A survey of psychological practitioner workplace well-being.

The well-being of the psychological workforce is an area of concern. However, it has been sparsely studied in a holistic manner encompassing workplace well-being as well as burnout. This study reports a survey of 1,678 psychological practitioners accessed through professional networks. The short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) and the Psychological Practitioner Workplace Well-being Measure (PPWWM) were administered with a demographic questionnaire. The mean for the SWEMWBS was below that of a national population survey. The intercorrelation of these tests was .61. Subgroup analyses showed significant differences: assistant psychologists, counsellors and psychological well-being practitioners demonstrated better than average workplace well-being. But for general well-being (SWEMWBS), trainee clinical psychologists and assistant psychologists showed lower than average well-being, whereas psychological well-being practitioners were higher than average. Other factors associated with well-being were contract type-both measures (higher workplace well-being in those with temporary contracts and the self-employed); employment sector-for PPWWM only (private organisation/independent workers and third sector/charitable organisation workers scored above the PPWWM mean); ethnicity-for both measures (Asian groups except Chinese had higher well-being than average for the PPWWM and SWEMWBS) and disability was strongly associated with lower well-being on both measures. Harassment, feeling depressed or a failure and wanting to leave the National Health Service (NHS) were associated with lower well-being. Greater age, pay and years of service were negatively correlated with well-being. A five-factor structure was obtained with this sample. The results confirmed psychological practitioners as an at-risk group and identified a number of factors associated with workplace well-being.

Physician heal thyself (Luke 4:23).

The performance culture of the health service means that the psychological well-being of staff is becoming paramount in maintaining the workforce and in sustaining psychological health and morale. A Charter for Psychological Staff Wellbeing and Resilience is introduced that puts the onus on us and on employers to make the necessary adjustments to their workplace cultures and encourage professionals - us - to break through the barrier of stigma.

Patient experience of negative effects of psychological treatment: results of a national survey†.

BACKGROUND: To make informed choices, patients need information about negative as well as positive effects of treatments. There is little information about negative effects of psychological interventions. AIMS: To determine the prevalence of and risk factors for perceived negative effects of psychological treatment for common mental disorders. METHOD: Cross-sectional survey of people receiving psychological treatment from 184 services in England and Wales. Respondents were asked whether they had experienced lasting bad effects from the treatment they received. RESULTS: Of 14 587 respondents, 763 (5.2%) reported experiencing lasting bad effects. People aged over 65 were less likely to report such effects and sexual and ethnic minorities were more likely to report them. People who were unsure what type of therapy they received were more likely to report negative effects (odds ratio (OR) = 1.51, 95% CI 1.22-1.87), and those that stated that they were given enough information about therapy before it started were less likely to report them (OR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.54-0.79). CONCLUSIONS: One in 20 people responding to this survey reported lasting bad effects from psychological treatment. Clinicians should discuss the potential for both the positive and negative effects of therapy before it starts.

Patient preference in psychological treatment and associations with self-reported outcome: national cross-sectional survey in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Providers of psychological therapies are encouraged to offer patients choice about their treatment, but there is very little information about what preferences people have or the impact that meeting these has on treatment outcomes. METHOD: Cross-sectional survey of people receiving psychological treatment from 184 NHS services in England and Wales. 14,587 respondents were asked about treatment preferences and the extent to which these were met by their service. They were also asked to rate the extent to which therapy helped them cope with their difficulties. RESULTS: Most patients (12,549-86.0 %, 95 % CI: 85.5-86.6) expressed a preference for at least one aspect of their treatment. Of these, 4,600 (36.7 %, 95 % CI: 35.8-37.5) had at least one preference that was not met. While most patients reported that their preference for appointment times, venue and type of treatment were met, only 1,769 (40.5 %) of the 4,253 that had a preference for gender had it met. People who expressed a preference that was not met reported poorer outcomes than those with a preference that was met (Odds Ratios: appointment times = 0.29, venue = 0.32, treatment type = 0.16, therapist gender = 0.32, language in which treatment was delivered = 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who took part in this survey had preferences about their treatment. People who reported preferences that were not met were less likely to state that treatment had helped them with their problems. Routinely assessing and meeting patient preferences may improve the outcomes of psychological treatment.