professional_disclosure_statement_and_supervision_contract.docx | |
File Size: | 20 kb |
File Type: | docx |
Introduction
I graduated from Temple University, Philadelphia PA in 2006 with a Bachelor of Arts. My major was Biology, with minors in Healthcare Management and Religion. Thereafter, I pursued a medical degree with St. Matthew’s University, Grand Cayman Island, BWI; however, took a leave from that program due to several reasons. Thereafter, obtained a master’s in professional clinical counseling from La Salle University, Philadelphia PA in 2013.
Clinical Experience, Training, and Affiliation
I have a history of working in the nonprofit and for-profit sectors. I completed my training through practicum and internship with NHS in Sharon Hill, Pennsylvania. Thereafter, I worked at Mercy Philadelphia Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Most of my post-graduate work has been within the realm of substance use disorder treatment; I obtained my first position as a therapist with Seabrook House, in Bridgeton New Jersey. From there I transitioned to the for-profit sector, working as a supervisor at Liberation Way in Yardley, Pennsylvania. After leaving Liberation Way, I engaged in EAP counseling with West Advocates in Exton, Pennsylvania. Here and now, I function working in a private practice setting independently working within the realm of addiction and co-occurring disorders.
Along the way, obtained licensure in the states of Pennsylvania and Arizona as a Licensed professional counselor, completed a master’s certificate in psychopharmacology, completed mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) training and certifications, along with a certification in medical and dental hypnotherapy. My current credentials are: Master of Arts in clinical counseling psychology, Licensed Professional Counselor, Approved Clinical Supervisor, National Certified Counselor, Clinical Hypnotherapist. I am currently affiliated with the American Counseling Association, the National Board of Certified Counselors, and the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision.
Supervision Experience and Training
I have been supervising LPC candidates for the past five years. I have completed the 30-hour Clinical Supervision training necessary in the state of Pennsylvania and Arizona to supervise LPC candidates. I am credentialed to supervise all LPC candidates on an individual basis. In transparency, to maintain my license, I am required to participate in continuing education units and continue to engage in group consultation weekly with MDs, Ph.D. psychologists, and LPCs currently practicing in the field. As a Licensed Professional Counselor, I abide by the ACA code of ethics and all professional standards outlined by Pennsylvania and Arizona.
Current Practice Statement and Capacity
I currently offer supervision in a private practice setting.
Supervisee Characteristics
I currently supervise counselors seeking licensure at all setting levels of care (i.e. – inpatient, residential, partial, intensive outpatient, outpatient).
Supervision Philosophy and Approach
My supervision philosophy is grounded in postmodern, post-positivist, or constructivist ideologies. Specifically, truth is a construction grounded in social interaction and informed by verbal behavior (Philp et al., 2007). As it relates to supervision, much of what could be anticipated would be a consultative role, to maintain equality between supervisor and supervisee (Bernard et al., 2019). This theory, in conjunction with a focus on self-efficacy, to build upon the supervisee’s sense of self as a professional, or ability to function in various roles is paramount in our process and would be our goal (Bernard et al., 2019).
Information About the Supervision Process
I wish to create a safe space where we can collaboratively learn through our experiences honestly and realistically. Our work is difficult, and with that awareness, it is so integral to development, to be honest, vulnerable, and reflective in a supportive environment. I would hope to be able to create this environment, to cultivate examination, insight, reflection, and further constructive feedback in a supportive and educational way to enhance your already established skills and ethical decision-making.
Supervisee Expectations
The supervisee is expected to abide by all rules and regulations set forth by the law and ethical standards with their clients, and concerning clinical supervision. The supervisee is expected to be on time for supervision sessions. The supervisee will be prepared for supervision with questions, materials, and goals. The supervisee has the right to choose a supervisor, and the right to decide not to continue with a supervisor by submitting a written termination letter.
Supervisor Expectations
The supervisor expects is to uphold ethical guidelines and professional standards, to ensure supervision sessions happen as agreed, and to keep a record of the supervision records and other documents relating to development and training. As your supervisor, I will ensure that your role as supervisee is clear, and will monitor your performance; providing guidance, support, and feedback to ensure meeting the agreed-upon personal documentation plan. It is my goal to ensure that we complete all forms and obligations as requested by your specific state (PA or AZ) counseling board.
