BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

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

BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

Post by baa » Mon Oct 03, 2011 4:28 pm

http://www.babcp.com/News/files/IAPT-BA ... tement.pdf

Here's a joint statement from IAPT and the BABCP re: PWPs moving to HI training. It's not very inspiring reading, and also seems to recommend not employing PWPs who want to go onto Clinical Psych training either!

Enjoy!
At least I'm not as mad as that one!

User avatar
matt.berlin
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

Post by matt.berlin » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:21 pm

I think the big problem is that being a PWP isn't a particularly satisfying role. Few people that I did PWP training with thought it was their ideal long term career. Rather than having designed a job role with natural opportunities for career progression, it seems that IAPT realises that it has a workforce that is not particularly happy and is trying to work out how to make people stay put. If you wish to have a graduate workforce, then you need to think about the type of aspirations that graduates often have for their careers.

I trained as a PWP because I wanted to get onto a clinical psychology course and the PWP jobs were the best ones available to me. I couldn't get an AP job at that point as I didn't have any clinical experience. At my interview I openly said that CP was my ultimate goal but that I was looking to gain experience, develop my clinical skills, etc etc. However, if I were in the same position today, I would simply not mention that!
Ordnung ist das halbe Leben ... aber die andere Hälfte ist viel schöner!

User avatar
Will
Team Member
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: North-West England

Re: BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

Post by Will » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:20 pm

This bit jumped out at me.
Finally, although some PWP graduates will have previous experience working within mental health, it is uncertain whether they would accomplish the KSA criteria. If it were the case that they might achieve KSA criteria, PWP course providers should advise applicants that they would be better applying directly to high intensity CBT courses, rather than training as a PWP, if that was their future intention.
...what?!
Ponderings and wonderings in 140 characters - @willcurvis

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

Re: BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

Post by LIWY » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:51 pm

It's a rather contradictory statement in many places isn't it? Particularly that part about not taking PWPs to CBT who don't match KSA but the not taking people on as PWPs who might be able to match KSA but it is not sure...confused myself even writing that.

...and why is it signed by some mystical "BABCP/IAPT Team" instead of names that could be contacted and be sent some feedback from those of us at the sharp end?

The part about NHS paying for 2 trainings is contradictory as well isn't it? They are quite happy to take on CPs to high, that's a much more expensive training than the PWP. I may be wrong but aren't RMNs also sponsored by the NHS? As we know, to train as a counsellor, therapist or counselling psychologist up to accrediation level is incredibly expensive and this financial burden contributes to the lack of diversity in the professions - so paying for a full therapist training is the only way the diverse workforce we aim for is going to be developed.

I do know there were some shocking hiring decisions made by some services, I work alongside a few highs who got onto high training when inexperienced GMHWs and it's not good for them nor for the patients, so I can see where some of this comes from but why can't "The Team" give some concrete figures then on failure to meet KPIs or burnout from this population rather than all this waffle?

The 2 year thing is bizarre as well - how does one magically gain all these skills with 1 further year out of training. Where's the evidence for that?

..and yes, as said higher up, the main thing is, no one wants to stay as a PWP - how about a "Team" statement about what is being done about this as right now it sounds like the Team want to keep people bound to jobs rather than think with the workforce what might make them stay and where the workforce could develop to other than CBT therapist.

Reading that makes me feel like, if I apply to High, even with my more than 2 years work, I am some greedy person trying to shortcut the system and I should just get back in my box and sit on the phone doing triages and asking patients if they've done their homework.

User avatar
fledgling
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:42 am

Re: BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

Post by fledgling » Mon Oct 03, 2011 9:08 pm

(Coming from the position of a qualified PWP who has jumped ship a year post-qualifying due to frustration and the lack of prospects!)

Wow. Though not unexpected and you can see where they're coming from, that is pretty depressing reading. I would think the best way to retain PWPs would be to give them the incentive of a clear career progression if they stay- not to take away the prospect of progression in order to trap them! Isn't the carrot better than the stick :roll: ?! This document seems to imply that even after 2 years post-qualification work, PWPs should still be discouraged from applying as the KSA route should only be used in 'exceptional circumstances'. I think most people (myself included) who have gone into PWP training did so on the understanding that it would provide a professional, accreditable qualification and help you to 'step up' into hi intensity, as a good alternative to pursuing clinical training. Surely it is better value for money to support people to work up the career ladder within IAPT? If you are not giving PWPs the opportunity to do this then of course you leave them with little choice other than to leave IAPT to pursue other options. Fewer PWPs would leave to pursue clinical training if accessing hi intensity training was more viable.

