it! and we tick all the boxes for. Unfortunately we're unlikely to know why exactly we weren't offered it but typical factors could be; shortlisted applicants may have had something in the application which a particular service was looking for e.g. a diverse background that would represent the community it supports, not just in terms of cultural background, but if the service area has particular substance misuse problems, then it could be beneficial to have some people with that experience; also just the sheer amount of applicants for relatively few places would mean a lot of people with the right experience would miss out.

poandmove wrote:the question remains whether these barriers to PWPs becoming high intensity therapists
I know a few high intensity workers across the IAPT Services in London who were previously PWPs, and used the PWP route to get there. Similarly with the clinical courses, around 50% in our IAPT Service, (which had a large intake of pwps compared to other london boroughs) have got onto the course within 2 years of being a pwp. Therefore I wouldn't there to be barriers per se, with being a pwp.

Just a final point, you mentioned "the money invested in training them [pwps] is now lost anyway " [if they move onto high intensity/clinical/other]. I dont see this to be the case. When training, for a large part of it, we were doing a full time job plus studying in the evening on a band 4 pay. I think services were getting a pretty good deal there. Plus, if you were say, a pwp for 2 years, i dont think that would count as 'money being lost'. Think how many patients you would have seen and would have benefitted from step 2 work in that time. I'm sure you'll be able to draw on some positive experiences with the people you have helped. Sometimes we lose the sight of this when things dont go to plan at times.


I feel that I may have contradicted your points at times, so apologies if this hasn't been helpful.

best wishes


J.

Clothilde
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:33 am

Re: New Recruitment for London?

Post by Clothilde » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:15 pm

LIWY wrote:
Clothilde wrote:In terms of PWPs applying for HI Trainee posts, the universities are being fairly brutal in culling people that don't have two years post qualifying experience (unless they have substantial other MH experience)
Is that really, truly the case?
yes. for the university that we're shortlisting with, that is the case.
The word "on the street" is that it is the IAPT heads who strictly instructed not to promote PWPs because IAPT, already losing about 20% of PWPs to clinical this year, cannot afford to lose a whole lot more to hi.
I haven't heard this^ though. If a PWP applies, and has substantial MH experience, as well as their PWP experience, then I would want to shortlist them, partly for the reasons you outline here:
Current PWPs know what they are getting into if they go to hi, they know CBT, they've worked alongside hi trainees and seen the pressure and demands of the course, they triage people into Step3 daily so know what presentations they'd be working with.

Clothilde
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:33 am

Re: New Recruitment for London?

Post by Clothilde » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:23 pm

poandmove wrote:However, currently it doesn’t seem to matter how much total mental health experience a PWP has, if they have less than 3 years as a PWP, they won’t be considered for a high intensity training post. (Cothilde if you have examples of this not being the case then I apologise and would really like to hear about them)
this is not the case - if someone has had other substantial MH experience, and has been a PWP, then there's no reason why they wouldn't be shortlisted.

However, if the only MH experience someone has is of 1 years PWP training, then 1 year PWP practice, then in all probability, they won't be shortlisted, mainly because of the sheer number of other applicants who have more experience, either in terms of length of practice, or level of practice.

So you have the unfair situation of someone with 4 years in a non psychologically therapeutic substance misuse role getting shortlised, and someone with 4 years as mental health support worker and assistant psychologist plus 2 years as a PWP not getting shortlisted.
personally, i would favour the pwp applicant above the SM applicant - they have worked in the field for longer and have direct experience of CBT and IAPT. in our standardised shortlisting they'd score more highly, so unless there were exceptional circumstances, there'd be no reason to shortlist the SM worker over the PWP.

Clothilde
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:33 am

Re: New Recruitment for London?

Post by Clothilde » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:32 pm

jamesivens wrote: This is often the case with any job interview which we dont get offered despite feeling that we are completely suited for it! and we tick all the boxes for. Unfortunately we're unlikely to know why exactly we weren't offered it but typical factors could be; shortlisted applicants may have had something in the application which a particular service was looking for e.g. a diverse background that would represent the community it supports, not just in terms of cultural background, but if the service area has particular substance misuse problems, then it could be beneficial to have some people with that experience; also just the sheer amount of applicants for relatively few places would mean a lot of people with the right experience would miss out.
^this exactly. For my service, I've had to go through almost a hundred applications (and this was *after* a first round of shortlisting) to fill three posts.

about 75% of those applicants are people who are ticking every essential criteria and every desirable criteria too, so it is the people who have the greatest levels of directly relevant experience that end up being shortlisted, and unfortunately, someone that has only a couple of years PWP experience (and no other MH experience) is not going to end up on that shortlist.

alison134
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:21 pm

Re: New Recruitment for London?