Evaluation Process
Throughout supervision, you will be allowed to self-assess your clinical competencies. I will provide my assessment as your supervisor thereafter, and we will evaluate your work based on self-report, live observation, and if possible, audio or video review. You can anticipate feedback within each supervision session. A formal review will happen quarterly, when formal reviews are due, and additionally upon request.
Confidentiality
Please note, supervision is private but is not confidential. Your client and respective client documentation and information will remain confidential; however, evaluative feedback may be shared with the licensing boards, employers, or others depending on necessity and appropriateness. Any situation where unsafe, unethical, or illegal practices, or failure to attend supervision sessions, else not abiding by the code of ethics outlined by your professional board, or any violations on patient care, or putting patients at risk, are all situations where communication to outside parties would be warranted. Notes from all supervision sessions will be kept by the supervisor and can be shared with the supervisee upon request. Additionally, please note, supervision sessions may be discussed in peer supervision (supervisors group supervision).
Emergency Contact Information
In the event of an emergency where I may not be available, you may reach out to my supervisor Dr. Jeremy Frank at 215.356.8061. It is critical if there is an emergency or ethical dilemma, these events must be discussed or reported.
Fees for Supervision and Payment
Individual clinical supervision is $50 per hour. No-shows and cancelations within 4 hours of a scheduled supervision session will be charged $50.
Grounds for Termination
Failure in attendance, payments, or in meeting expectations as a supervisee or supervisor are all grounds for termination. Additionally, failure to follow the ACA Board of Ethics or LPC Board Rules are all grounds for termination.
Bernard, J.M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2019). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson.
Philp, K.M., Guy, G.E., & Lowe, R. D. (2007). Social constructionist supervision or supervision as social construction? Some Dilemmas. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 26, 51-62.
If you would like to move forward, please download the attached contract (below), sign, date, and return to me:
I graduated from Temple University, Philadelphia PA in 2006 with a Bachelor of Arts. My major was Biology, with minors in Healthcare Management and Religion. Thereafter, I pursued a medical degree with St. Matthew’s University, Grand Cayman Island, BWI; however, took a leave from that program due to several reasons. Thereafter, obtained a master’s in professional clinical counseling from La Salle University, Philadelphia PA in 2013.
Clinical Experience, Training, and Affiliation
I have a history of working in the nonprofit and for-profit sectors. I completed my training through practicum and internship with NHS in Sharon Hill, Pennsylvania. Thereafter, I worked at Mercy Philadelphia Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Most of my post-graduate work has been within the realm of substance use disorder treatment; I obtained my first position as a therapist with Seabrook House, in Bridgeton New Jersey. From there I transitioned to the for-profit sector, working as a supervisor at Liberation Way in Yardley, Pennsylvania. After leaving Liberation Way, I engaged in EAP counseling with West Advocates in Exton, Pennsylvania. Here and now, I function working in a private practice setting independently working within the realm of addiction and co-occurring disorders.
Along the way, obtained licensure in the states of Pennsylvania and Arizona as a Licensed professional counselor, completed a master’s certificate in psychopharmacology, completed mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) training and certifications, along with a certification in medical and dental hypnotherapy. My current credentials are: Master of Arts in clinical counseling psychology, Licensed Professional Counselor, Approved Clinical Supervisor, National Certified Counselor, Clinical Hypnotherapist. I am currently affiliated with the American Counseling Association, the National Board of Certified Counselors, and the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision.
Supervision Experience and Training
I have been supervising LPC candidates for the past five years. I have completed the 30-hour Clinical Supervision training necessary in the state of Pennsylvania and Arizona to supervise LPC candidates. I am credentialed to supervise all LPC candidates on an individual basis. In transparency, to maintain my license, I am required to participate in continuing education units and continue to engage in group consultation weekly with MDs, Ph.D. psychologists, and LPCs currently practicing in the field. As a Licensed Professional Counselor, I abide by the ACA code of ethics and all professional standards outlined by Pennsylvania and Arizona.
Current Practice Statement and Capacity
I currently offer supervision in a private practice setting.
Supervisee Characteristics
I currently supervise counselors seeking licensure at all setting levels of care (i.e. – inpatient, residential, partial, intensive outpatient, outpatient).
