Search

Purpose: In 2021, an opportunity arose to place four counselling and psychotherapy (C&P) students in three care homes across Greater Manchester as part of a 6‐week interprofessional education (IPE) care home scheme. Whilst, due to ethical concerns around confidentiality, the C&P students could not participate in interprofessional activities as intended, they still undertook their clinical placement in the home to provide accessible therapy support for care home staff. This paper aims at reporting on the varied factors that influenced the implementation of C&P student placements in care homes. Methods: At the start and end of their placement, four C&P students were interviewed about their experiences. We draw on data from these eight interviews and two reflective vignettes: one from a C&P student and the other from the C&P programme coordinator (C&PPC). Results: The data were thematically analysed, and two key themes and six subthemes were constructed. They broadly unpack the factors that facilitate and challenge the implementation of C&P student placements in care homes. Conclusion: This paper highlights the value of utilising care homes as placement sites for C&P students. We propose four key recommendations for future practice: (1) it is important to establish clear lines of communication, support and collaboration; (2) a dual‐space supervisory approach supports student learning in this "new" placement environment; (3) preplacement supportive frameworks are important to clarify initial role uncertainties within the care home; and (4) opportunities to provide therapy services should be well defined and referral processes put in place before the student arrives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this research was to understand counsellors' and therapists' perceptions and experiences of working online during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Method: Five hundred and ninety clinicians, mostly UK‐based, responded to an online qualitative survey, which allowed data to be gathered from a broader range of participants than is typical for qualitative interviews or focus group studies, and provided a wide‐angle lens. The survey generated over 130,000 words, on which a five‐staged framework analysis was conducted. Seven superordinate themes were identified. Results: In this paper, three of these superordinate themes specifically addressing online therapeutic practice with individual adult clients are presented. Therapists' accounts addressed the diverse ways in which the online space changed how they thought about the therapy relationship and their interactions with clients. Respondents described instances where online therapy had been beneficial for facilitating and cultivating the therapeutic process and relationship as well as how online therapy could have a potentially disruptive impact on therapeutic practice. Implications: For practitioners who continue to deliver therapy solely online and/or offer hybrid services, this study identifies the specific knowledge and skills required for effective and safe online therapeutic work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Routine outcome monitoring (ROM), including the use of feedback, has become a much vaunted method in psychological therapies but is little used in university/college counselling and mental health services, perhaps because its adoption raises questions for many practitioners and service leaders. There is a need for both clinical‐ and research‐based statements to clarify the reasoning and rationale for ROM. This paper aims to present and respond to common challenges of and reservations about using ROM in student counselling and/or mental health services. Method: The article poses 15 questions and issues about the adoption of ROM drawn from the literature on this topic and further refined by practitioner‐ and researcher‐members of a consortium comprising service leads, practitioners, and researchers working in the field of student counselling in the UK. The questions address nine themes: (1) the purpose and yield of ROM; (2) the burden of measurement; (3) the impact on clients and process of therapy; (4) consistency with therapeutic theory; (5) client groups and settings; (6) concern from practitioners; (7) equality, diversity, and inclusion; (8) implementation; and (9) relationship with the paradigm of practice‐based evidence. Findings: Responses to each of the 15 questions are provided from a methodological, evidence‐based, and clinical perspective. Conclusions: The responses provide practitioners with the necessary information to enable them to make informed decisions as to the value, or otherwise, of adopting ROM, including feedback, in the delivery of counselling interventions, and generating evidence created from clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]