We appreciate people can be busy and that there’s a lot of information to digest to unravel what’s happening. So here’s a quick overview.
Under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, health practitioners like psychologists need to practise within scopes of practice set by their regulatory authorities. In 2004 the Psychologists Board set broad scopes of practice, comprising an all-encompassing ‘Psychologist’ scope and a couple of ‘vocational’ scopes. The titles of the vocational scopes could only be used by psychologists registered in those scopes. The rationale for that was to inform the public that these psychologists were competent in the areas the vocational scopes covered at the time they finish their university studies. But that did not prevent other psychologists from practising in those areas if they had or were to obtain the competence to practise in those areas. For example, a psychologist might learn on the job under the supervision of a more senior psychologist or take extra training courses. The Psychologists Board had been consistently clear about that for at least 15 years.
In recent communications and consultation documents, the Psychologists Board has departed from the previous and long-entrenched position on scopes of practice without due process. It is asserting that many psychologists have extended their practices beyond their scope of practice, and is proposing to ‘rectify’ this with potentially far-reaching changes to the scopes framework that might limit the services that many psychologists are able to offer. You can read more about the potential consequences here.
While the Board has opened a consultation process for these proposed changes, there is a growing concern that merely participating in this process might not be enough, because the Board is holding to its reinterpretation of the current scopes of practice and has commenced the consultation on an incorrect footing.
We are concerned that these proposed changes might restrict current lawful and competent practice, confuse the public, and lead to compartmentalisation within the profession, potentially affecting the availability and flexibility of mental health services. In a time of high demand for mental health care, such limitations could have adverse effects on service accessibility and client care.