Does anybody out there know what the definition of a qualified cbt clinician is?
Personally I do not have a Core profession and I am working towards completing the KSA to apply for Provisional Accreditation with the BABCP.
I currently work within a nhs psychology treatment service as an assistant practitioner on a band 4, my employer paid for me to complete a post graduate diploma in advanced cbt practice at UNI, after completing the course , I am being expected to continue to provide cbt to complex individuals as they are saying I am not qualified until I have Full accreditation and refused any pay rise until then . any advice would be helpful.
Well this question is interesting and requires unpacking;
It has become apparent, at least in IAPT, that the definition of a qualified CBT workers is conflated with someone holding full accreditation with BABCP. This definition of 'what is a CBT worker' excludes a raft of others, and ties IAPT staff to CPD, supervision requirements etc set by BABCP. What is interesting to think about however, is that if IAPT is supposed to be striving to replicate CBt as delivered in the clinical trials informing the Roth Pilling competences, then we need to ask the Q, were the workers in those trials BABCP accredited.. My guess would be not. They were likely in my view to be clinical psychologists, research workers, or very experienced psychological therapists, and quite possibly registered with other bodies such as BPS, or UKCP etc. It would be interesting to know who the workers were, what were their skill sets, who were they accredited with (if at all)?
Within the NHS agenda 4 change used to have role descriptors tied to pay bands, CBT therapists are usually paid at NHS band 7, and band 6 while training. see if you can get hold of a role profile for a band 6 trainee high intensity worker, and map your current role against that?
The use of the word 'cliniican' is also interesting as it has become the norm within IAPT. the dictionary definition of clinician is either a person qualified in medicine, or a person holding a clinic. The lingusitic ambiguity serves IAPT well, as they can profess to be the latter, but still speaking with the authority of the 'voice of medicine'. for me this reflects the desire to portray CBT as scientific, rather than scientistic (Newnes, Molllon) and to present itself as a credible, medically sound, "evidence based practice".
This appropriation of the voice of medicine and the medical model, of course underpins much of how CBT has marketed itself and appears seldom questioned amongst practitioners....?