Why the Psychology Board is taking action on non-evidence-based practice, and what it means for supervisors

When we talk about safety in supervision, we usually mean emotional and psychological safety. I want to talk about something different: professional safety.

If you are a supervisor or a supervisee, you need to know about a change at the Psychology Board over the last few years. It affects how you practise and how you supervise.

What has changed

The Board has shown an increased appetite to investigate and prosecute cases where practice falls outside the acceptable scope of professional psychology.

For a long time, arguments about what counts as an appropriate treatment or assessment method were seen as internecine wars between psychologists. Now the Board has made clear it is interested in pursuing these cases where they pose a risk to the public.

Two cases

Both are on the public record, so I’m not telling tales out of school.

1. A trauma therapy with no evidence base. In Jones v Psychology Board of Australia [2019] QCAT 162, the Board had imposed conditions on a psychologist’s registration after a client complained. Drawing on an independent expert opinion, its concerns included that he “chose to implement TRTP Therapy which did, and does, not have any scientific evidence for its efficacy with any psychological disorders”. TRTP is the Richards Trauma Process. The Board also noted no structured assessment, no case formulation or treatment plan, hypnosis used as a first-line approach rather than an adjunct, and inadequate records.

2. Tapping on meridians. In Psychology Board of Australia v Dunne [2023] QCAT 242, the tribunal found professional misconduct that included using Emotional Freedom Technique, Applied Kinesiology and Energy Psychology, treatments the psychologist admitted were contrary to established practice. He had already surrendered his registration; the tribunal reprimanded him and disqualified him from applying for registration for two years.

In both cases you can read the expert evidence the Board relied on in deciding these practices weren’t acceptable for a psychologist.

It’s not just the novel treatment

Read the decisions and you’ll notice something. The problem wasn’t only the use of a non-evidence-based practice. It was the failure to use other, accepted treatments.

You might reasonably choose a novel treatment in some circumstances, when tried-and-true methods have failed. But if you use it to the exclusion of everything else, you are taking a considerable risk.

Whose hill is it?

You might believe passionately in a particular method. It might be the hill you are willing to die on.

But are you willing to let your supervisor die on that hill with you?

As supervisors, we have a critical gatekeeping role. Our job includes making sure that the practices our supervisees use, in assessment, treatment and intervention, meet acceptable professional standards and won’t get them into trouble.