EFPA Perspective
Introduction Psychologically, the question of profession-specific instruments and tools is not trivial. A profession is characterized by specific knowledge. Knowledge is regarded as part of professional competencies: What is done? How is something done? Why is something done? Knowledge and skills...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2021-04-01
|
| Series: | European Psychiatry |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0924933821000420/type/journal_article |
| _version_ | 1797617115158544384 |
|---|---|
| author | C. Steinebach |
| author_facet | C. Steinebach |
| author_sort | C. Steinebach |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Introduction
Psychologically, the question of profession-specific instruments and tools is not trivial. A profession is characterized by specific knowledge. Knowledge is regarded as part of professional competencies: What is done? How is something done? Why is something done? Knowledge and skills are acquired through specific training and continuing education.
Objectives
Professional knowledge is represented in a specific language. In addition, standards and regulations apply to differentiate it from other professions. Different languages and special professional regulations make cooperation more difficult. These obstacles must be overcome.
Methods
Instruments stand for professional identity. Competence-based tools are subject to professional legal regulations (e.g. following standards defined by EuroPsy Certificate of EFPA), ethical guidelines of the profession (professional ethics according to EFPA Meta-Code of Ethics) and external guidelines for professional practice (e.g. national and EU regulations). This ensures patient safety through Europe-wide standards. The investigation of profession-specific profiles and their modification, also under the conditions of the pandemic, becomes important.
Results
Professional instruments are protected by professional political boundaries. Profession-specific profiles are also an invitation to “coopetition”. While differentiation tends to lead to complementary mission fulfillment in practice, openness leads to a “spill-over of skills” in interdisciplinary practice. Alignment of competence profiles and cooperation are encouraged.
Conclusion
The future certainly lies in closer cooperation between the professions. The search for fundamental common ground (consilience), for effective and sustainable interventions (efficiency) and the demand for evidence-based practice (according to common ethical standards) place the well-founded benefit of an instrument for clients above any other interests.
Disclosure
No significant relationships.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T07:51:14Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1eb21127b3f447ad922b45fd7a1aab4c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0924-9338 1778-3585 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T07:51:14Z |
| publishDate | 2021-04-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | European Psychiatry |
| spelling | doaj.art-1eb21127b3f447ad922b45fd7a1aab4c2023-11-17T05:06:39ZengCambridge University PressEuropean Psychiatry0924-93381778-35852021-04-0164S7S710.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.42EFPA PerspectiveC. Steinebach0Head office, EFPA European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations, Brussels, Belgium Introduction Psychologically, the question of profession-specific instruments and tools is not trivial. A profession is characterized by specific knowledge. Knowledge is regarded as part of professional competencies: What is done? How is something done? Why is something done? Knowledge and skills are acquired through specific training and continuing education. Objectives Professional knowledge is represented in a specific language. In addition, standards and regulations apply to differentiate it from other professions. Different languages and special professional regulations make cooperation more difficult. These obstacles must be overcome. Methods Instruments stand for professional identity. Competence-based tools are subject to professional legal regulations (e.g. following standards defined by EuroPsy Certificate of EFPA), ethical guidelines of the profession (professional ethics according to EFPA Meta-Code of Ethics) and external guidelines for professional practice (e.g. national and EU regulations). This ensures patient safety through Europe-wide standards. The investigation of profession-specific profiles and their modification, also under the conditions of the pandemic, becomes important. Results Professional instruments are protected by professional political boundaries. Profession-specific profiles are also an invitation to “coopetition”. While differentiation tends to lead to complementary mission fulfillment in practice, openness leads to a “spill-over of skills” in interdisciplinary practice. Alignment of competence profiles and cooperation are encouraged. Conclusion The future certainly lies in closer cooperation between the professions. The search for fundamental common ground (consilience), for effective and sustainable interventions (efficiency) and the demand for evidence-based practice (according to common ethical standards) place the well-founded benefit of an instrument for clients above any other interests. Disclosure No significant relationships. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0924933821000420/type/journal_article |
| spellingShingle | C. Steinebach EFPA Perspective European Psychiatry |
| title | EFPA Perspective |
| title_full | EFPA Perspective |
| title_fullStr | EFPA Perspective |
| title_full_unstemmed | EFPA Perspective |
| title_short | EFPA Perspective |
| title_sort | efpa perspective |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0924933821000420/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT csteinebach efpaperspective |