Supervision Philosophy and Approach
My supervision philosophy is grounded in postmodern, post-positivist, or constructivist ideologies. Specifically, truth is a construction grounded in social interaction and informed by verbal behavior (Philp et al., 2007). As it relates to supervision, much of what could be anticipated would be a consultative role, to maintain equality between supervisor and supervisee (Bernard et al., 2019). This theory, in conjunction with a focus on self-efficacy, to build upon the supervisee’s sense of self as a professional, or ability to function in various roles is paramount in our process and would be our goal (Bernard et al., 2019).
Information About the Supervision Process
I wish to create a safe space where we can collaboratively learn through our experiences honestly and realistically. Our work is difficult, and with that awareness, it is so integral to development, to be honest, vulnerable, and reflective in a supportive environment. I would hope to be able to create this environment, to cultivate examination, insight, reflection, and further constructive feedback in a supportive and educational way to enhance your already established skills and ethical decision-making.
Supervisee Expectations
The supervisee is expected to abide by all rules and regulations set forth by the law and ethical standards with their clients, and concerning clinical supervision. The supervisee is expected to be on time for supervision sessions. The supervisee will be prepared for supervision with questions, materials, and goals. The supervisee has the right to choose a supervisor, and the right to decide not to continue with a supervisor by submitting a written termination letter.
Supervisor Expectations
The supervisor expects is to uphold ethical guidelines and professional standards, to ensure supervision sessions happen as agreed, and to keep a record of the supervision records and other documents relating to development and training. As your supervisor, I will ensure that your role as supervisee is clear, and will monitor your performance; providing guidance, support, and feedback to ensure meeting the agreed-upon personal documentation plan. It is my goal to ensure that we complete all forms and obligations as requested by your specific state (PA or AZ) counseling board.
Evaluation Process
Throughout supervision, you will be allowed to self-assess your clinical competencies. I will provide my assessment as your supervisor thereafter, and we will evaluate your work based on self-report, live observation, and if possible, audio or video review. You can anticipate feedback within each supervision session. A formal review will happen quarterly, when formal reviews are due, and additionally upon request.
Confidentiality
Please note, supervision is private but is not confidential. Your client and respective client documentation and information will remain confidential; however, evaluative feedback may be shared with the licensing boards, employers, or others depending on necessity and appropriateness. Any situation where unsafe, unethical, or illegal practices, or failure to attend supervision sessions, else not abiding by the code of ethics outlined by your professional board, or any violations on patient care, or putting patients at risk, are all situations where communication to outside parties would be warranted. Notes from all supervision sessions will be kept by the supervisor and can be shared with the supervisee upon request. Additionally, please note, supervision sessions may be discussed in peer supervision (supervisors group supervision).
Emergency Contact Information
In the event of an emergency where I may not be available, you may reach out to my supervisor Dr. Jeremy Frank at 215.356.8061. It is critical if there is an emergency or ethical dilemma, these events must be discussed or reported.
Fees for Supervision and Payment
Individual clinical supervision is $50 per hour. No-shows and cancelations within 4 hours of a scheduled supervision session will be charged $50.
Grounds for Termination
Failure in attendance, payments, or in meeting expectations as a supervisee or supervisor are all grounds for termination. Additionally, failure to follow the ACA Board of Ethics or LPC Board Rules are all grounds for termination.
Bernard, J.M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2019). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson.
Philp, K.M., Guy, G.E., & Lowe, R. D. (2007). Social constructionist supervision or supervision as social construction? Some Dilemmas. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 26, 51-62.
If you would like to move forward, please download the attached contract (below), sign, date, and return to me:
Mock Case Conceptualization:
Overview of Ann’s Case
Ann is an African American counselor, from a southern area, who is seeking supervision. Initially, we looked at Ann’s case from the vantage of being enrolled in her graduate program working for practicum and internship hours. Thereafter we looked at this case post-graduation en route for licensure. In both instances, Ann presented with resistance in terms of expectations and obligations as a supervisee. Specifically, she showed consistency in being late to supervision, inconsistency with keeping scheduled supervision, and showed consistency in not keeping up with notes and caseload summaries. Another repeated instance was a lack of substance for supervision; Ann repeatedly did not provide caseload summaries, notes, audio/video of sessions, and lack of follow-through on the material the supervisor offered for psychoeducation. A recurrence of Ann not having the required malpractice insurance in place, and even after repeated reminders, Ann still was not able to produce enrollment in malpractice insurance. There were instances of potential fraud as Ann was documenting for sessions and not timestamping appropriately. In the conclusion of the case example, a letter was dispatched to the board relaying concerns and requesting termination of supervision.
