Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T11:19:25.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

EFPA Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2021

C. Steinebach*
Affiliation:
Head office, EFPA European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations, Brussels, Belgium

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
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.

Type
Abstract
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Psychiatric Association
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.