Accreditation Working Party – Inaugural Meeting
Date and time: Monday 18th November 2013 2:00pm – 4.30pm
Location: BRIEF, 7-8 Newbury Street, London EC1A 7HU
Minutes
Present:
Suzi Curtis (Chair)
Steve Flatt (Minutes Secretary)
Rob Black
Martin Bohn
Kidge Burns
Andrew Callcott
Jenny Clarke
Chris Iveson
Paul Z. Jackson
1. Introductions and best hopes
Suzi opened by welcoming everyone and indicating that she saw the he meeting as
the opportunity for Core members of the UKASFP to help develop, modify and/or
‘flesh out’ the proposals that had been endorsed by the UKASFP AGM.
After a brief round of introductions, members were invited to express their best
hopes for the meeting.
Suzi reported that, as Chair rather than bona fide member of the UKASFP Core, she
simply hoped to go away with something definite to report back to the membership.
Other members’ best hopes were as follows:
Andrew hoped to have a job to take away; to see tangible next steps;
Kidge hoped to continue in the same vein as the good start made by Suzi’s proposal
paper, which she complimented for its clarity and for the fact that it was drawing
upon previous good work in this area rather than ‘reinventing the wheel’;
Paul hoped to see a broad view being taken so that principles of accreditation were
applicable to all areas of practice, not just therapy;
Chris hoped that the meeting would achieve some clarity on issues of concern to
him, such as the amount of time that would be needed in order to assess the
training necessary for accreditation. He explained that the BRIEF diploma course
required two years of training and a considerable amount of assessment time which
would not be feasible for the UKASFP to do. He acknowledged that accreditation for
a practitioner might require less in the way of theory, and was keen to explore the
question of “how much training is enough?” for accreditation to be granted and
ensure that the Working Party think carefully about whether the UKASFP had the
resources to assess this.
(n.b. Suzi interjected at this point to remind WP members that the basis for the
proposals agreed at the AGM was to move away from accreditation based on
training and to build a model based upon evidence of practice. Although some
further discussion of this matter took place during the “best hopes” round, much of
it has been captured and described under agenda item 3, below)
Martin hoped that he could make a contribution to working towards achieving
credibility and recognition for SF work outside the UKASFP world;
Rob, likewise, hoped that he could make a contribution to the development of
accreditation: he explained that he was curious to see how this would unfold,
having recently been witness to a similar process in the sphere of Attachment
Therapy. He suggested perhaps there were similarities between the two fields that
we could learn from;
Jenny hoped that the meeting would take small steps towards professional
credibility and a demonstration of good practice and to address these wider issues
effectively.
2. Role of the Working Party – remit, desired outcome and signs of progress
How will we know when the WP has done its job?
Discussion of best hopes led naturally into a consideration of this agenda item, as
the issue of wider credibility and recognition was picked up and discussed.
Members expressed a wish to see solution focused practice raise its profile and be
recognised as legitimate alongside other sorts of therapeutic practice: it was
agreed that this legitimacy should form part of the preferred future for the UKASFP
and that it was therefore the job of the Working Party to consider taking realistic
steps towards this.
There was some discussion regarding the question of who the UKASFP wants to be
recognising SF practice and the potential tensions between the wish to gain wider
recognition and the desire to stay true to principles that we see as most important.
The need for recognition by organisations such as solicitors commissioning
therapeutic work as part of personal injury claims, and certain employers, was
identified.
In considering the question of how best this recognition might be obtained,
comparisons were made with other therapeutic models – especially Cognitive
Behaviour Therapy (CBT) – which seemed to have ‘cornered the market’ and
achieved the recognition that the UKASFP seeks. Some members queried whether it
as the requirement for accredited practitioners to have undertaken an accredited
course of study that has earned CBT this recognition: other suggested that the
detail of what was required for accreditation of practitioners was largely irrelevant
to employers and other organisations seeking to recruit therapists: what was of
most importance was the high profile of the accrediting body, in this case the
British Association of Behavioural and Cognitive Practitioners (BABCP).
Suzi then commented that achieving this sort of recognition for the UKASFP was a
‘chicken and egg’ situation: UKASFP accreditation is not currently widely recognised
due to the low profile of the UKASFP, while the profile of the UKASFP may only
become higher once accreditation is fully established and on a larger scale.
