Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:24:15.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Gogledd Cymru-Peer Supervision in Psychotherapy (GC-PSP): What Are Lessons Learned After Two Years?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Jiann Lin Loo*
Affiliation:
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham, United Kingdom
Manjula Simiyon
Affiliation:
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Flintshire, United Kingdom
Rajvinder Singh Sambhi
Affiliation:
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

Core trainees in psychiatry (CT) must attain competencies in at least two psychotherapy modalities before they are allowed to sit for the final Royal College of Psychiatrists’ membership exam. The common training approaches in the United Kingdom include regional training workshops, weekly Balint groups, and access to individual supervision. Some CTs express their wish to have extra opportunities to practice psychotherapeutic skills and discuss cases in order to enrich their experience in learning psychotherapy. Therefore, the peer-led GC-PSP, i.e. Gogledd-Cymru (North Wales) Peer Supervision in Psychotherapy is conceptualised as a quality improvement project (QIP) for North Wales CTs. This article aims to illustrate the lessons learned after two years of GC-PSP.

Methods

A baseline survey was done to identify trainees’ ideas, concerns, and expectations in psychotherapy training and weekly one-hour supervision sessions were set up in May 2021. Sessions were facilitated by a speciality trainee (ST) in psychiatry with experience in psychotherapy. The agenda was determined on the day based on the specific issue or expectation brought up by trainees which could include: clarification of psychotherapeutic concepts and knowledge learned elsewhere, skill training through role-playing, case formulation of clinical encounters, discussions on suitable intervention, and any topics that were relevant to psychotherapy or combination. Subsequent written and verbal feedback was gathered.

Results

A total of 48 sessions had been conducted in two years, with 37.5% covering knowledge teaching, 45.83% skills training, and 39.58% case-based discussions. The top five modalities requested by CTs included: cognitive behavioural therapy (32.35%), psychodynamic therapy (20.59%) acceptance and commitment therapy (17.65%), motivational interview (11.76%), and behavioural activation (8.82%). The overall attendance had been inconsistent, ranging from no attendees and the highest of eight attendees comprising medical students, foundation year trainees, core psychiatry trainees, general practitioner specialist trainees, and specialist registrars.

Conclusion

Although inconsistent attendance results in the repetition of discussions and topics, all trainees feel the extra sessions support their learning in psychotherapy in a safe space as they feel the small group discussion allows more active participation and they are able to learn from others on top of their individual supervision (positive Kirkpatrick level 1 reaction). All trainees wish to have this initiative continued and prefer a semi-structured rather than totally flexible agenda so that they can plan for their attendance, which can be a consideration for future implementation.

Type
Education and Training
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.