This seems like a bit of an about-turn. The implication when IAPT was first emerging was that IAPT and psychology graduates would mutually benefit each other- IAPT would have a ready supply of good quality graduates who are eager to work in clinical roles, and psychology graduates would have more opportunities for graduate level jobs and a good alternative to the uber-competitive clin psy route. I find it unreasonable that people with degrees in nursing, OT etc are considered more qualified and experienced to train as hi intensity staff than people with psychology degrees, who may have then worked in mental health for some time before training as PWPs, and then worked within IAPT delivering CBT interventions! It seems that the only thing these people will lack is the label of having a 'professional' qualification, which depsite all the talk of various professional accreditations (BABCP, BPS), the PWP training still doesn't provide.

It is surely unrealistic to expect people to want to stay long-term in a role which carries a high degree of clinical responsibility and is very pressured and target-driven, yet is not even considered a 'profession' and has next to no prospect of internal career progression...? :?

User avatar
Will
Team Member
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: North-West England

Re: BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

Post by Will » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:44 pm

flora84 wrote:It is surely unrealistic to expect people to want to stay long-term in a role which carries a high degree of clinical responsibility and is very pressured and target-driven, yet is not even considered a 'profession' and has next to no prospect of internal career progression...? :?
Absolutely. If they think bright, enthusiastic psychology graduates are going to leap into a role that has no prospects, is largely unrecognised and is never going to pay them more than Band 5 wages then they're crackers. Worrying times.

For me it's simple. HI training should be an option for anyone that wants it, once they have the skills and experience. I don't think 2 years post qual is a bad target, but it should be based on individual competency - measured through crazily original techniques like a KSA, application forms and an interview involving a role play. If you don't tick the boxes, you don't get the job. If you do, why shouldn't you get the job? If they're not doing this already then what ARE they doing?!

In terms of ensuring people are happy to work as a PWP, that's a different issue. You need to turn it into a good job in it's own right, with employees feeling respected and valued (and not over worked). The work needs to be varied and there should be opportunity for people to pursue special interests and contribute to things like health promotion.
Ponderings and wonderings in 140 characters - @willcurvis

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

Re: BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

Post by baa » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:01 am

I agree with all of you lot. I'm technically an inexperienced PWP as I moved onto CBT training after 6 months as a qualified PWP (ETA: I do meet the KSA criteria with my previous experience, IMO anyway! I'm just waiting for the uni's verdict on that (HAH. hello paranoia)).

The main bits that concern me are:
Higher education providers of PWP training should continue to attend interviews alongside service employers to ensure the selection of applicants who are committed to undertaking the role of a PWP, rather than those looking at the role as a way into other therapist roles (e.g. high intensity CBT or clinical psychology).
I'm not sure what kind of applicant they're looking for to cover the PWP role! And Notts uni (I think) conducted some research into the PWP role, and pretty much all of the participants said they would be looking to leave after two years. Ok, they may have been planning to move onto HI or CP, but still! It is a job with a shelf life IMO. Services want competent people with some kind of mental health experience to be PWPs, and in our service at the moment, that's mostly made up of APs and people who were working in prisons. So probably people who don't see this as a long term job.
It would seriously undermine the quality of high intensity CBT training since inexperienced PWP entrants would not have sufficient experience or background in psychological therapies to benefit from the training. The CBT national curriculum was developed on the assumption that trainees would already have extensive face-to-face generic therapy skills and extensive experience of working within mental health services.
I think they're making an assumption about the competence of ex-PWPs. It's anecdotal, but from the two cohorts at my uni - I worked with some of the first cohort when I was a PWP, and I was in the second cohort as an ex-PWP - the ex-PWPs were the ones who struggled the least with the PG Dip in CBT. The people who found it the most difficult tended to be nurses/OTs/BACP therapists trained in different therapeutic approaches. The unis have the data on how we performed during the PG Dip - they can do a proper study to see if the quality of ex-PWP students was lower than the other students. My hypothesis is that ex-PWPs were at least as competent.
At least I'm not as mad as that one!