This led naturally on to the second question under this agenda item.
What will tell us we are moving towards this point?
Suzi invited members to give their views on this. Responses were as follows:
Andrew expressed the view that it would be important to pilot some of the
processes and accreditation criteria that the WP would be developing and to share
the results of these pilots with the membership. For example, he referred to the
suggestion in the Accreditation proposal document, that assessment interviews may
take place by Skype, and said that it would be important to try this out and
demonstrate that it was effective ;
Chris referred again to the need to demonstrate that whatever path the WP set the
UKASFP on with regard to accreditation should be sustainable and that it should not
compromise in any way the current principles underlying the UKASFP: he was
concerned about the potential for starting down a route that proved impossible and
wanted to be clear about what sort of an organisation we wanted the UKASFP to be.
Responding to this, Suzi said that what she had been trying to do with her
proposals was to create a detailed description of a preferred future for accreditation
that started from ‘first principles’, i.e. it took as its starting point the question of
“What do we want accreditation to achieve?”. She suggested that it may be useful at
this point to move on to agenda item 3 and to refer back to the outline criteria set
out in her proposals, to structure further discussion.
3. Defining accreditation criteria for Practitioners
What does an ‘Accreditable Practitioner’ look like?
Picking up on earlier discussions, there was some consideration on whether the
answer to this question needed to make any reference at all to how much training
an individual had done or whether –as the proposals suggest – the answer to this
question lies purely in how a person practices.
After a brief discussion of this, the WP moved fairly quickly to a consensus, that the
job of assessing whether someone is worthy of UKASFP accreditation could be
usefully likened to a driving test. Everyone taking a driving test has to learn how to
drive somehow. They also need to learn – and to demonstrate in their test – that
they can undertake key manoeuvres such as reversing around a corner; three-point
turn, hill-start, etc. Although they may not need to use these in every journey, it is
essential that they demonstrate that they are competent to call upon them
appropriately when necessary. There are no accredited driving instructors but
generally driving schools make their reputation on the basis of their success rate at
getting people through their test. Members found it useful to draw upon this
analogy in discussing what makes a good practitioner.
Jenny pointed out that the Association for the Quality Development of Solution
Focused Consulting and Training (SFCT) has already produced a document – “SF
Clues” – that sets out criteria for assessing whether or not someone is practising in
an SF way. Paul added to this the observation that Harry Korman believed it was
possible to establish within 90 seconds whether or not someone is practising in a
solution focused manner. Rob made the point that practice was far more important
than theory and that people may be able to write about and explain SF principles
without having the competence to practise in this way.
Having reaffirmed the principle of assessing ‘accreditability’ with reference to
practice rather than theory/training, the WP then moved on to consider the next
question.
(How) can this be expressed in terms of the dimensions of frequency, fidelity and
volume of practice, as suggested in the Accreditation Proposal document?
Suzi clarified what she had meant here by “volume” of practice by saying that it
related to the actual number of hours someone has spent doing SF work rather than
the frequency with which they do it. For example, someone may undertake a single
two-week period of SF training and consultancy work every three months, which
would be similar in terms of volume, but not frequency, as someone doing one day
per week of SF practice over the same period.
The bulk of discussion under this agenda item concerned the question of whether it
was necessary at all to stipulate a certain frequency or volume of practice. Using a
similar argument to that expressed with regard to training, members questioned
whether it was important how much or how often someone practised, provided they
were capable of demonstrating fidelity to SF principles when they did. If this
principle were agreed then the accreditation process would be stripped down simply
to the need to demonstrate fidelity, for which it was agreed that direct video
evidence would be the “gold standard” means of assessment.
All members agreed that, in principle, demonstrating fidelity to the SF approach was
the essence of what accreditation should be about. However, there were some
misgivings about completely abandoning the criteria of volume and frequency.
Both opposing points of view – the need to include such criteria and the irrelevance
of doing so – were carefully considered by the WP before ‘parking’ this issue to be
revisited at a later date.
