Therapy Today

Recommendations

Info

Research/Professional conduct BACP’s annual research conference co-host: the SPR ‘Research and Practice’ – 6 and 7 May 2011, Liverpool BACP is delighted to welcome the Society for Psychotherapy Research (SPR) as its co-host for the conference next May. SPR (UK) is an international organisation which brings together researchers and practitioners from different backgrounds and traditions. Like BACP, SPR membership draws on and contributes to a wide range of international psychotherapy research. The SPR has hosted its own annual conferences for 25 years and its aims are in line with those of BACP; to foster a climate of open inquiry, where new researchers, practitioners and acknowledged leaders in the field come together and share their common enthusiasm for learning and their desire to discover how practice can be improved. We are delighted to have this opportunity to work collaboratively with SPR and look forward to a broad and varied programme with research presented by both SPR and BACP members (non-members are of course invited to submit for the conference also). Professor Thomas Schroder, President of SPR (UK) will present the Saturday keynote at the conference, entitled ‘Researching therapists and their practice – a shift of perspective’. Professor Michael Barkham, from the University of Sheffield, will present Friday’s keynote, entitled ‘Re-privileging practitioners at the heart of practice-based evidence’. The theme of the next conference, to be held on 6 and 7 May 2011 in Liverpool, is ‘Research and Practice,’ which is relevant to the interests of both BACP and SPR. We welcome SPR to cohost the research conference with us and look forward to meeting new colleagues, learning from others and broadening the forum for discussion. Visit our webpages for updates, as and when they become available: http://www.bacp.co.uk/ research/conf2011/index.php BACP Professional Conduct Hearing Findings, decision and sanction Frances Nicola Cooper (aka Niki Cooper) Reference No 528909 London N8 The complaint against the above individual member was taken to Adjudication in line with the Professional Conduct Procedure. The complaint was heard under BACP Professional Conduct Procedure, and the Panel considered the alleged breaches of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy. The focus of the complaint, as summarised by the Pre- Hearing Assessment Panel, is that in September 2008, the complainant registered on a two-year Postgraduate Diploma in Counselling Children in Schools. Ms Cooper was the programme leader and tutor. From early on, the complainant alleges that she was bullied by other students on the course. At a residential weekend in February 2009 she alleges that another student shouted at her, ‘Stay away from me, don’t speak to me, don’t look at me, don’t come anywhere near me.’ Ms Cooper was not present in the room but the complainant allegedly informed Ms Cooper of what had occurred. The complainant alleges that Ms Cooper’s advice was to stay away from the student in question, therefore failing to take appropriate action. In the second year of the course in November 2009, another residential weekend took place, facilitated by two body psychotherapists. The complainant alleges that fellow students, including the student that she alleged had previously bullied her, behaved in a hostile and intimidating way towards her. The complainant further alleges that although Ms Cooper was present while some of the incidents took place, Ms Cooper failed to intervene. In another alleged incident of intimidation on 3 November 2009, the complainant alleges that Ms Cooper again failed to take appropriate action. The complainant alleges that following this, Ms Cooper invited her to a meeting on 9 November 2009. At this meeting the complainant alleges that Ms Cooper informed her that she was suspended under a Suitability Procedure, which was handed to her there and then. The complainant alleges that three errors occurred: firstly, she had allegedly not been handed a copy of the Suitability Procedure prior to this; allegedly it had simply been posted on a notice board at the beginning of the academic year (second year in the complainant’s case); secondly, Stage Two of the procedure had allegedly been invoked, omitting Stage One; thirdly, there was allegedly no mention of the sanction of suspension within the Suitability Procedure. The complainant alleges that Ms Cooper suspended her unfairly without informing her of the allegations against her and did not follow the procedures concerning her correctly. The complainant further alleges that Ms Cooper ignored two emails concerning the allegations against her dated 15 and 16 November 2009 (wrongly dated in the complaint as 2010). The Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel, in accepting this complaint was concerned with the allegations made within the complaint suggesting contravention of the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2009), and those in particular as follows: •• Ms Cooper allegedly failed to make the complainant aware of the Suitability Procedure prior to implementing it, nor provided her with an opportunity to have its meaning clarified prior to implementation •• Ms Cooper allegedly failed to implement the Suitability Procedure correctly in that she allegedly invoked Stage Two of the Procedures, omitting Stage One. Further, Ms Cooper allegedly invoked a suspension, a sanction which is not documented in Stage Two of the Procedure •• Ms Cooper allegedly failed to demonstrate the requisite 46 Therapy Today/www.therapytoday.net/November 2010
