Psychological Safety for Mental Health Practitioners: Suggestions from a Defense Lawyer

Woody, Robert H.

doi:10.1007/s12207-015-9239-x

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings of this investigation support the observations of Woody (2016) , that “mental health practitioners serving in monitoring roles seem most prone to adopt a prosecutorial stance and accent the negative and eliminate the positive. The latter may reflect, at least in part, that mental health practitioners, unlike legalists, are not trained adequately in guarding against bias in professional issues.” (p. 199) Further, Woody notes that “new members of ethics committees and/or licensing boards acknowledge that their appointments led them to become highly judgmental and narcissistic about professional practices.…”

Section: Recommendationssupporting

confidence: 86%

“…The findings of this investigation support the observations of Woody (2016), that "mental health practitioners serving in monitoring roles seem most prone to adopt a prosecutorial stance and accent the negative and eliminate the positive. The latter may reflect, at least in part, that mental health practitioners, unlike legalists, are not trained adequately in guarding against bias in professional issues."…”

Section: Addressing Power and Privilegesupporting

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Abuse of power in the disciplinary actions of a state psychology licensing board: inequitable outcomes and early career psychologists

Faber,

Wu,

Bartlett

2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of psychology has established high professional standards which have become a cornerstone of the practice of psychology. However, powerful boards tasked with administering these standards can operate with little oversight, making it difficult to monitor whether these institutions are operating in a fair and impartial way. In particular, early-career psychologists who have less experience and power in their initial years of independent practice may be singularly vulnerable as they have relatively little experience to navigate the profession, including fielding complaints that may be made against them to a licensing board. While it is essential to ensure early-career psychologists are upholding their commitments to the practice, there are risks in policing their activities without orienting toward growth, learning, and professional development. Even the smallest disciplinary action may never be expunged from a psychologist’s record, resulting in long-term implications for insurance coverage, reputation and future professional viability in the field. Overly-punitive approaches can be distressing or even traumatizing. In this paper, we examine disciplinary actions of the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology (KBEP) from the years 2000 to 2020 (N = 65) to determine the methodology by which the Board administers its oversight function. We analyze the nature of the discipline received (fines, suspensions, continuing education, supervision) revealing a two-tiered system of punishments, and provide context regarding the nature of the disciplinary process and its impacts. We report on qualitative interviews of early career psychologists subject to disciplinary actions by the Board, and psychologists who supervised early career psychologists investigated by the Board. We compare legislation governing KBEP and make comparisons to the workings of licensing boards in three other states. Using these findings, we make recommendations for revisions to the applicable legislation and administrative processes of the Board to establish an improved balance between public safety, the well-being of new psychologists, equity considerations such as race, and the development of the practice of psychology in Kentucky. This work brings to light previously unexamined injustices that can knowingly or unknowingly be perpetuated by licensing Boards, and can be used to inform the creation of more just, balanced and inclusive professional Boards.

show abstract

Section: Recommendationssupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Addressing Power and Privilegesupporting

confidence: 86%

Abuse of power in the disciplinary actions of a state psychology licensing board: inequitable outcomes and early career psychologists

Faber,

Wu,

Bartlett

2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The finding of a strong association between psychological safety and calibration bias is also consistent with the role psychological safety has been seen to play in the workplace [29][30][31] and in health professions education, 32,33 together with its connection to CLE satisfaction, 23 work-related communication, 34 team tenure, 35,36 perceived care, 37 selfawareness, burnout, civility, 38 and mental health. 39 Our findings suggest trainees who believe their CLE is psychologically unsafe will tend to underrate their CLE experiences below what a rater unaffected by psychological safety would otherwise have rated those same experiences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Calibration Bias and the Interpretation of Clinical Learning Environment Perceptions Surveys

Deemer

Byrne

Loo

et al. 2020

Journal of Graduate Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The clinical learning environment (CLE) is frequently assessed using perceptions surveys, such as the AAMC Graduation Questionnaire and ACGME Resident/Fellow Survey. However, these survey responses often capture subjective factors not directly related to the trainee's CLE experiences. Objective The authors aimed to assess these subjective factors as “calibration bias” and show how it varies by health professions education discipline, and co-varies by program, patient-mix, and trainee factors. Methods We measured calibration bias using 2011–2017 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Learners' Perceptions Survey data to compare medical students and physician residents and fellows (n = 32 830) with nursing (n = 29 758) and allied and associated health (n = 27 092) trainees. Results Compared to their physician counterparts, nursing trainees (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22–1.40) and allied/associated health trainees (1.18, 1.12–1.24) tended to overrate their CLE experiences. Across disciplines, respondents tended to overrate CLEs when reporting 1 higher level (of 5) of psychological safety (3.62, 3.52–3.73), 1 SD more time in the CLE (1.05, 1.04–1.07), female gender (1.13, 1.10–1.16), 1 of 7 lower academic level (0.95, 1.04–1.07), and having seen the lowest tercile of patients for their respective discipline who lacked social support (1.16, 1.12–1.21) and had low income (1.05, 1.01–1.09), co-occurring addictions (1.06, 1.02–1.10), and mental illness (1.06, 1.02–1.10). Conclusions Accounting for calibration bias when using perception survey scores is important to better understand physician trainees and the complex clinical learning environments in which they train.

show abstract

“…In the UK higher education sector, such policy mechanisms have been established by the Athena Swan gender equality initiative (Barnard, 2017) and the Race Equality Charter. Although in Germany data protection measures are strongly regulated, the importance of EDI data has recently come into focus (Aikins et al, 2021;Foroutan et al, 2022;Meyer et al, 2022;Boytchev, 2023).…”

Section: Target-group Network and Surveys Provide Benefit To Research...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Power, Discrimination, and Privilege in Individuals and Institutions

2024

Frontiers Research Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frontiers is more than just an open access publisher of scholarly articles: it is a pioneering approach to the world of academia, radically improving the way scholarly research is managed. The grand vision of Frontiers is a world where all people have an equal opportunity to seek, share and generate knowledge. Frontiers provides immediate and permanent online open access to all its publications, but this alone is not enough to realize our grand goals. Frontiers journal seriesThe Frontiers journal series is a multi-tier and interdisciplinary set of openaccess, online journals, promising a paradigm shift from the current review, selection and dissemination processes in academic publishing. All Frontiers journals are driven by researchers for researchers; therefore, they constitute a service to the scholarly community. At the same time, the Frontiers journal series operates on a revolutionary invention, the tiered publishing system, initially addressing specific communities of scholars, and gradually climbing up to broader public understanding, thus serving the interests of the lay society, too. Dedication to qualityEach Frontiers article is a landmark of the highest quality, thanks to genuinely collaborative interactions between authors and review editors, who include some of the world's best academicians. Research must be certified by peers before entering a stream of knowledge that may eventually reach the public -and shape society; therefore, Frontiers only applies the most rigorous and unbiased reviews. Frontiers revolutionizes research publishing by freely delivering the most outstanding research, evaluated with no bias from both the academic and social point of view. By applying the most advanced information technologies, Frontiers is catapulting scholarly publishing into a new generation. What are Frontiers Research Topics?Frontiers Research Topics are very popular trademarks of the Frontiers journals series: they are collections of at least ten articles, all centered on a particular subject. With their unique mix of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Frontiers Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area.

show abstract

Psychological Safety for Mental Health Practitioners: Suggestions from a Defense Lawyer

Cited by 3 publications

References 8 publications

Abuse of power in the disciplinary actions of a state psychology licensing board: inequitable outcomes and early career psychologists

Abuse of power in the disciplinary actions of a state psychology licensing board: inequitable outcomes and early career psychologists

Calibration Bias and the Interpretation of Clinical Learning Environment Perceptions Surveys

Power, Discrimination, and Privilege in Individuals and Institutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About