Ethical and Legal Considerations
Field experience is about nuance and integration and how to address supervisee’s needs for development and integration (Laureate, 2018b). In application to the mock case with Ann, several tasks need to be addressed through a supervisory relationship (Laureate, 2018b). Knowing that the tenant of supervisee development is the supervisory relationship, key elements are clear to be needed to be addressed for Ann to be able to move forward and complete the program successfully.
The ethical issues presented blend directly into the legal considerations throughout the case of Ann. Specifically, as a supervisor, it would be imperative to discuss the ethical implications of not being prepared for each supervisory session as it relates to clients. Further, this discussion would entail the ethical implications as it relates to the overall supervisory process. This lack of being prepared with notes, caseload review, audio, or video; has larger ramifications as a supervisee, as it does not allow for the supervisor to engage in providing insights on potential areas of improvement for a more efficacious client centered care. This could have larger ethical implications for mismanagement of clients on her current caseload.
Another area for exploration is that a supervisee models from the supervisor. Therefore, a detailed conversation regarding ethical implications regarding lack of meeting expectations as a supervisee and how that can impact completion for the terminal degree in the program, and its overall implications as a counselor and future supervisor in the field. Lack of consideration to this would have both ethical and legal issues (this will be detailed further in gatekeeping). A proper review of the rubric for participation in the supervision process as it relates to unacceptable, acceptable, and exemplary standards within supervision (Bernard et al., 2021) would be warranted in this case.
Overall, the lack of quality of care could be a legal implication to the clients, the facility, and have a future-oriented discussion on potential legal ramifications if something were to occur to one of the clients on her caseload without proper supervision. This is further worsened if Ann were to not have malpractice insurance. Furthermore so, if she were to continue with fraudulent time-stamping.
Multicultural Considerations
This case provided a host of aspects of culture that one must consider. Specifically, the case seems to identify Ann as an African American, cisgender female, from the rural south. It also was inferred that she resides in a nuclear home, which could demand a lot of time and distraction. This may have further implications in her culture and upbringing, having further manifestations in the supervisory process. I think considering the cultural norms in the south with regards to punctuality, extra obligations of a nuclear home, and potential socioeconomic stressors. As a supervisor, one would embrace a commitment to multiculturalism, social justice, and advocacy. To that end, professional counselors have an ethical obligation to cultivate an identity aligned with identifying, addressing, and eliminating oppressive social constructs (Remley & Herlihy, 2020). Unethical counseling practices not only harm clients but also undermine the profession's core tenants.
With these considerations in mind, the mock sessions we had with Ann were directed, but also collaborative. To be considerate of what Ann may be going through and managing at this time as she is finding her way through her respective program and licensure, needs to be a collaborative effort. Having Ann integrate what she feels is appropriate, or what may work for her to alleviate some of the pressures she faces is imperative.
Gatekeeping and Due Process Considerations
Gatekeeping is part of the role as a CES professional with ethical obligations to the field (ACA, 2014). Concerning gatekeeping, from a micro level, considering Ann within the program accruing hours for completion of practicum and internship; if Ann is not able to meet the expectations of the program, nor the expectations as a supervisee, discussions for dismissal from the program may be appropriate. The offering of a remediation plan would have to come first, but if lack of follow-through were documented, repeatedly, then a discussion of dismissal would be warranted. Reflectively, thinking on the university policies and reflecting on the importance of adherence. More macroscopically, if Ann in the process of obtaining licensure was not able to keep up with all the various obligations needed per the ACA code of ethics, consideration for the termination in the program may be enacted to gatekeep.