The main misgivings raised about dropping the volume and frequency criteria – and
the points made in response to these – were as follows:
1. Flexibility: although it may be possible to demonstrate strict fidelity to SF
principles over the course of a limited number of sessions, recordings of
which could be submitted for assessment, this did not necessarily imply that
the person was capable of flexibly applying SF principles with a range of
clients, something which arguably should be a characteristic of the
competent, accreditable practitioner;
Response: though this was agreed to be a possible limitation of a system
based entirely on direct observation of practice, members identified that
there were inherent difficulties in trying to pin down any sort of frequency or
volume criteria that would address this issue.
2. Fluency: the point was made that most people find that they need to
maintain a certain level of regular practice to ensure that they maintain
fluency or “get into the flow” of SF questioning.
Response: again, it would be difficult to stipulate a set number of hours
sufficient to maintain people’s fluency or “flow”. Furthermore, the amount
necessary would undoubtedly vary between people; for example, those who
have not been practising long may need more hours to do this and those
who have been practising longer may need far fewer, or arguably even none
at all on an ongoing basis, if they have spent many hours in practice in the
past. Would it be possible to make “fluency” or “flow” something which could
be assessed in the direct evidence of practice rather than making
assumptions about how many hours are needed to produce it?
3. Recognition/credibility: it may be necessary to include hours of practice in
our criteria in order to gain the recognition of other bodies, especially since
other organisations and professions (e.g. BABCP, care of the elderly?
midwifery?) do include such criteria
Response: it was suggested that this may be an issue to which we could
return and consider if necessary once we have come to a view on what we
believe are the right criteria for accreditation.
4. Diversity of practice: it was suggested that, if frequency and volume were to
be stipulated then care would be needed to take account of the different
contexts in which SF approaches are used. For example, different numbers of
hours may be needed for therapists, coaches, consultants, etc.
Response: once again, it was agreed that it would be important to bear this
in mind if and when it was agreed that frequency and volume were needed in
addition to fidelity criteria.
Decision 1:
In summary, it was agreed that, for the time being, the issue of including
frequency and volume in the accreditation criteria would be ‘parked’ as the
most important tasks for the WP were to agree criteria for fidelity and then
translate these criteria into observable/measurable indicators that could
feasibly be assessed by UKASFP accreditors. Once these criteria were
established, it would be easier to reconsider whether there remained a need to
make stipulations about frequency and volume of practice.
The remainder of the meeting then focused on discussions regarding how best to
move towards agreed criteria for fidelity.
Defining fidelity criteria
Paul and Chris made the point that we needed to ensure that the fidelity criteria we
specified allowed for the different contexts in which SF practice took place and that
it may look different depending upon whether it were in the context of one-to-one
solution-focused therapy, in a meeting, a one-to-one coaching session or in
consultancy, etc.
Suzi asked whether these differences were observable in the practitioner’s
behaviour in the session, or whether they were more related to the types of
outcomes and actions that may come from these different contexts. If this were the
case, then it need not present any difficulty as the same set of criteria could be
applied to practitioner behaviour regardless of context.
Responding to this, Chris explained that he saw therapy and meetings as different
essentially because therapy sessions were concerned with the co-construction of a
future whereas meetings did not include this element. Further discussion suggested
that meetings are still (like therapy) outcome focused and based upon developing
new ideas. Paul said that, though solution focus strategy days were not
‘therapeutic’, their function was still to generate change. He also explained that,
though solution focused practice was all conversation based, whatever its context,
the language used and some of the exercises and techniques undertaken in
coaching, consultancy or meetings may look superficially different from those used
in therapy. He was therefore keen to ensure that the different ways of putting SF
principles into practice in these different contexts was honoured and reflected in
the fidelity criteria that were agreed. He wanted to guard against an exclusively
therapy-oriented definition of fidelity.
Jenny and Kidge reiterated that much work had already gone into defining fidelity
criteria and that it would not be necessary to ‘reinvent the wheel’ in order to draw
together a suitably comprehensive list. Kidge specifically noted that there was a
more recent (2012) version of the SFBTA Solution Focused Therapy Manual than the
one that Suzi had circulated with the agenda (2010). This, latest, version now
included contributions from Janet Bavelas and colleagues’ conversational
microanalysis and was a very good basis for defining what SF practice looks like.