emmo
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

Post by emmo » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:21 am

The thing that annoys me is that you are so disadvantaged as a psychology graduate which ever direction you turn. I have just completed my High Intensity training, within the time frame of 10 months and passed everything first time. I had 18 months post qualification Graduate mental health worker experience so short of the 2 years they are now asking for. Out of the whole group only 2 people completed the course on time. Ironically most other people on the course where nurses, counsellors or social workers. Why does IAPT think that PWP's/graduate workers have less chance than others to complete the course? IAPT should be grateful that they are getting such a high quality of PWP's who pick up the job quickly and achieve results with patients (certainly all of the PWP's that I have worked with over 2 services have been fantastic). Of course its not ideal for the high staff turn over and it is obviously beneficial to have some post qualification experience before applying to high intensity but they seem to be making it more difficult. I think they forget that although the PGCert isn't the best course in the world...at least PWP's have some CBT training...much more than some (not all) people with a core profession have.

I will get off my soap box now!

Em

emmo
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

Post by emmo » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:45 am

Baa, I also agree with your hypothesis! If someone was to do that piece of research it would make very interesting reading! :D

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

Re: BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

Post by baa » Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:06 pm

High Five!

I do wish someone would do that research, maybe I could jam it into my life :lol: The unis are sitting on the data - it can't be that difficult ;)
At least I'm not as mad as that one!

User avatar
Will
Team Member
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: North-West England

Re: BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

Post by Will » Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:58 pm

I have no interest in pursuing HI training at the moment - I've got myself a nice Band 6 PWP job and I'm happy to keep building my skills and applying for the clinical course. However the more I think about this the more insulted I am.

They're basically trying to keep people in the job by removing opportunities to progress. Can't they see how backwards that is?
Ponderings and wonderings in 140 characters - @willcurvis

emmo
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

Post by emmo » Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:44 pm

Couldn't agree more Will, backwards is putting it mildly! What insults me is that in the last service I worked at there was no respect for Graduate workers (i've been called junior staff, unqualified etc etc), its taking a long time for the role to gain respect in its own right. People don't realise that by doing the PWP training, you are qualified to do the job you are doing. By reducing career progression and prospects, its putting another knife into the coffin along side over worked, under appreciated, stressed, pressured etc.

They could also potentially be loosing some really good people who would make great High Intensity workers. They need to open their eyes and realise that psychology graduates in PWP positions are in a very strong position to do well on HIT training. Half way through the course I was asked by someone on the course 'whats the difference between the DSM3 and the DSM4?' It was not an ex-PWP asking but someone with the 'gold standard' core profession. I rest my case! :D

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

Re: BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

Post by jamesivens » Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:08 pm

Will wrote: They're basically trying to keep people in the job by removing opportunities to progress. Can't they see how backwards that is?
I'm not saying what is right or wrong, but I can understand why IAPT wants to keep its PWP workforce seeing as how much funding has gone in to it.
emmo wrote:you are so disadvantaged as a psychology graduate which ever direction you turn. I have just completed my High Intensity training, within the time frame of 10 months and passed everything first time. I had 18 months post qualification Graduate mental health worker experience so short of the 2 years they are now asking for.
This is what I don't understand. Surely the fact that you got on to High Intensity training, and Will, on a band 6 PWP, and for other PWPs who have progressed into other areas - is this not counter evidence for pwp's being at a 'disadvantage'?

I personally think that obstacles such as having 2 years experience is a good bench mark to have. For those who have had two years, just think back to how you were working a year ago - I predict that you would agree that you would have learned and developed since then.

Is the frustration and feelings of being unsatisfied in the pwp role partly attributed to our own high expectations? In a broader sense, I get the impression that many pwps/assistant psychologists (myself included) have the mindset of wanting to be become high intensity therapists/clinical psychologists as soon as possible. But sometimes forget that there is often a long journey to get there, and get frustrated when such obstacles occur as we see it as a threat to our career progression

User avatar
Claudia
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:17 pm

Re: BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

Post by Claudia » Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:36 pm

I am pleased that the BABCP have at least gone public with this. But that is all.