Remediation Plan: Strengths and Weaknesses
First and foremost, for the remediation plan, obtaining malpractice insurance, reviewing supervisee responsibilities including attendance, promptness, lack of substance for the session, and lack of follow-through on contractual obligations. Then offering a collaborative performance plan, discussing the expectations for the university, discussing expectations as the student/supervisee, discussing expectations for the facility, and stressing how these need to be followed through for completion of the practicum/internship, and overall program. With this said, offering Ann an opportunity to engage in a meeting to discuss what she feels would work for her, her schedule, and offer an opportunity for her to share what more we could offer to help her throughout. All the while, reiterating the importance of the alliance established in the supervision contract and how the competencies found within the course work mastered needs to be demonstrated within the profession; stressing that lack of demonstration will require remediation (Bernard et al., 2021). Further, lack of acknowledgment that the feedback provided by the supervisor is the backbone of the evaluation process and is needed to empower the supervisee to achieve the competence to which they aspire (Bernard et al., 2021).
reflecting on the policies and procedures to be able to review and explore expectations of Ann as she is attempting to make her way through her supervisory process and the overall program would be the first place to start. Offering a thorough review of policies, procedures, an overview of professional conduct, and the ACA code of ethics would serve as a psychoeducation effort for Ann to then give insights transitively on ethical implications if these tenants were breached. This could be done all the while asking for more information on Ann’s experiences on a personal level to see if there were more resources we could implement or offer for added support from the University. Additionally, addressing the legal and ethical implications separately regarding timely completion of paperwork, the accuracy of notetaking, and the importance of accurate timestamping to avoid fraudulent documentation. Review of informed consent, to be able to coordinate and offer additional consultation time with the site supervisor to gain clarity on what more is needed to assist Ann in positive productive change to complete the program (Laureate, 2018b).
Exploration options for proper planning would also be imperative for Ann’s success. As indicated by Dr. Patton (Laureate, 2018b), designing a seven-day remediation. For the plan for Ann, I would recommend additional exercises and assignments from her coursework to review, offering her access to the school library, and addendum ethics in counseling coursework to act as a refresher for Ann. Further, I would ask for Ann to record some practice sessions either with myself or another faculty to explore issues that may come up and through analysis of recordings, help navigate mitigation techniques (as Ann discussed finding strife struggling with imposter syndrome). I would investigate theories that may be supportive of connecting with specific clientele she is working with at her site to begin to work towards connecting and feeling grounded with her supervisory site and caseload. I would also use these recordings to commend Ann on skills that she has a solid foundation in to enrich her experience and keep her invested in this training (and program). Knowing that this supervisory relationship can only flourish if the supervisee feels safe enough to share their work with supervisors, I would encourage Ann to take initiative in her learning (Stark et al., 2016). I would support and find ways to offer Ann additional monitoring and assessing (Stark et al.,2016). As psychoeducation, I would offer Ann reflective opportunities on the supervision process and offer insights regarding supervision being likely to outperform no supervision in terms of client outcomes (Reiser et al., 2014).
For further assistance, I would set Ann up with a site mentor to act as a liaison and additional support at her supervision site. This would hopefully allow Ann to have another layer of support at her supervision site; this would provide another lifeline for Ann to reflect upon her feelings. I would also assist Ann with scheduling appointments and check-ins with her student advisor for another line of communication and support with the University. Further, I would try to explore options and resources to take some of the other variables that Ann is struggling to manage, tapping into the developmental model (Laureate, 2018c). Specifically, I would look at resources for childcare with the University to see if that would be something that would fit in Ann’s schedule to alleviate some of her responsibilities so that she would be able to focus on her supervisee responsibilities and transitively improve her overall performance and complete the program. Once reviewing these options, I would discuss with Ann which seem of interest to her, and upon selecting and agreeing to these options; would reconvene with her after a week to check in and note progress.
If no progress were made after seven days, an additional plan would be made and a further discussion on gatekeeping would take place (Laureate, 2018c). I would assess Ann’s concerns at this point and consult with Ann’s core faculty and connect Ann to the school skills coordinator, the student development coordinator, or both (Laureate, 2018c). With this said, a review of due process and fundamental fairness as it relates to considerations and remediation of counseling students would be cited (McAdams et al., 2007). I would take this as a psychoeducation approach to relay performance deficiencies, provide support, and cite clearly defined corrective actions for Ann as it relates to professional conduct, effectively reflecting her feelings, and ethical considerations.
If after this no progress was still made, we would have to escalate this to the University’s board for further discussion and potential dismissal from the program.