Post by alison134 » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:02 pm

Hi Clothilde
I have a couple of years of counselling experience (integrative perspective). Do you think this would be appropriate or suitable for a LI trainee role, or am I wasting my time even applying?! I would really appreciate your input. Thanks x

LIWY
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:13 am

Re: New Recruitment for London?

Post by LIWY » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:31 pm

jamesivens wrote:

poandmove wrote:the question remains whether these barriers to PWPs becoming high intensity therapists
I know a few high intensity workers across the IAPT Services in London who were previously PWPs, and used the PWP route to get there. Similarly with the clinical courses, around 50% in our IAPT Service, (which had a large intake of pwps compared to other london boroughs) have got onto the course within 2 years of being a pwp. Therefore I wouldn't there to be barriers per se, with being a pwp.




J.
Exactly J, that's the point! We're all working with or know of current high intensities who were accepted after far less than 3 years as GMHW/low intensity/PWP (BAA who posts often on this forum being a case in point) and are effective practitioners. Now, for this hi job round, the bar is fixed at strictly minimum 3 years as a PWP with all of us knowing of people with 2 years as a PWP + a good amount of previous experience who have applied, yet so far no one knows of a PWP who got shortlisted this time. A friend of mine who is a PWP in a service that is recruiting highs said that all PWPs received an email from the Lead saying that PWPs less than 2 years post certificate should not apply and would not be considered.

..and as you point out, many PWPs have gone onto clinical, so services are needing more than ever to keep PWPs in place. PWP is not a bar to clinical training outside of IAPT but not every PWP by far wants to be a clinical psychologist and the promised opportunities to progress within IAPT are not appearing.

LIWY
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:13 am

Re: New Recruitment for London?

Post by LIWY » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:39 pm

poandmove wrote:Wow. You’ve echoed my thoughts LIWY. I would really like someone to explain this to me. I can’t help but see this as discrimination against PWPs. It’s on two levels:

....
In fact there is an article in CBT Today supporting this idea
http://www.babcp.com/Media_Centre/files ... r-2010.pdf

In the article, Mike Davison says “membership of a “Core Profession” is not and never has been a reliable indicator of suitability for CBT training.” This article also questions the relevancy of some of the KSA criteria as prerequisites for competent CBT practice.

Thus, those without a core profession have to demonstrate a lot more than those with a core profession to get a high intensity training job, or to apply for accreditation with the BABCP.

.
Thank you for highlighting this article.

Lancelot
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:07 pm

Re: New Recruitment for London?

Post by Lancelot » Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:20 am

I maybe being controversial here but I can see why iapt want pwps to stay in post for 2 after qual. They have invested a year’s training in that particular post. Why a person with so and so years of experience and not a pwp can get picked over a pwp with prior experience is that they did not have the investment. I am not sure I think it is unreasonable to do two years is excessive to move to high intensity. Whether they want to move on to clinical well that is the person’s decision.

If I were an iapt recruiter I would only take a small percentage of psychology graduate as they are ambitious to move on quickly or I would make it contractual that they stay on til x years or pay tuition fees (which I think some have).

I think a better model of training would be a complete in-house training programme which could be taught by senior pwps and occasionally hi-intensity and cp input. In this case it can be a rolling model of training so that it allows for the service needs. If and when there is turn over, it also gives experienced pwps more responsibility and skills in teaching and supervision(which some trusts have).

Iapt may have not been strict and explicit enough communication in the progression of pwps which is causing anger. :bom:

User avatar
baa
Posts: 1529
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: New Recruitment for London?

Post by baa » Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:28 am

As Clothilde said - it's actually the universities rather than the services that are turning down applications. I had a similar issue when I applied for my current post - the service was happy to have me (and actually likes to employ ex-PWPs, most of us had less than 2 years post qual, but plenty pre-IAPT), but they had to fight tooth and nail to get us into the uni. I don't really understand the motivation behind this, but my hunch is that it isn't about retention of PWPs or waste of training money, but something linked more to the KSA and perhaps the 'difficulties' they thought that non-core profession students would have. (In the end, the ex-PWPs predictably didn't struggle as much as those converting from another therapeutic approach or those with little CBT-based experience).

The man who wrote the article linked to earlier on is now on the board of the BABCP :D So there is an ally within the BABCP!
At least I'm not as mad as that one!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest