Accredited Registers Programme

Transcription

1 Accredited Registers Programme Accreditation Panel s Decision Application for renewal from: British Association of Play Therapists (BAPT) Panel meeting: 20 November 2015 (accreditation renewed) Accreditation valid from: 25 November November 2016 The Professional Standards Authority accredits registers of people working in a variety of unregulated health and social care occupations. To be accredited, organisations holding such registers must prove that they meet our demanding Standards for Accredited Registers (the Standards). Accreditation is reviewed every twelve months. The Accreditation Panel reviewed the accreditation of the register held by the BAPT. Panel members reviewed the annual review application form, an updated risk matrix, the BAPT s query sheet responses and a summary report from the Accreditation team. The Panel had to review the BAPT s compliance with the Standards and decide whether or not to renew accreditation, renew accreditation with conditions, suspend accreditation or remove accreditation. The Panel could also make recommendations in the form of: Learning points actions that would benefit the operation of the register, the implementation of which would be verified during the annual review of accreditation Instructions actions that would improve practice but do not affect compliance with the Standards and that the Panel requires to be implemented and be satisfied of appropriate implementation within a given timeframe Conditions changes that must be made in order to gain accreditation. The Panel noted the assessment carried out by the Accreditation team for the annual review included: Documentary review (annual review form, query sheet response and risk matrix) Due Diligence checks and Patient/Service User journey Review of call for information responses and concerns received during the year of accreditation.

2 There were no declarations of interest from members of the Panel. A summary of matters considered by the Panel is set out at Annex A. The summary is not intended to reflect all of the matters discussed by the Panel, but to record those that were most important in forming its decision. Outcome The Panel was satisfied that BAPT continued to meet the Standards for Accreditation. The Panel decided to renew accreditation. The Panel confirmed that no conditions, instructions or learning points would be issued as a result of the annual review of accreditation. The renewed accreditation is valid from 25 November 2015 to 25 November

3 Annex A - Accreditation Panel s Decision application for renewal Applicant: British Association of Play Therapists (BAPT) Panel meeting date: 20 November 2015 Outcome Accreditation renewed Update on Learning Points issued in the previous year At initial accreditation, the Panel provided the following Learning Points to be revisited at the annual review of accreditation: 1. BAPT should demonstrate further improvements in its openness and transparency, for example, publishing Board meeting minutes, dates of meetings and Board membership on its website. The Panel considered the actions taken by BAPT and agreed that the learning points had been addressed. 2. BAPT is to continue to implement its service user and public engagement strategy to inform and involve the public and service users in what it does. 3. BAPT should further develop its Indicative Sanctions Guidelines. The Accreditation team reported that BAPT had taken action in respect of the learning points above. Update on Instructions issued in the previous year The Panel provided the following Instructions to be implemented by the timeframe provided or annual review of accreditation: 1. BAPT must ensure that only BAPT s registrants make use of the accreditation mark and other benefits of accreditation. The Panel considered the actions taken by BAPT and agreed that the instructions had been addressed. For instruction three, the Panel noted the timeframe given by BAPT to implement the marker 3

4 2. BAPT should monitor how its registrants communicate accreditation. It must have a clear communications plan to ensure the public understands the difference between lower levels of membership and registration. Monitoring should take place throughout the accreditation period and BAPT should provide an update at annual review. system on the Find a Therapist website and considered this to be reasonable. The Accreditation team will verify completion by the agreed date. 3. BAPT must ensure that sanctions against a practitioner following a professional conduct hearing are displayed (or a marker provided) in search tools where the public may find registrants (e.g. the Find-A-Therapist directory). BAPT reported that currently sanctions are recorded on the register but not on the Find a Play Therapist directory on the newly developed website. BAPT noted however that the information for both the Register and the Find a Play Therapist pages is stored in the same database. BAPT is consulting with their web designer so that any sanctions will be clearly stated on the 'Find a Play Therapist' pages, as well as the register. The proposed date for completion of this amendment is the end of December BAPT must inform the accreditation team of when their revised complaints procedure has been published. 5. BAPT must inform the accreditation team of a hearing taking place within the period of accreditation that it may seek consent to observe. It must also notify the team when a complaint is received. Update on Conditions issued in the previous year There were no Conditions issued as part of the accreditation. 4

5 Standard 1: holds a voluntary register for health and/or social care occupations There have been no significant changes reported since last year. At initial accreditation, in line with Panel precedent, BAPT had written an exceptional circumstances policy for reviewing requests from registrants who do not wish to be listed on the register due to safety concerns, for example. However the Accreditation team was unable to find this on BAPT s website during the annual review assessment. BAPT stated that they were reviewing the exceptional circumstances policy and planned to publish it on the register page of their new website in early The Panel noted BAPT s timescale for publishing their exceptional circumstances policy. Standard 2: committed to protecting the public and promoting public confidence BAPT has appointed three lay members to their Board and has just started a second recruitment campaign for a lay member on the Professional Conduct Panel. BAPT is aiming to have a lay member in place by early The Accreditation team noted that BAPT has not had to use the Professional Conduct Panel yet as it has only received two cases which have not been referred to hearing. The Panel noted the progress BAPT had made to date with introducing lay involvement into the organisation and its efforts for recruiting further lay people for its complaints procedure. Standard 3: risks No risks have been added to or removed from the updated risk matrix. The Panel noted that BAPT continued to review and revise the matrix periodically. Standard 4: Financial sustainability As part of its due diligence checks the Accreditation team reviewed records from Companies House and noted that BAPT appeared to continue to be financially sustainable. BAPT reported that over the past year they have been considering the sustainability of the organisation and were planning to make this the overarching theme 5

6 for the away day in November 2015 when they would review and update their business plan. Standard 5: capacity to inspire confidence The Accreditation team reported the changes to BAPT s leadership and openness with the appointment of a new Chair, the recruitment of a Registrar and the inclusion of lay members to the Board. Standard 6: knowledge base There have been no significant changes reported since last year. Standard 7: governance As discussed under Standards 2 and 5, there have been changes in the governance of BAPT, with a change in the Chair, the recruitment of lay members and the recruitment of a Registrar. The provided examples of how BAPT carries out its governance in accordance with good practice were noted. The Panel noted the development of the child friendly feedback tool and BAPT s efforts to engage with its service users. As part of the assessment for Standard 7f, the Accreditation team carried out a patient/service user journey. The team reported the results to the Panel. The website contains a section with information for parents and a section with information for children. BAPT provided an example of how it seeks feedback on their website. BAPT uses its website to actively seek feedback; the feedback received so far about its 6

7 website has mostly been positive. BAPT informed that it was planning to update this feedback tool to get the views of children on play therapy. Standard 8: setting standards for registrants There have been no significant changes reported since last year. BAPT reported that they made changes to the process of approving Clinical Supervisors to enable Play Therapists who did not qualify through a BAPT accredited course to become a BAPT supervisor. Applicants to become supervisors must demonstrate their ability to work to BAPT s Core Competencies and Ethical Framework. Standard 9: education and training BAPT reported that there have been no significant changes to their course accreditation process and standards but that they have made changes to the portfolio route of entry to the register. The portfolio route can be used by practitioners who have not graduated from a BAPT accredited course. In order to apply via the portfolio route, the practitioner must supply evidence of their ability to meet the Play Therapy Core Competencies. One of the core competencies is the utilisation of personal therapy and support for development and show that they have equivalence of training. BAPT has amended its criteria for the number of personal therapy hours an applicant needs to have completed based on their level of experience. All applicants are expected to submit a reflective account of their experience of personal therapy, additional evidence may include case studies, personal references from the therapist and supervisor and confirmation of therapy hours. The previous criteria for the portfolio route stated that an applicant should have completed 60 hours of personal therapy. BAPT has amended this to better show equivalence to the education route to the register. They have included the following as a guide for the amount of therapy required according to the practitioners level of experience. 7

8 0 2 years evidence of 60 hours personal therapy, with confirmation from therapist 2 5 years evidence of 30 hours personal therapy, with confirmation by therapist 5 years plus evidence of 15 hours personal therapy with confirmation by therapist. This change has been voted on and agreed by the membership. BAPT was updating their procedures to reflect this change. Standard 10: the register BAPT has implemented their plans for improving the registration process as discussed in its initial accreditation assessment. Previously the Membership Committee would make the registration decisions and these would be ratified by the Board. The Accreditation Panel highlighted this as a potential conflict of interest and asked BAPT to consider this. BAPT put forward a proposal which was discussed by the Accreditation Panel during initial assessment. BAPT had since put that proposal into place. The current procedure is that the Registrar checks that the application process has been followed and administers the register and that the Membership Secretary rather than the Board approves new applications for registration. The Panel noted BAPT s renewal process. BAPT offered a CPD workshop on Business practice as a private practitioner at their conference in June 2015 to provide independent practitioners with the skills and guidance in record keeping, information sharing and other public protection issues. BAPT also reported that registrants who did not renew their registration within the agreed timeframe would be removed from the register until they renewed registration. This was to ensure that registrants on the register have fulfilled the requirements of 8

9 registration. The Accreditation team asked BAPT to clarify whether the names of those who had not renewed would be removed or if their register entry would be annotated to say that they had been removed and provide a reason for the removal. BAPT stated that non renewed members would be removed from the register entirely and be added back to the register only when they completed the renewal process satisfactorily. Standard 11: complaints and concerns BAPT has updated its complaints procedure this year to reflect advice from the Accreditation team and the Panel at its initial accreditation assessment. The revised procedure can be found on BAPT s website. BAPT received two concerns related to registrants within the accreditation year. The Accreditation team noted that neither of these concerns were classified as complaints by BAPT so were not reported to the Accreditation team. The Panel considered the information provided about the two concerns and noted that BAPT s handling of these concerns did not raise any issues. Call for Information and concerns about the Accredited Register The Accreditation team received four responses to the call for information, one raising concerns, two that were supportive and one that had no comment to make about BAPT s accreditation. In summary, the response raising concerns outlined the following points: 1) There appears to be a discrepancy in numbers of registrants reported in different areas of the website and that the reasons for the differences are not clear. 2) There appears to be anomalies in the admissions process, where the respondent stated that two registrants had been accepted onto BAPT s register who the respondent believed that did not meet BAPT s criteria and that the education level required to be on the Register was not clear. 3) That the respondent have had no response to meeting requests sent to BAPT. The Panel considered that BAPT had addressed the concerns raised and that they did not affect their ability to comply with the Standards. The Panel noted that the education and training level required was noted on the training page of the website and considered this to be clear. The Panel also noted that BAPT would be willing to map their core competencies to the modules if this was required to make the link clearer. 9

10 4) Some of the core competencies appear to be missing from the main topics covered in the training courses accredited by BAPT. BAPT responded to the concerns raised by explaining the differences in the numbers of members represented on the website. BAPT also explained that all registrants will have either qualified via a BAPT accredited course or completed the portfolio route to illustrate their equivalent competencies and that the education level is noted on the training page of BAPT s website. BAPT noted the change in leadership impacted on meeting with stakeholders and stated that they were planning to be in contact again with the respondent. BAPT noted the positive liaison between the two organisations in the past. BAPT stated that the modules outlined on the training page have more general descriptions than the core competencies, however all the core competencies are covered in both accredited courses. The Accreditation team suggested that BAPT had addressed the concerns raised and that these did not affect their ability to comply with the standards. Equality duty The Panel had regard to its duty under the Equality Act Impact Assessment BAPT confirmed that the issues identified in the impact assessment in its initial application for accreditation were still relevant. The Accreditation team did not highlight any additional issues. The Panel noted and took account of the impact of its decision to renew accreditation. 10