I think the strength of this type of remediation is that it is well thought out, organized, and scalable. Similar to a treatment plan, there are areas that we would be able to look at and evaluate or re-evaluate for continued development. This overall, adds strength to this approach as it continues investment in the opportunity for whoever is receiving it to continue to work towards that which they have intended to complete. The limitation is that it could be received in a way that is discouraging or defeating. From working through the mock example as a class, I felt the first meeting was pessimistic, and Ann could have taken defense to our approach. The second meeting may have been overwhelming for Ann as we came up with a lot of goals all at once. I think planning and approaching in this manner could be limiting as it could create disengagement if not done in a compassionate way.
Self-Reflection
Overall, this mock session experience was awakening. I have been reflecting throughout this program often, thinking about how ‘I don’t know what I don’t know.” This exercise is one of those moments where I’ve found a new area of exploration of the abyss.
I think role-playing a meeting with various participants playing various roles was a great way to start thinking about tying all the different roles this terminal degree offers. Specifically, I found it very interesting how the roles of counselor, educator, and supervisor all work in tandem with one another in an interaction where remediation is needed. I found it interesting to contemplate from each vantage especially as we met together as a team. The concept of gatekeeping is something that sparks a bit of anxiety; however, I would want to spend more time reading on and exploring.
Throughout this mock meeting with Ann, I did find myself empathetically connecting with Ann receiving all the criticism and feedback from the first meeting. I would agree with my peers in stating, that I think it is really important to start with the positives before moving through all the areas that need improvement. In reflection of the second meeting, I feel like it was really important to check in with Ann on how she was feeling throughout the process of establishing goals. I think on the conducting end of the mock session we made it a point to list as many goals as possible, which from Ann’s vantage may have been overwhelming and potentially discouraging. So will keep this in mind moving forward.
After completing this exercise, I honestly can’t seem to stop myself from reflecting on a more confrontational situation. Thinking about how this type of interaction could go if we were to be in a situation with a supervisee who was adamant about what they were doing, or not receptive to suggestions. I can’t help but feel anxiety for that type of interaction and how to go about mitigating their confrontation to help them obtain their goals. Though, I think having a team of individuals may serve well to address this concern, I still think there is much more to learn.
In conclusion, I found this exercise to be great learning. I think having this type of interaction and working through all the various levels of things to consider including targeted behaviors of concern, ethical considerations, multicultural considerations, gatekeeping, and remediation plans. I enjoyed seeing how this overlapped with treatment planning, and I am grateful for the learning as this is a proper way to organize for future scenarios.
References
American Counseling Association. (2014). 2014 ACA code of ethics. https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2014-code-of- ethics-finaladdress.pdf
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2019). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018b). Gatekeeper: Jason Patton, PhD. [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018c). Gatekeeper: Maranda Griffin, PhD. [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
McAdams, C. R., III, & Foster, V. A. (2007). A guide to just and fair remediation of counseling students with professional performance deficiencies. Counselor Education and Supervision, 47(1), 2.
Reiser, R. P., & Milne, D. L. (2014). A systematic review and reformulation of outcome evaluation in clinical supervision: Applying the fidelity framework. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 8(3), 149–157. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1037/tep0000031
Remley, T. P., Jr., & Herlihy, B. (2020). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in counseling (6th ed.). Pearson.
Stark, M. D., & Greggerson, K. (2016). Differences in Perceptions of Supervisee Contribution: Supervisors’ vs. Supervisees’ Evaluations. Journal of Counselor Preparation & Supervision, 8(1), 1–28. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.7729/81.1145
Ann is an African American counselor, from a southern area, who is seeking supervision. Initially, we looked at Ann’s case from the vantage of being enrolled in her graduate program working for practicum and internship hours. Thereafter we looked at this case post-graduation en route for licensure. In both instances, Ann presented with resistance in terms of expectations and obligations as a supervisee. Specifically, she showed consistency in being late to supervision, inconsistency with keeping scheduled supervision, and showed consistency in not keeping up with notes and caseload summaries. Another repeated instance was a lack of substance for supervision; Ann repeatedly did not provide caseload summaries, notes, audio/video of sessions, and lack of follow-through on the material the supervisor offered for psychoeducation. A recurrence of Ann not having the required malpractice insurance in place, and even after repeated reminders, Ann still was not able to produce enrollment in malpractice insurance. There were instances of potential fraud as Ann was documenting for sessions and not timestamping appropriately. In the conclusion of the case example, a letter was dispatched to the board relaying concerns and requesting termination of supervision.