Jenny also noted that the SFCT ‘SF Clues” document had done a similar job from the
coaching/consultancy world.
All agreed that the next step should be to draw up a list of fidelity criteria that
applied to all contexts in which solution focused practice takes place.
Discussion then ensued over some of the specific elements of this list and whether
it was helpful to think in terms of “necessary and sufficient conditions” for
demonstrating good solution-focused practice. It was suggested by some members
(principally Martin and Paul) that “necessary” criteria could be defined as those that
may be common to all types of constructive conversation (or therapy) such as
listening skills, empathy, establishing a rapport, etc. “Sufficient conditions” would
then be those that uniquely defined SF conversations and would be more related to
the specific types of SF question, such as the miracle question or exceptions
questions.
Jenny also wondered whether the criteria should include a list of ‘don’t’s as well as
‘do’s. Others (including Rob, Chris, Martin) agreed that such a list might include
things such as disguised problem-solving, formulation, or the practitioner giving
‘the answer’. There was some discussion of whether it would be acceptable for a
practitioner to do any of these things at any time: for example, if the client invited it
and suggested that they would find it helpful; would it be acceptable for the SF
practitioner to offer a formulation, to talk about the history and origins of their
problems or to offer some form of ‘psychoeducation’?
It was suggested that, whether or not these practices were acceptable within a
particular context, they definitely did not count as SF practice: therefore if a
practitioner were to submit video evidence of themselves doing these things it
would simply not count towards their SF evidence and would therefore be a waste of
video footage.
At this point Suzi asked the meeting to pause and consider whether the WP should
be attempting, within the meeting, to actually write the list of criteria or whether it
should merely be agreeing on the process and principles by which such a list should
be produced.
Chris said that he thought the list need not be too long and, as it did already exist
in a number of forms, we could go some way towards drawing it up in the meeting.
There was some further discussion of whether the list should distinguish between
an initial session and a follow-up session (for therapy) and it was thought that it
usefully should, although this distinction does not make so much sense for other
forms of SF practice.
Chris then suggested the following list of SF necessary ‘ingredients’, some of which
apply only to first sessions and some to subsequent sessions.
First session necessary ingredients:






Contract (best hopes; common project; platform(?))
Preferred future – description
Instances of future happening
OR
Exceptions to the problem
Scales (outcome focused)
Compliments
Tasks/suggestions
Subsequent session necessary ingredients:





What is better?
Description of improvement/progress
Next signs of progress
Compliments
Tasks/suggestions
There was also a discussion of whether a break should be a necessary ingredient in
SF therapy, as this was a feature of the original de Shazer model.
It agreed that this list of items, together with the other key documents mentioned,
should form the basis for developing a new set of fidelity criteria for use in
accreditation that would cover both therapy and other applications of SF practice.
In order to ensure that all types of practice were reflected, it was agreed that one
therapist and one coach/consultant SF practitioner should take the lead on drawing
up a draft document for comment.
Decision 2:
A draft “fidelity “ document should be produced, drawing upon the above
list and on the following documents:
SFBTA SF Therapy Treatment Manual (2012 version)
UKASFP Standards of Proficiency (2012 version)
UKASFP Code of Ethics (2012 version)
SFCT’s “Clues”.
Decision 3:
Andrew (representing therapy) and Jenny (representing coaching and
consultancy) would produce a first draft for consideration by the rest of the
WP by 1st December 2013
Decision 4:
The rest of the WP would then have a further two week period to comment
on this draft, so that a final version could be ready for presentation to the
Committee (with a view to then disseminating to the membership) by 15th
December 2013.
4. Defining Accreditation criteria for Supervisors
This agenda item was not covered in any detail but put on hold for later
reconsideration if necessary. The nature of preceding discussion suggested that the
issue of having Accredited Supervisor at all may no longer be relevant: the reason
for their inclusion in the initial proposals was that it had been assumed that
endorsement of the practitioner’s volume, frequency and fidelity of practice would
need to come from someone who had been closely supervising the practitioner.
