How does one hope to meet the new CPD requirements?
I posted this on the ACPA forum, and repeat it here for the List.
I would like some help here as I fear that for many of us, particularly
those private practitioners in WA, are in serious danger of losing our
endorsement by the end of the current CPD cycle.
The requirement is 30 hours in 12 months, starting 1st July 2010 and ending
Novemnber 2011.
To date most of my PD points have come from peer supervision, with some from
seminars and reading. Now any credit in the area of peer supervision has
been halved since we are no longer permitted to claim for the whole time
spent together, but only for one's own presentation time. Everyone must
complete 10 hours of peer supervision p.a. anyway. Do the maths - if you
have a single partner for this, then you have to complete 20 hours p.a.
(since time is shared), and this increases as the peer group number rises.
Effectively, the larger the peer group team, the less credit one receives,
and thus the more time one has to complete overall.
Let's take a two more of the examples of these great CPD activities that are
considered desirable:
'Reading articles of relevance and completing an online assessment' - So
when is this going to be available?
'Attending a workshop that requires a role play of skills' - terrific, but
who is responsible for making sure these are available?
Here is WA we have a dearth of activities (hence my reliance - and I am sure
others as well - on peer supervision). We may get lucky and have "something"
(and not necessarily anything of relevance) available on a Saturday morning.
These get booked out very quickly, and I expect the demand will become
greater as time goes on. Where is the educational significance of doing
"whatever is available"?
I understand that other states tend to have seminars, etc during the week.
While 2 hours p.m. does not sound much time to give up, this is in fact more
than that when travel al all are taken into account, which makes for a very
expensive CPD system. In fact it appears better suited to those in public
service where leave for ongoing education is now likely to be built into
entitlements (is that an unfair statement?).
It seems that we are losing the self-education component that was present in
the old PD. No longer is one able to read the books of one's choice and
receive credit for this activity. Not only was this activity helpful for
country-based practitioners with limited resources, but also for
practice-based clinicians limited for time.
It is my opinion that if points are to be prescribed for continuing
professional endorsement, then the authority (PBA) that demands them has a
responsibility to make them available. Our responsibility - that is, the
members- is to then use these opportunities provided to meet the CPD
requirements, that is attend the workshops, lecturers, etc. I am feeling
stressed at this time since I just do not see how it is possible to acrue
enough points by November 2011 to satisfy the PBA.
Opinions and advice eagerly sought.
Regards from Perth
Derek Cohen
Clinical Psychologist
Hi Derek,
I agree with you, and am also feeling very stressed with the way the CPD system is structured, and I also cannot see how I am going to be able to accrue the required points.....
Warm regards
Marie
From: Derek Cohen
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 4:30 PM
To: office@list.acpa.org.au
Subject: [ACPA] How does one hope to meet the new CPD requirements?
I posted this on the ACPA forum, and repeat it here for the List.
I would like some help here as I fear that for many of us, particularly those private practitioners in WA, are in serious danger of losing our endorsement by the end of the current CPD cycle.
The requirement is 30 hours in 12 months, starting 1st July 2010 and ending Novemnber 2011.
To date most of my PD points have come from peer supervision, with some from seminars and reading. Now any credit in the area of peer supervision has been halved since we are no longer permitted to claim for the whole time spent together, but only for one's own presentation time. Everyone must complete 10 hours of peer supervision p.a. anyway. Do the maths - if you have a single partner for this, then you have to complete 20 hours p.a. (since time is shared), and this increases as the peer group number rises. Effectively, the larger the peer group team, the less credit one receives, and thus the more time one has to complete overall.
Let's take a two more of the examples of these great CPD activities that are considered desirable:
'Reading articles of relevance and completing an online assessment' - So when is this going to be available?
'Attending a workshop that requires a role play of skills' - terrific, but who is responsible for making sure these are available?
Here is WA we have a dearth of activities (hence my reliance - and I am sure others as well - on peer supervision). We may get lucky and have "something" (and not necessarily anything of relevance) available on a Saturday morning. These get booked out very quickly, and I expect the demand will become greater as time goes on. Where is the educational significance of doing "whatever is available"?
I understand that other states tend to have seminars, etc during the week. While 2 hours p.m. does not sound much time to give up, this is in fact more than that when travel al all are taken into account, which makes for a very expensive CPD system. In fact it appears better suited to those in public service where leave for ongoing education is now likely to be built into entitlements (is that an unfair statement?).
It seems that we are losing the self-education component that was present in the old PD. No longer is one able to read the books of one's choice and receive credit for this activity. Not only was this activity helpful for country-based practitioners with limited resources, but also for practice-based clinicians limited for time.
It is my opinion that if points are to be prescribed for continuing professional endorsement, then the authority (PBA) that demands them has a responsibility to make them available. Our responsibility - that is, the members- is to then use these opportunities provided to meet the CPD requirements, that is attend the workshops, lecturers, etc. I am feeling stressed at this time since I just do not see how it is possible to acrue enough points by November 2011 to satisfy the PBA.
Opinions and advice eagerly sought.
Regards from Perth
Derek Cohen
Clinical Psychologist
________________________________________You are receiving this message as you are a member of ACPA. If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your options (eg, switch to or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your subscription page at:
http://list.acpa.org.au/mailman/options/office_list.acpa.org.au/office%40acpa.org.au
Hi Derek
I couldn't agree more with your concerns about CPD. I believe that some aspects of the new system are unreasonable, and in some areas even detrimental to high quality continuing education. Like Marie, I feel somewhat stressed at the thought of trying to maintain points each year.
My peer supervision group meets monthly for 1.5 - 2 hours and consists of about 7-8 clinicians including clin psychs, psychiatrists & a social worker/family therapist. To obtain adequate peer supervision points I would need to meet with them weekly instead of monthly. This is craziness. It leads to restriction of group size and the subsequent loss of pooled expertise for the sake of red tape. If I meet with only one clin psych i get more CPD points but less educational input. Whose brilliant idea was this?? Furthermore, the guidelines appear to suggest that the provision of a clinical opinion to a colleague & the associated feedback from peers about the opinion is not a valuable learning experience. I believe it is.
I am also curious as to why the CPD requirements differ so enormously from one profession to the next. I have downloaded the requirements for psychiatrists. There is no minimum requirement for active CPD, and peer supervision hours are not limited to only those hours spent talking about your own patients. They can still include private reading as CPD and their points are collected over a three year period. Why is there such inconsistency across professions?
Another concern is that there is a lack of good PD for senior clinicians, as already mentioned by others, particularly if they specialise in an area that is less common. Do we just repeat the same old workshops over and over, or do we attend irrelevant workshops because we will get CPD points, or do we have to pay to travel overseas every year? What if the limited workshops of relevance don't offer active learning? And who does offer active learning anyway? When active PD is offered, how often do the convenors indicate how many minutes or hours of the workshop is active as opposed to passive? Active PD is great but the requirement for it is premature given that active PD opportunities are not yet widely available and the concept is poorly defined. Why is pre-reading for a workshop considered to be active but reading the same material for your own interest not counted?
I'm surprised that this flawed CPD program has been approved and is now mandatory. Looks like we need another email campaign to the PBA.
Kind regards
Heidi
On 03/09/2010, at 6:31 PM, "Derek Cohen" derekcohen@iinet.net.au wrote:
I posted this on the ACPA forum, and repeat it here for the List.
I would like some help here as I fear that for many of us, particularly those private practitioners in WA, are in serious danger of losing our endorsement by the end of the current CPD cycle.
The requirement is 30 hours in 12 months, starting 1st July 2010 and ending Novemnber 2011.
To date most of my PD points have come from peer supervision, with some from seminars and reading. Now any credit in the area of peer supervision has been halved since we are no longer permitted to claim for the whole time spent together, but only for one's own presentation time. Everyone must complete 10 hours of peer supervision p.a. anyway. Do the maths - if you have a single partner for this, then you have to complete 20 hours p.a. (since time is shared), and this increases as the peer group number rises. Effectively, the larger the peer group team, the less credit one receives, and thus the more time one has to complete overall.
Let's take a two more of the examples of these great CPD activities that are considered desirable:
'Reading articles of relevance and completing an online assessment' - So when is this going to be available?
'Attending a workshop that requires a role play of skills' - terrific, but who is responsible for making sure these are available?
Here is WA we have a dearth of activities (hence my reliance - and I am sure others as well - on peer supervision). We may get lucky and have "something" (and not necessarily anything of relevance) available on a Saturday morning. These get booked out very quickly, and I expect the demand will become greater as time goes on. Where is the educational significance of doing "whatever is available"?
I understand that other states tend to have seminars, etc during the week. While 2 hours p.m. does not sound much time to give up, this is in fact more than that when travel al all are taken into account, which makes for a very expensive CPD system. In fact it appears better suited to those in public service where leave for ongoing education is now likely to be built into entitlements (is that an unfair statement?).
It seems that we are losing the self-education component that was present in the old PD. No longer is one able to read the books of one's choice and receive credit for this activity. Not only was this activity helpful for country-based practitioners with limited resources, but also for practice-based clinicians limited for time.
It is my opinion that if points are to be prescribed for continuing professional endorsement, then the authority (PBA) that demands them has a responsibility to make them available. Our responsibility - that is, the members- is to then use these opportunities provided to meet the CPD requirements, that is attend the workshops, lecturers, etc. I am feeling stressed at this time since I just do not see how it is possible to acrue enough points by November 2011 to satisfy the PBA.
Opinions and advice eagerly sought.
Regards from Perth
Derek Cohen
Clinical Psychologist
________________________________________You are receiving this message as you are a member of ACPA. If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your options (eg, switch to or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your subscription page at:
http://list.acpa.org.au/mailman/options/office_list.acpa.org.au/office%40acpa.org.au
The active CPD as it has been operationalized by APS is much wanting, in my view. Even though there is 'active' input, in terms of attendees at workshops completing some form of assessment, the people evaluating these assessments don't necessarily have the background to assess the completed contributions. So- the evaluation side of active CPD hasn't been sorted either.
To illustrate- I gave a workshop last year, which had an active and assessed component (I was asked to do it that way). The assessed component was an essay addressing a question I had set, based upon materials in the workshop. However, even though I was the presenter, I didn't mark any of these essays, nor did I give the actual assessor/s any form of outline of what should have been included in the essays (I wasn't asked to provide anything). The person who assessed/marked the essays wasn't even AT the workshop (and may not have even known much about the topic). So, this current APS system has the 'form' of active CPD, but in substance it misses the mark. What's the point of submitting work when it isn't appropriately evaluated anyway.
Mind you, I had no intention of marking anything from my workshop. To ask me to do that would amount to asking me to submit to a form of torture and I would avoid it at all costs (I hate marking- it's part of my current job). It's challenging and time consuming enough just preparing and giving a workshop. If I HAD to mark workshop input, I wouldn't GIVE the workshop in the first place. I wonder how many others have the same attitude.
So- in my view, we have a system which requires 'active' CPD, yet we don't yet have a system where the 'active' component is actually assessed. So, what is the point?? We have form, no substance. And I do wonder who would be willing to assess active workshop participation properly, given that it costs time and money. To do it properly would increase workshop costs enormously, I think.
What do others think?
Lovely to be able to 'talk' to and 'listen to' you all again.
Marjorie
=============================
Marjorie Collins,
M. App. Psych. (Clinical) Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
Co-Director, East Perth Neuropsychology Clinic
Senior Lecturer in Psychology
School of Psychology
Murdoch University
-----Original Message-----
From: office-bounces@list.acpa.org.au on behalf of Heidi Sumich
Sent: Sat 9/4/2010 15:48
To: Derek Cohen
Cc: office@list.acpa.org.au
Subject: Re: [ACPA] How does one hope to meet the new CPD requirements?
Hi Derek
I couldn't agree more with your concerns about CPD. I believe that some aspects of the new system are unreasonable, and in some areas even detrimental to high quality continuing education. Like Marie, I feel somewhat stressed at the thought of trying to maintain points each year.
My peer supervision group meets monthly for 1.5 - 2 hours and consists of about 7-8 clinicians including clin psychs, psychiatrists & a social worker/family therapist. To obtain adequate peer supervision points I would need to meet with them weekly instead of monthly. This is craziness. It leads to restriction of group size and the subsequent loss of pooled expertise for the sake of red tape. If I meet with only one clin psych i get more CPD points but less educational input. Whose brilliant idea was this?? Furthermore, the guidelines appear to suggest that the provision of a clinical opinion to a colleague & the associated feedback from peers about the opinion is not a valuable learning experience. I believe it is.
I am also curious as to why the CPD requirements differ so enormously from one profession to the next. I have downloaded the requirements for psychiatrists. There is no minimum requirement for active CPD, and peer supervision hours are not limited to only those hours spent talking about your own patients. They can still include private reading as CPD and their points are collected over a three year period. Why is there such inconsistency across professions?
Another concern is that there is a lack of good PD for senior clinicians, as already mentioned by others, particularly if they specialise in an area that is less common. Do we just repeat the same old workshops over and over, or do we attend irrelevant workshops because we will get CPD points, or do we have to pay to travel overseas every year? What if the limited workshops of relevance don't offer active learning? And who does offer active learning anyway? When active PD is offered, how often do the convenors indicate how many minutes or hours of the workshop is active as opposed to passive? Active PD is great but the requirement for it is premature given that active PD opportunities are not yet widely available and the concept is poorly defined. Why is pre-reading for a workshop considered to be active but reading the same material for your own interest not counted?
I'm surprised that this flawed CPD program has been approved and is now mandatory. Looks like we need another email campaign to the PBA.
Kind regards
Heidi
On 03/09/2010, at 6:31 PM, "Derek Cohen" derekcohen@iinet.net.au wrote:
I posted this on the ACPA forum, and repeat it here for the List.
I would like some help here as I fear that for many of us, particularly those private practitioners in WA, are in serious danger of losing our endorsement by the end of the current CPD cycle.
The requirement is 30 hours in 12 months, starting 1st July 2010 and ending Novemnber 2011.
To date most of my PD points have come from peer supervision, with some from seminars and reading. Now any credit in the area of peer supervision has been halved since we are no longer permitted to claim for the whole time spent together, but only for one's own presentation time. Everyone must complete 10 hours of peer supervision p.a. anyway. Do the maths - if you have a single partner for this, then you have to complete 20 hours p.a. (since time is shared), and this increases as the peer group number rises. Effectively, the larger the peer group team, the less credit one receives, and thus the more time one has to complete overall.
Let's take a two more of the examples of these great CPD activities that are considered desirable:
'Reading articles of relevance and completing an online assessment' - So when is this going to be available?
'Attending a workshop that requires a role play of skills' - terrific, but who is responsible for making sure these are available?
Here is WA we have a dearth of activities (hence my reliance - and I am sure others as well - on peer supervision). We may get lucky and have "something" (and not necessarily anything of relevance) available on a Saturday morning. These get booked out very quickly, and I expect the demand will become greater as time goes on. Where is the educational significance of doing "whatever is available"?
I understand that other states tend to have seminars, etc during the week. While 2 hours p.m. does not sound much time to give up, this is in fact more than that when travel al all are taken into account, which makes for a very expensive CPD system. In fact it appears better suited to those in public service where leave for ongoing education is now likely to be built into entitlements (is that an unfair statement?).
It seems that we are losing the self-education component that was present in the old PD. No longer is one able to read the books of one's choice and receive credit for this activity. Not only was this activity helpful for country-based practitioners with limited resources, but also for practice-based clinicians limited for time.
It is my opinion that if points are to be prescribed for continuing professional endorsement, then the authority (PBA) that demands them has a responsibility to make them available. Our responsibility - that is, the members- is to then use these opportunities provided to meet the CPD requirements, that is attend the workshops, lecturers, etc. I am feeling stressed at this time since I just do not see how it is possible to acrue enough points by November 2011 to satisfy the PBA.
Opinions and advice eagerly sought.
Regards from Perth
Derek Cohen
Clinical Psychologist
________________________________________You are receiving this message as you are a member of ACPA. If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your options (eg, switch to or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your subscription page at:
http://list.acpa.org.au/mailman/options/office_list.acpa.org.au/office%40acpa.org.au
I concur completely with everything you've said Marjorie.
Cheers, Simon
Dr. Simon Crisp MACPA
BA DipEdPsych MPsych DPsych
Clinical Psychologist
Director
Neo Psychology Pty Ltd
378 Burwood Road Hawthorn
Adjunct Lecturer, Monash University
School of Psychology & Psychiatry
Post: PO Box 7 Kew East 3102 AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 - 0427 002 209
Email: director@neopsychology.com.au
http://www.acpa.org.au/ Member-Logo_Email
From: office-bounces@list.acpa.org.au
[mailto:office-bounces@list.acpa.org.au] On Behalf Of Marjorie Collins
Sent: Saturday, 4 September 2010 6:28 PM
To: Heidi Sumich; Derek Cohen
Cc: office@list.acpa.org.au
Subject: Re: [ACPA] How does one hope to meet the new CPD requirements?
The active CPD as it has been operationalized by APS is much wanting, in my
view. Even though there is 'active' input, in terms of attendees at
workshops completing some form of assessment, the people evaluating these
assessments don't necessarily have the background to assess the completed
contributions. So- the evaluation side of active CPD hasn't been sorted
either.
To illustrate- I gave a workshop last year, which had an active and assessed
component (I was asked to do it that way). The assessed component was an
essay addressing a question I had set, based upon materials in the workshop.
However, even though I was the presenter, I didn't mark any of these essays,
nor did I give the actual assessor/s any form of outline of what should have
been included in the essays (I wasn't asked to provide anything). The person
who assessed/marked the essays wasn't even AT the workshop (and may not have
even known much about the topic). So, this current APS system has the 'form'
of active CPD, but in substance it misses the mark. What's the point of
submitting work when it isn't appropriately evaluated anyway.
Mind you, I had no intention of marking anything from my workshop. To ask me
to do that would amount to asking me to submit to a form of torture and I
would avoid it at all costs (I hate marking- it's part of my current job).
It's challenging and time consuming enough just preparing and giving a
workshop. If I HAD to mark workshop input, I wouldn't GIVE the workshop in
the first place. I wonder how many others have the same attitude.
So- in my view, we have a system which requires 'active' CPD, yet we don't
yet have a system where the 'active' component is actually assessed. So,
what is the point?? We have form, no substance. And I do wonder who would be
willing to assess active workshop participation properly, given that it
costs time and money. To do it properly would increase workshop costs
enormously, I think.
What do others think?
Lovely to be able to 'talk' to and 'listen to' you all again.
Marjorie
=============================
Marjorie Collins,
M. App. Psych. (Clinical) Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
Co-Director, East Perth Neuropsychology Clinic
Senior Lecturer in Psychology
School of Psychology
Murdoch University
-----Original Message-----
From: office-bounces@list.acpa.org.au on behalf of Heidi Sumich
Sent: Sat 9/4/2010 15:48
To: Derek Cohen
Cc: office@list.acpa.org.au
Subject: Re: [ACPA] How does one hope to meet the new CPD requirements?
Hi Derek
I couldn't agree more with your concerns about CPD. I believe that some
aspects of the new system are unreasonable, and in some areas even
detrimental to high quality continuing education. Like Marie, I feel
somewhat stressed at the thought of trying to maintain points each year.
My peer supervision group meets monthly for 1.5 - 2 hours and consists of
about 7-8 clinicians including clin psychs, psychiatrists & a social
worker/family therapist. To obtain adequate peer supervision points I would
need to meet with them weekly instead of monthly. This is craziness. It
leads to restriction of group size and the subsequent loss of pooled
expertise for the sake of red tape. If I meet with only one clin psych i get
more CPD points but less educational input. Whose brilliant idea was this??
Furthermore, the guidelines appear to suggest that the provision of a
clinical opinion to a colleague & the associated feedback from peers about
the opinion is not a valuable learning experience. I believe it is.
I am also curious as to why the CPD requirements differ so enormously from
one profession to the next. I have downloaded the requirements for
psychiatrists. There is no minimum requirement for active CPD, and peer
supervision hours are not limited to only those hours spent talking about
your own patients. They can still include private reading as CPD and their
points are collected over a three year period. Why is there such
inconsistency across professions?
Another concern is that there is a lack of good PD for senior clinicians, as
already mentioned by others, particularly if they specialise in an area that
is less common. Do we just repeat the same old workshops over and over, or
do we attend irrelevant workshops because we will get CPD points, or do we
have to pay to travel overseas every year? What if the limited workshops of
relevance don't offer active learning? And who does offer active learning
anyway? When active PD is offered, how often do the convenors indicate how
many minutes or hours of the workshop is active as opposed to passive?
Active PD is great but the requirement for it is premature given that active
PD opportunities are not yet widely available and the concept is poorly
defined. Why is pre-reading for a workshop considered to be active but
reading the same material for your own interest not counted?
I'm surprised that this flawed CPD program has been approved and is now
mandatory. Looks like we need another email campaign to the PBA.
Kind regards
Heidi
On 03/09/2010, at 6:31 PM, "Derek Cohen" derekcohen@iinet.net.au wrote:
I posted this on the ACPA forum, and repeat it here for the List.
I would like some help here as I fear that for many of us, particularly
those private practitioners in WA, are in serious danger of losing our
endorsement by the end of the current CPD cycle.
The requirement is 30 hours in 12 months, starting 1st July 2010 and
ending Novemnber 2011.
To date most of my PD points have come from peer supervision, with some
from seminars and reading. Now any credit in the area of peer supervision
has been halved since we are no longer permitted to claim for the whole time
spent together, but only for one's own presentation time. Everyone must
complete 10 hours of peer supervision p.a. anyway. Do the maths - if you
have a single partner for this, then you have to complete 20 hours p.a.
(since time is shared), and this increases as the peer group number rises.
Effectively, the larger the peer group team, the less credit one receives,
and thus the more time one has to complete overall.
Let's take a two more of the examples of these great CPD activities that
are considered desirable:
'Reading articles of relevance and completing an online assessment' - So
when is this going to be available?
'Attending a workshop that requires a role play of skills' - terrific, but
who is responsible for making sure these are available?
Here is WA we have a dearth of activities (hence my reliance - and I am
sure others as well - on peer supervision). We may get lucky and have
"something" (and not necessarily anything of relevance) available on a
Saturday morning. These get booked out very quickly, and I expect the demand
will become greater as time goes on. Where is the educational significance
of doing "whatever is available"?
I understand that other states tend to have seminars, etc during the week.
While 2 hours p.m. does not sound much time to give up, this is in fact more
than that when travel al all are taken into account, which makes for a very
expensive CPD system. In fact it appears better suited to those in public
service where leave for ongoing education is now likely to be built into
entitlements (is that an unfair statement?).
It seems that we are losing the self-education component that was present
in the old PD. No longer is one able to read the books of one's choice and
receive credit for this activity. Not only was this activity helpful for
country-based practitioners with limited resources, but also for
practice-based clinicians limited for time.
It is my opinion that if points are to be prescribed for continuing
professional endorsement, then the authority (PBA) that demands them has a
responsibility to make them available. Our responsibility - that is, the
members- is to then use these opportunities provided to meet the CPD
requirements, that is attend the workshops, lecturers, etc. I am feeling
stressed at this time since I just do not see how it is possible to acrue
enough points by November 2011 to satisfy the PBA.
Opinions and advice eagerly sought.
Regards from Perth
Derek Cohen
Clinical Psychologist
________________________________________You are receiving this message as
you are a member of ACPA. If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or
change your options (eg, switch to or from digest mode, change your
password, etc.), visit your subscription page at:
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3112 - Release Date: 09/04/10
04:34:00
Hi everyone,
I agree with both Heidi and Derek,
CPD should be about free learning which will improve us as Specialist Clinical Psychologists. Being overly prescriptive, bureaucratic and onerous will defeat its purpose. Is it true that reading doesn't count? That will reduce the time we have for our contact with the world. Many of my preferred authors have been world authorities in Psychology.
regards,
Karin Solondz
On 04/09/2010, at 5:48 PM, Heidi Sumich wrote:
Hi Derek
I couldn't agree more with your concerns about CPD. I believe that some aspects of the new system are unreasonable, and in some areas even detrimental to high quality continuing education. Like Marie, I feel somewhat stressed at the thought of trying to maintain points each year.
My peer supervision group meets monthly for 1.5 - 2 hours and consists of about 7-8 clinicians including clin psychs, psychiatrists & a social worker/family therapist. To obtain adequate peer supervision points I would need to meet with them weekly instead of monthly. This is craziness. It leads to restriction of group size and the subsequent loss of pooled expertise for the sake of red tape. If I meet with only one clin psych i get more CPD points but less educational input. Whose brilliant idea was this?? Furthermore, the guidelines appear to suggest that the provision of a clinical opinion to a colleague & the associated feedback from peers about the opinion is not a valuable learning experience. I believe it is.
I am also curious as to why the CPD requirements differ so enormously from one profession to the next. I have downloaded the requirements for psychiatrists. There is no minimum requirement for active CPD, and peer supervision hours are not limited to only those hours spent talking about your own patients. They can still include private reading as CPD and their points are collected over a three year period. Why is there such inconsistency across professions?
Another concern is that there is a lack of good PD for senior clinicians, as already mentioned by others, particularly if they specialise in an area that is less common. Do we just repeat the same old workshops over and over, or do we attend irrelevant workshops because we will get CPD points, or do we have to pay to travel overseas every year? What if the limited workshops of relevance don't offer active learning? And who does offer active learning anyway? When active PD is offered, how often do the convenors indicate how many minutes or hours of the workshop is active as opposed to passive? Active PD is great but the requirement for it is premature given that active PD opportunities are not yet widely available and the concept is poorly defined. Why is pre-reading for a workshop considered to be active but reading the same material for your own interest not counted?
I'm surprised that this flawed CPD program has been approved and is now mandatory. Looks like we need another email campaign to the PBA.
Kind regards
Heidi
On 03/09/2010, at 6:31 PM, "Derek Cohen" derekcohen@iinet.net.au wrote:
I posted this on the ACPA forum, and repeat it here for the List.
I would like some help here as I fear that for many of us, particularly those private practitioners in WA, are in serious danger of losing our endorsement by the end of the current CPD cycle.
The requirement is 30 hours in 12 months, starting 1st July 2010 and ending Novemnber 2011.
To date most of my PD points have come from peer supervision, with some from seminars and reading. Now any credit in the area of peer supervision has been halved since we are no longer permitted to claim for the whole time spent together, but only for one's own presentation time. Everyone must complete 10 hours of peer supervision p.a. anyway. Do the maths - if you have a single partner for this, then you have to complete 20 hours p.a. (since time is shared), and this increases as the peer group number rises. Effectively, the larger the peer group team, the less credit one receives, and thus the more time one has to complete overall.
Let's take a two more of the examples of these great CPD activities that are considered desirable:
'Reading articles of relevance and completing an online assessment' - So when is this going to be available?
'Attending a workshop that requires a role play of skills' - terrific, but who is responsible for making sure these are available?
Here is WA we have a dearth of activities (hence my reliance - and I am sure others as well - on peer supervision). We may get lucky and have "something" (and not necessarily anything of relevance) available on a Saturday morning. These get booked out very quickly, and I expect the demand will become greater as time goes on. Where is the educational significance of doing "whatever is available"?
I understand that other states tend to have seminars, etc during the week. While 2 hours p.m. does not sound much time to give up, this is in fact more than that when travel al all are taken into account, which makes for a very expensive CPD system. In fact it appears better suited to those in public service where leave for ongoing education is now likely to be built into entitlements (is that an unfair statement?).
It seems that we are losing the self-education component that was present in the old PD. No longer is one able to read the books of one's choice and receive credit for this activity. Not only was this activity helpful for country-based practitioners with limited resources, but also for practice-based clinicians limited for time.
It is my opinion that if points are to be prescribed for continuing professional endorsement, then the authority (PBA) that demands them has a responsibility to make them available. Our responsibility - that is, the members- is to then use these opportunities provided to meet the CPD requirements, that is attend the workshops, lecturers, etc. I am feeling stressed at this time since I just do not see how it is possible to acrue enough points by November 2011 to satisfy the PBA.
Opinions and advice eagerly sought.
Regards from Perth
Derek Cohen
Clinical Psychologist
________________________________________You are receiving this message as you are a member of ACPA. If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your options (eg, switch to or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your subscription page at:
http://list.acpa.org.au/mailman/options/office_list.acpa.org.au/office%40acpa.org.au
________________________________________You are receiving this message as you are a member of ACPA. If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your options (eg, switch to or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your subscription page at:
http://list.acpa.org.au/mailman/options/office_list.acpa.org.au/office%40acpa.org.au