Ethical and Legal Considerations
Field experience is about nuance and integration and how to address supervisee’s needs for development and integration (Laureate, 2018b). In application to the mock case with Ann, several tasks need to be addressed through a supervisory relationship (Laureate, 2018b). Knowing that the tenant of supervisee development is the supervisory relationship, key elements are clear to be needed to be addressed for Ann to be able to move forward and complete the program successfully.
The ethical issues presented blend directly into the legal considerations throughout the case of Ann. Specifically, as a supervisor, it would be imperative to discuss the ethical implications of not being prepared for each supervisory session as it relates to clients. Further, this discussion would entail the ethical implications as it relates to the overall supervisory process. This lack of being prepared with notes, caseload review, audio, or video; has larger ramifications as a supervisee, as it does not allow for the supervisor to engage in providing insights on potential areas of improvement for a more efficacious client centered care. This could have larger ethical implications for mismanagement of clients on her current caseload.
Another area for exploration is that a supervisee models from the supervisor. Therefore, a detailed conversation regarding ethical implications regarding lack of meeting expectations as a supervisee and how that can impact completion for the terminal degree in the program, and its overall implications as a counselor and future supervisor in the field. Lack of consideration to this would have both ethical and legal issues (this will be detailed further in gatekeeping). A proper review of the rubric for participation in the supervision process as it relates to unacceptable, acceptable, and exemplary standards within supervision (Bernard et al., 2021) would be warranted in this case.
Overall, the lack of quality of care could be a legal implication to the clients, the facility, and have a future-oriented discussion on potential legal ramifications if something were to occur to one of the clients on her caseload without proper supervision. This is further worsened if Ann were to not have malpractice insurance. Furthermore so, if she were to continue with fraudulent time-stamping.
Multicultural Considerations
This case provided a host of aspects of culture that one must consider. Specifically, the case seems to identify Ann as an African American, cisgender female, from the rural south. It also was inferred that she resides in a nuclear home, which could demand a lot of time and distraction. This may have further implications in her culture and upbringing, having further manifestations in the supervisory process. I think considering the cultural norms in the south with regards to punctuality, extra obligations of a nuclear home, and potential socioeconomic stressors. As a supervisor, one would embrace a commitment to multiculturalism, social justice, and advocacy. To that end, professional counselors have an ethical obligation to cultivate an identity aligned with identifying, addressing, and eliminating oppressive social constructs (Remley & Herlihy, 2020). Unethical counseling practices not only harm clients but also undermine the profession's core tenants.
With these considerations in mind, the mock sessions we had with Ann were directed, but also collaborative. To be considerate of what Ann may be going through and managing at this time as she is finding her way through her respective program and licensure, needs to be a collaborative effort. Having Ann integrate what she feels is appropriate, or what may work for her to alleviate some of the pressures she faces is imperative.
Gatekeeping and Due Process Considerations
Gatekeeping is part of the role as a CES professional with ethical obligations to the field (ACA, 2014). Concerning gatekeeping, from a micro level, considering Ann within the program accruing hours for completion of practicum and internship; if Ann is not able to meet the expectations of the program, nor the expectations as a supervisee, discussions for dismissal from the program may be appropriate. The offering of a remediation plan would have to come first, but if lack of follow-through were documented, repeatedly, then a discussion of dismissal would be warranted. Reflectively, thinking on the university policies and reflecting on the importance of adherence. More macroscopically, if Ann in the process of obtaining licensure was not able to keep up with all the various obligations needed per the ACA code of ethics, consideration for the termination in the program may be enacted to gatekeep.
Remediation Plan: Strengths and Weaknesses
First and foremost, for the remediation plan, obtaining malpractice insurance, reviewing supervisee responsibilities including attendance, promptness, lack of substance for the session, and lack of follow-through on contractual obligations. Then offering a collaborative performance plan, discussing the expectations for the university, discussing expectations as the student/supervisee, discussing expectations for the facility, and stressing how these need to be followed through for completion of the practicum/internship, and overall program. With this said, offering Ann an opportunity to engage in a meeting to discuss what she feels would work for her, her schedule, and offer an opportunity for her to share what more we could offer to help her throughout. All the while, reiterating the importance of the alliance established in the supervision contract and how the competencies found within the course work mastered needs to be demonstrated within the profession; stressing that lack of demonstration will require remediation (Bernard et al., 2021). Further, lack of acknowledgment that the feedback provided by the supervisor is the backbone of the evaluation process and is needed to empower the supervisee to achieve the competence to which they aspire (Bernard et al., 2021).
