Support for staff support groups: A role for group analysts

Abstract

Clinical psychologists in NHS settings are often called upon to facilitate ‘staff groups’. A survey of psychologists’ self-reported experiences of facilitating such groups indicated average levels of relevant training, moderate levels of confidence, but only average levels of effectiveness. The value and validity of quantitative evaluations of this kind are discussed. The findings suggest that more group therapies-related teaching and training are needed in clinical psychology training courses and in clinical environments in the NHS and other clinical settings. Group analysts are well placed to encourage, support and provide teaching and training opportunities such as these.

The role and use of staff support groups: A response to Bledin (2019)

“…Reading Bledin’s contribution alongside Fenton and Kidd’s evaluative study and their comments on formulation as a core component of the psychologist’s contribution to the staff group facilitation (as, if not an alternative, at least something that is at times in tension with, a traditional psychiatric diagnostic framework) (see, e.g., Johnstone, 2014, 2017; Rasmussen and Storebø, 2018)) also brought into relief a minor finding of the research. Specifically, mid-way through presentation of his survey, Bledin (2019: 342–343) makes reference to the fact that the support groups surveyed were sometimes single discipline or subject to some form of staff self-selection or exclusion, with physicians, managers, trainee and locum professionals unable to participate. Bledin does not comment on this tendency for self-selection.…”

“…Given the low response rate overall and the fact it related only to some (potentially a minority) of the groups facilitated (Bledin does not specify how many), it is best to be cautious of what and how much is read into this apparent tendency. Nevertheless, the finding still serves as a reminder of the need for careful reflection about the ways in which staff support groups are convened and what this means in terms of the space they afford staff teams to, in Bledin’s (2019: 346) words, ‘think reflexively’ about the dynamics of relationships with clients and in their organizations and teams. A preference for disciplinary exclusivity may reflect a desire to avoid the intrusion of professional hierarchies into groups or the inclusion of staff members whose involvement in direct service provision is partial or circumscribed.…”

“…As a psycho-socially orientated researcher and a clinician working in a multi-disciplinary mental health team whose sphere of activity includes the provision of reflective practice groups (RPGs) for social care professionals, I read Bledin's (2019) recent article with interest. The article reports on findings from a survey of psychologists in a single NHS mental health trust in which he was based at the time of the research.…”