I believe that guidelines are helpful but that if someone has the skills to do a job & they pass open competition via job applications/interviews etc then they should be allowed to do it (so the guidelines are just that - a guide, not a set of rules to bash people about with)

It is shocking to think that PWP training could be used to 'erase' your previous experience and you need to start again until 2 years have passed....or if applying for a PWP job with pervious experience you risk being told to apply for a high intensity job - oh great excellent news until you ask if there are any HI vacancies? Erm No

Yes a lot of funding has gone into training, if they want to shackle people to their jobs then come out and do it legally not by the back door, change the contracts and include clauses that make people stay or face a financial penalty (or some other penalty/clause as they decide).....I wonder if this would impact the quality of candidates applying/accepting positions??? Or as so many people are applying for so few jobs in psychology would it even matter??? I suppose an alternative is that they could make the job even slightly rewarding to help some choose to stay in it rather than want to leave Ha!
:cyclops:

User avatar
Will
Team Member
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: North-West England

Re: BABCP/IAPT standpoint on PWPs -> CBT

Post by Will » Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:54 pm

Claudia wrote:I am pleased that the BABCP have at least gone public with this. But that is all.

I believe that guidelines are helpful but that if someone has the skills to do a job & they pass open competition via job applications/interviews etc then they should be allowed to do it (so the guidelines are just that - a guide, not a set of rules to bash people about with)

It is shocking to think that PWP training could be used to 'erase' your previous experience and you need to start again until 2 years have passed....or if applying for a PWP job with pervious experience you risk being told to apply for a high intensity job - oh great excellent news until you ask if there are any HI vacancies? Erm No

Yes a lot of funding has gone into training, if they want to shackle people to their jobs then come out and do it legally not by the back door, change the contracts and include clauses that make people stay or face a financial penalty (or some other penalty/clause as they decide).....I wonder if this would impact the quality of candidates applying/accepting positions??? Or as so many people are applying for so few jobs in psychology would it even matter??? I suppose an alternative is that they could make the job even slightly rewarding to help some choose to stay in it rather than want to leave Ha!
Agree totally!
jamesivens wrote:I'm not saying what is right or wrong, but I can understand why IAPT wants to keep its PWP workforce seeing as how much funding has gone in to it.
Totally. But they're going about it in the most short sighted and negative way they probably could have. In my last post I gave my opinions on simple things they could do to improve how happy a lot of PWPs were in their jobs. If conditions were better and the role was respected perhaps people wouldn't be quite so desperate to leave.
jamesivens wrote: This is what I don't understand. Surely the fact that you got on to High Intensity training, and Will, on a band 6 PWP, and for other PWPs who have progressed into other areas - is this not counter evidence for pwp's being at a 'disadvantage'?
I think the worry is that those chances will be reduced. I mentioned I was on a Band 6 post because I wanted to be clear I was happy where I was and don't want HI - yet I'm still offended at the impact that article could have in terms of appreciation of the PWP role. We have plenty of people in our service quite happy staying as PWPs long term because the service is, on the whole, a good one. Others have aspirations for career progression (as is perfectly normal!) and they're supported to pursue these as much as possible.
jamesivens wrote: I personally think that obstacles such as having 2 years experience is a good bench mark to have. For those who have had two years, just think back to how you were working a year ago - I predict that you would agree that you would have learned and developed since then.
Totally. But shouldn't this be decided on an individual basis? Through interviews and demonstrations of competency? 2 years in a crap service might be nothing compared to 18 months in a great one with good support and supervision. Why should great people miss out because they've had 23 months experience? It's just a lazy way to thin out applicants. Imagine if the clinical doctorate course decided something similar? There'd be uproar.

As others have said, the experience a PWP post gives you is, in a lot of ways, even more relevant to HI work than that of other roles. This publication completely undervalues the fact that most PWPs have good Psychology degrees (a broad subject requiring a lot of skills) and have studied on a year long, practice based postgraduate course. Then they've worked for however long, in relevant services and providing interventions that are based on the same core principles as HI work.
jamesivens wrote: Is the frustration and feelings of being unsatisfied in the pwp role partly attributed to our own high expectations? In a broader sense, I get the impression that many pwps/assistant psychologists (myself included) have the mindset of wanting to be become high intensity therapists/clinical psychologists as soon as possible. But sometimes forget that there is often a long journey to get there, and get frustrated when such obstacles occur as we see it as a threat to our career progression
Possibly, and I think that's a problem across psychology graduates as a whole. People need to learn to enjoy the ride! However an official publication like that coming out and explicitly saying that they are putting up these barriers is going to put people's backs up. Especially when the decision is so obviously based on money (i.e. getting their money's worth) rather than what's best for the staff and the patients.
Ponderings and wonderings in 140 characters - @willcurvis

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest