Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ

Welcome from the editor

Am I the only one who muses on cross-professional issues when thereÌýare deadlines to meet (such as getting this journal to press)? Only theÌýother day, the topic of whether therapists should work for nothingÌýraised its head again. But it’s not a debate solely located in the counsellingÌýworld. It rages regularly among freelance journalists. And although there’sÌýno clear-cut answer, it’s useful to see the for-and-against argumentsÌýpositioned in a different context. ‘Wheat’ and ‘chaff’ come to mind.

Likewise, a few weeks ago, I read about Peter Pronovost¹, who introducedÌýsimple checklists in American hospitals to seriously reduce rates of infectionÌýor errors in the operating theatre. (It reminded me strongly of assessmentÌýand outcome forms to ensure best practice!) But when challenged toÌýadopt Pronovost’s clearly successful approach, one surgeon claimed it wasÌýexcessive bureaucracy: ‘Forget the paperwork,’ he said. ‘Just take care of theÌýpatient.’

Does our paperwork help us to take care of the client? Or does it hinder us?ÌýI ask, because we have an excellent article on the benefits of multi-agencyÌýworking, which obviously adds to our paperwork, and an equally compellingÌýone on working with neglected (‘undrawn’) children, in which the mainÌýwork depends not on paperwork but solely on the therapist developingÌýexquisitely attuned empathy to whatever spark of aliveness he detects in theÌýchild that might change the course of their life. Which of these (or both?)Ìýdemonstrates eptitude – a word invented by Atul Gwande and defined (inÌýthe same article) as the business of making sure that those with knowledgeÌýapply it effectively? Hmm… eptitude. I like it. Doncaster’sÌý serious caseÌýreview showed that agencies missed 31 opportunities to take action thatÌýwould have prevented two boys carrying out horrific attacks. Did endlessÌýpaperwork militate against eptitude? On the other hand, a therapist taking aÌýreal interest in the two boys might have brought a healthy turning point inÌýtheir life paths. Did lack of appropriate paperwork somewhere along the lineÌýprevent eptitude in this case?

OK, these conundrums are not solvable any time soon, nor are the possibleÌýsolutions necessarily mutually exclusive. So we have also brought youÌýimmediately usable, practical articles on a number of issues that crop up allÌýthe time: anger, child protection, teenagers taking risks and ADHD. Also, aÌýgenerous book offer from Jessica Kingsley Publishers and ourÌýnew series for 2010 that considers the supervision of counsellors who haveÌývarious levels of experience. I hope one or all of these is useful to you. ButÌýdo find time to read about parkour or Animal Assisted Therapy as well –Ìýthough you may personally need neither. I find that such articles extend myÌýthinking on what constitutes therapy. With children and young people, ourÌýwork must reach beyond established boundaries if we are to be effective inÌýas many cases as possible.

A final musing? Well, I’m intrigued at how many countries are mentionedÌýin this issue in connection with their, well, eptitude: Western Australia,ÌýBelgium and Russia, as well as the ‘four nations’ – which is a new phraseÌýto me in counselling, possibly filched from rugby to mean England, Wales,ÌýScotland and Northern Ireland. So, cross-border as well as cross-professionalÌýthoughts this time. Feedback, anyone?

Eleanor Patrick
Editor

Reference

1 Aaronovitch D. Simple ticks that save lives. The Times. 23 January 2010.

Disclaimer and copyright