The National Council of Psychotherapists
The GHR NATIONAL SURVEY of HYPNOTHERAPY PRACTITIONERS
Research Paper compiled by William Broom FNCP (Hon)
The GHR National Practitioner Survey on Supervision and Continuing Professional Development ---- (Circulation: 4,817)
Qu. = Question
Res. = Response
Section 1 – SUPERVISION
Qu. "Are you in favour of regular Supervision for practising hypnotherapists?"
Res. In favour: 84% Not in favour: 14%N.B. 2% would not commit
Qu. "If Supervision were compulsory, which would be your preferred format?"
Qu. "If compulsory, please indicate your opinion on who should undergo Supervision?"
Qu. "If compulsory, please indicate with what regularity you feel Supervision should be undertaken?"
(ranging from 1 hour to 200 client hours to 1 hour to 4 client hours, with the majority favouring, on average,1 hour to 20 client hours)
N.B. 2.5% felt telephone support would either be adequate or could be utilised within any chosen scheme
Section 2 – CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Qu. "Are you in favour of hypnotherapists being required to update their skills and knowledge by occasional attendance at relevant workshops and / or seminars?"
Qu. "If CPD were compulsory, please indicate your opinion on who should attend?"
Qu. "If compulsory, please indicate your view on total number of required hours on an annual basis?"
Section 1 – Supervision:
84% of respondents were in favour of some sort of formalised Supervision with 38% preferring "one-to-one" (i.e. with a "trained" supervisor), 30% preferring a "peer group" arrangement and a combined total of 29.5% preferring "peer / co-counselling".
60.5% felt that Supervision (of one type or another) should be undertaken throughout their working lives.
33.5% felt that Supervision should be undertaken once a month and 24% once every 3 months. (N.B. This averaged 1½ hours for one-to-one, peer and co-counselling and 2 to 4 hours for peer group).
Section 2 – Continuing Professional Development:
95% of respondents were in favour of the concept of Continuing Professional Development with 86% believing this should be undertaken throughout their working lives.
41% felt that a maximum of 10 hours annually would be appropriate, whilst 40% favoured 10 to 20 hours.
Many respondents felt very strongly that any system should be both "flexible" and "affordable", (peer groups, for example, could be "self-financing at minimum cost for all involved"). The notion of flexibility was typically expressed by the suggestion that "a one-to-one arrangement was more suitable for recently qualified therapists, whilst the more experienced would find peer groups more appropriate". Additionally, a significant number felt that "newly qualified therapists should have more Supervision than experienced practitioners" and that "quality of Supervision was more important than quantity".
Some minority views expressed were that: "Medical Doctors, Dentists and Clinical Psychologists (and presumably other professionals in comparable situations) might have the existing supervision requirements of their respective professions taken into account"; that there was "a need to take account of different client workloads, e.g. those working predominantly with smoking cessation might require less Supervision than those working with the terminally ill"; that "special arrangements may be required for disabled therapists or those with no car or on low incomes"; and that Supervision was, in any event, of "questionable effectiveness".
A significant number, whilst supporting the concept, believed that Supervision should be "voluntary" rather than "compulsory", with some expressing the view that "any competent therapist should be capable of recognising when they were in need of it"
Continuing Professional Development:
Here again, many respondents were concerned with issues of flexibility and cost. The most frequently expressed comments were that "a high degree of flexibility should be allowed with regard to choice of subject matter"; that "the fees charged for CPD should be affordable" and that they should "not just become a money-making exercise for workshop providers".
Additionally, there was a commonly held view, typically summed up by the notion that "CPD should not be wholly defined by personal attendance at venues but should include (particularly for more experienced practitioners) personal study, Internet research and time spent at Health Fairs etc" and that such activities could be "recorded by the practitioner in the form of an annual log to be made available to the Registering Body for scrutiny".
As with Supervision, a significant number, whilst supporting the concept, disliked the notion that CPD should be "compulsory", whilst a minority view was that it would be "far more important to concentrate on better training programmes in the first place".
© The General Hypnotherapy Register
PO Box 204, Lymington, SO41 6WP
Tel/Fax: 01590 683 770