Please do not use forums to advertise courses.
Just received my International Therapist magazine (FHT) and on page 44 am both surprised and disappointed to read that the FHT is applying for PSA-accreditation for its register of complementary healthcare practitioners. Is this going to be in competition with the CNHC’s application? Does CThA have any such plans?
I am of the firm belief that we need just one CAM organisation on this or any register and it should be the CNHC. I was of the opinion that the FHT endorsed this view together with the fact that one of the problems we face in CAM is the plethora of different organisations that only serve to confuse rather than provide clarity.
Why is it that each time we take a step forward we move back another 10?!
I'd be interested to know the CThA stance with regard to the PSA.
Apr 16 2013 8:14PM
|Who are the PSA?|
Apr 16 2013 8:37PM
|The Professional Standards Authority - http://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/voluntary-registers
Apr 16 2013 9:20PM
|IS this a government Body and or recoganised by the UK government|
Apr 16 2013 10:05PM
|It is the body appointed by the Government to oversee the UK's nine health and care professional regulatory bodies and voluntary registers (including the CNHC which represents CAM). The CNHC has submitted an application for accreditation - as one would expect. The professional member organisations like the FHT, CThA, BCMA at al have, up to now, fully supported the CNHC as the only regulatory body for CAM. What is incomprehensible is the FHT (not a regulatory body) also applying to be on the PSA register. The medical professions and professions allied to medicine, as well as the public (not to mention CAM practitioner themselves as indicated by a previous post on this forum), are confused enough by the plethora of membership organisations and bodies claiming to represent CAM membership interests. The formation of the CNHC, as "the" voluntary regulator was a step in the right direction in that it has striven to achieve the cohesion, clarity and focus that a single body could provide without any of the duplication and conflicting interests of several such bodies. Looks like we might be going right back to square one! So far, only the FHT has gone "public" about applying to register with the PSA (I believe the cost of doing so is in the region of £12,000). What is the CThA's stance?|
|Paul Stuart Morgan-Ayrs MSc (Psychol)|
Jul 8 2013 1:53PM
|The regulatory process enables any professional body to apply to the PSA for accreditation. As long as it meets the criteria and pays the fee, it can become an accredited branch of the accreditation tree.
It is likely that some bodies will end up more credible than others, in the example of CNHC, they were set up with government funding and are more politically neutral. FHT by contrast are likely to have more members. Of course not all of their members may be eligible for registration, they will have to keep two lists, accredited and non accredited.
In the counselling field we have seen something similar with more than one body applying, and the huge BACP outfit admitting in April that only 17% of their members would qualify for accreditation.
I suspect in the long run there will be some kind of universal kite mark for anyone a member of one of the PSA registers.