However, given that the WP had now moved to looking solely at fidelity (for the time
being, at least) assessed by direct evidence of the practitioner at work, this no
longer seemed necessary. Furthermore, as pointed out by Paul, that some
practitioners (e.g. SF consultants) do not have supervision in the same way that
herapists and coaches do.
. Decision 5:
It was agreed to put the issue of the accreditation of supervisors on
hold for now and to reconsider, along with issues relating to frequency
and volume, once the fidelity criteria had been finalised.
5. Accreditation Process
Elements of the accreditation process discussed were as follows.
1. As mentioned above, it was suggested that the production of video evidence
demonstrating adherence to the fidelity standards to be defined, should be
the “gold standard” for evidence: other possibilities, if this were not feasible,
were transcript data, but this issue was not discussed in detail ;
2. It was suggested that people wishing to be accredited should also submit a
written “Commentary” accompanying the direct evidence of their practice.
This would be a chance for the individual to explain how the various
elements of the evidence submitted met the fidelity criteria and, further, to
comment on any deviations from SF practice that may be present in the
material;
3. It was also suggested that the video evidence should be scrutinised, along
with the commentary, by two Accreditors who should each independently
‘mark’ the evidence;
4. Should disagreements arise over the outcome of the marking, a third person
from the pool of Accreditors should be called in to manage this process and
try to move towards an agreed way forward;
5. The question was briefly raised of whether Accreditors needed to work from
a checklist or marking scheme when assessing evidence. Chris suggested
there were already marking schemes used by BRIEF in their assessments and
Suzi asked if they could be made available to the WP. Chris agreed to look
into this.
6. Feedback would be given to people whose evidence does not meet the
required standard, although it was not agreed what form this feedback
should take, Some suggested that numerical marks would be helpful, while
others said that a narrative style of feedback on how to improve their
submission in the future, would be more helpful.
Decision 6:
In principle, accreditation applications should be supported by video
recordings and accompanying “Commentaries” as set out above.
Decision 7:
Further consideration needs to be given to the detail of this, including:




required length of video recordings;
whether audio recordings or transcripts are an acceptable alternative
and in what circumstances;
exactly how evidence submitted will be marked against fidelity
criteria (i.e. using mark schemes/checklist or not?)
what form feedback will take.
6. “Fast Track” Process for Accreditation of Supervisors
As for Agenda Item 4/Decision 5, this item was put on hold for the time being.
7. Next Steps for the WP
At this point it was felt that the purpose of the meeting had been achieved and that
not only had the next step been defined (i.e. the production of a document that
illustrated the necessary and sufficient aspects of solution focus practice for
accreditation) but that an effective working team had also formed. Furthermore,
deadlines had been agreed that all felt were practical and reasonable.
Decision 8:
Once the Fidelity document has been agreed, the WP will discuss some of
the financial aspects of the accreditation process, in addition to the points
listed elsewhere in this document as needing further consideration.
Decision 9:
The WP will meet again if it appears that it would be helpful to do so in
the light of what is produced as a result of this meeting.
Decision 10:
It was agreed that a target date for the complete specification (and,
ideally, piloting) of the new accreditation system was the June 2014 AGM.
8.
“Checking out”
Each member of the WP was asked what was the one thing that they would take
away. They responded as follows:
Kidge suggested it would be the human contact, that she felt the meeting had
worked well and had been very worthwhile;
Chris, too, indicated he felt it had been a nicely run meeting;
Paul felt that there had been a significant amount of progress and consensus;
Jenny suggested that the process of “spiralling” towards a decision point, especially
in the issue of the relevance of frequency and volume, had been very helpful and
had reached a satisfactory end-point;
Martin said he felt privileged to be in this company and that there was something
about the meeting that suggested it was a powerful force for getting things done;
Rob said he was pleased with the general agreement and that he was glad to be part
of it;
Steve suggested that he felt this was a historic meeting and he was privileged to be
present;
Suzi said that she, too, had felt privileged to be present and that she had been
pleased to notice how the progress in the meeting had mirrored one of the features
of SF practice: that it was simple but not easy. She also added that the coffee was
great!
The meeting closed at 4pm.
Minutes prepared by Suzi Curtis and Steve Flatt and endorsed by the Working Party.