skills and attitudes as a tutor to manage group dynamics appropriately, to the detriment of the complainant. Findings On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings: •• The complainant should have been made aware of the existence of the Suitability Procedure prior to its implementation on 9 November 2009. She should also have been given the opportunity to have the meaning of this procedure clarified before the meeting on 9 November 2009. However, the Panel found that Ms Cooper was not solely responsible for these significant lapses in communication •• Ms Cooper made a decision, having consulted appropriately, to implement the Suitability Procedure at Stage Two, rather than at Stage One, which was allowed •• The Panel found that Ms Cooper, as programme leader, did suspend the complainant from the course, using a sanction which was not permitted under the Suitability Procedure at Stage Two. When questioned, Ms Cooper admitted frankly that she should not have done so •• The Panel found that Ms Cooper’s level of skills and her attitudes as a tutor to manage group dynamics during the course did not fall below the standards that may reasonably be expected from a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill. Decision Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that these findings amounted to professional malpractice in that Ms Cooper unfairly suspended the complainant, and was partly at fault in not providing information about the Suitability Procedure prior to its implementation. In these instances, Ms Cooper’s behaviour fell below the standards expected of a practitioner exercising reasonable care and skill. Mitigation Ms Cooper conveyed openness and sincerity to the Panel, and demonstrated that she had since considered and addressed the issues arising from the complaint. The flawed Suitability Procedure was withdrawn and Ms Cooper participated in efforts to facilitate the return of the complainant to the course. The Panel was satisfied that Ms Cooper had already demonstrated significant learning from these events, both in her own statements at the hearing, and also when questioned by the Panel. Sanction Consequently, the Panel did not impose a sanction. Withdrawal of membership Pennie Aston Reference No 545827 London N3 3DR During the course of a Professional Conduct Hearing, information came to light which was sufficient to refer for consideration under Article 4.6 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association. The summary of the information, together with the allegations as notified to Ms Aston, were as follows. During the course of a Hearing where Ms Aston was a complainant, evidence came to the attention of the Adjudication Panel regarding a statement supplied by her from Ms A, a witness. The evidence suggested that Ms Aston had substantially altered Ms A’s statement about Ms B, the member complained against, which was very much to the detriment of the latter. It is further alleged that Ms Aston had knowingly and deliberately falsified evidence. Ms Aston allegedly admitted that she had substantially altered Ms A’s statement with the intention of undermining Ms B in the Hearing, for which she apologised. The Panel viewed this matter very seriously and raised it as a separate matter with Ms Aston at the Hearing. Allegedly, Ms Aston could not provide any rational explanation for her actions and accepted any consequences that may arise from it. Despite her apology, the Panel remained very concerned about the matter and referred it, formally, to be considered under Article 4.6 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association. Ms Aston was sent a copy of the information received from herself, Ms A, Ms B and the Professional Conduct Panel, together with a copy of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy and the procedure for Article 4.6. The nature of the information raised questions about the suitability of Ms Aston’s continuing membership of the Association and suggested that she had brought, or may yet bring, not only the Association, but also the reputations of counselling/ psychotherapy into disrepute. The information further suggested that there may have been serious breaches of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy and it raised concerns about the following, in particular: •• Allegedly, Ms Aston dishonestly, deceitfully and deliberately altered and falsified a witness statement. Further, Ms Aston submitted it as evidence under the Professional Conduct Procedure to be considered in a complaint that she had made against another BACP member, with the alleged intention of undermining the member complained against in the Hearing and causing her detriment •• Ms Aston’s alleged lack of respect for Ms A in altering her statement without her consent or knowledge •• The information suggests that Ms Aston’s alleged behaviour is incompatible with the values and principles of counselling and psychotherapy and is lacking in the personal moral qualities of integrity, sincerity, respect, fairness, and wisdom to which counsellors and psychotherapists are strongly encouraged to aspire. It also suggests that Ms Aston failed to treat colleagues respectfully and to exercise probity. Further it suggests that Ms Aston failed in her responsibility both as a member and provider of information to participate appropriately and honestly in the Professional Conduct Procedure of this Association. The member was invited to send in a written response, and made a response. The Article 4.6 Panel decided to implement Article 4.6 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association and withdraw BACP membership from Ms Aston to take effect 28 days from notification of this decision. The reasons November 2010/www.therapytoday.net/Therapy Today 47
Page 1 and 2: Therapy Today November 2010, Vol. 2
Page 3 and 4: Contents Sarah Browne Editor For se
Page 5 and 6: Mental health groups praise governm
Page 7 and 8: In practice Words and labels Kevin
Page 9 and 10: In training Walking the line Alex E
Page 11 and 12: Increasingly, counsellors and psych
Page 13 and 14: defined as the assumption that diff
Page 15: Questionnaire Jeremy Clarke A natio
Page 18 and 19: Viewpoint References 1. Wampold BE.
Page 20: Training Becoming a counsellor Surp
Page 23 and 24: ‘Trainees were primarily concerne
Page 25 and 26: © hans neleman/the image bank/gett
Page 27 and 28: my work. This is not because I am o
Page 29 and 30: November 2010/www.therapytoday.net/
Page 31 and 32: Dilemmas The counselling-coaching i
Page 33 and 34: Kate Cunnion (counsellor, superviso
Page 35 and 36: female client and was seeking suppo
Page 37 and 38: Reviews Evidence for the economic v
Page 39 and 40: Co-creating therapeutic conversatio
Page 41 and 42: News From the Chair How are develop
Page 43 and 44: Could you write an information shee
Page 45: Case Study Research in Counselling

Therapy Today

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?