reflecting on the policies and procedures to be able to review and explore expectations of Ann as she is attempting to make her way through her supervisory process and the overall program would be the first place to start. Offering a thorough review of policies, procedures, an overview of professional conduct, and the ACA code of ethics would serve as a psychoeducation effort for Ann to then give insights transitively on ethical implications if these tenants were breached. This could be done all the while asking for more information on Ann’s experiences on a personal level to see if there were more resources we could implement or offer for added support from the University. Additionally, addressing the legal and ethical implications separately regarding timely completion of paperwork, the accuracy of notetaking, and the importance of accurate timestamping to avoid fraudulent documentation. Review of informed consent, to be able to coordinate and offer additional consultation time with the site supervisor to gain clarity on what more is needed to assist Ann in positive productive change to complete the program (Laureate, 2018b).
Exploration options for proper planning would also be imperative for Ann’s success. As indicated by Dr. Patton (Laureate, 2018b), designing a seven-day remediation. For the plan for Ann, I would recommend additional exercises and assignments from her coursework to review, offering her access to the school library, and addendum ethics in counseling coursework to act as a refresher for Ann. Further, I would ask for Ann to record some practice sessions either with myself or another faculty to explore issues that may come up and through analysis of recordings, help navigate mitigation techniques (as Ann discussed finding strife struggling with imposter syndrome). I would investigate theories that may be supportive of connecting with specific clientele she is working with at her site to begin to work towards connecting and feeling grounded with her supervisory site and caseload. I would also use these recordings to commend Ann on skills that she has a solid foundation in to enrich her experience and keep her invested in this training (and program). Knowing that this supervisory relationship can only flourish if the supervisee feels safe enough to share their work with supervisors, I would encourage Ann to take initiative in her learning (Stark et al., 2016). I would support and find ways to offer Ann additional monitoring and assessing (Stark et al.,2016). As psychoeducation, I would offer Ann reflective opportunities on the supervision process and offer insights regarding supervision being likely to outperform no supervision in terms of client outcomes (Reiser et al., 2014).
For further assistance, I would set Ann up with a site mentor to act as a liaison and additional support at her supervision site. This would hopefully allow Ann to have another layer of support at her supervision site; this would provide another lifeline for Ann to reflect upon her feelings. I would also assist Ann with scheduling appointments and check-ins with her student advisor for another line of communication and support with the University. Further, I would try to explore options and resources to take some of the other variables that Ann is struggling to manage, tapping into the developmental model (Laureate, 2018c). Specifically, I would look at resources for childcare with the University to see if that would be something that would fit in Ann’s schedule to alleviate some of her responsibilities so that she would be able to focus on her supervisee responsibilities and transitively improve her overall performance and complete the program. Once reviewing these options, I would discuss with Ann which seem of interest to her, and upon selecting and agreeing to these options; would reconvene with her after a week to check in and note progress.
If no progress were made after seven days, an additional plan would be made and a further discussion on gatekeeping would take place (Laureate, 2018c). I would assess Ann’s concerns at this point and consult with Ann’s core faculty and connect Ann to the school skills coordinator, the student development coordinator, or both (Laureate, 2018c). With this said, a review of due process and fundamental fairness as it relates to considerations and remediation of counseling students would be cited (McAdams et al., 2007). I would take this as a psychoeducation approach to relay performance deficiencies, provide support, and cite clearly defined corrective actions for Ann as it relates to professional conduct, effectively reflecting her feelings, and ethical considerations.
If after this no progress was still made, we would have to escalate this to the University’s board for further discussion and potential dismissal from the program.
I think the strength of this type of remediation is that it is well thought out, organized, and scalable. Similar to a treatment plan, there are areas that we would be able to look at and evaluate or re-evaluate for continued development. This overall, adds strength to this approach as it continues investment in the opportunity for whoever is receiving it to continue to work towards that which they have intended to complete. The limitation is that it could be received in a way that is discouraging or defeating. From working through the mock example as a class, I felt the first meeting was pessimistic, and Ann could have taken defense to our approach. The second meeting may have been overwhelming for Ann as we came up with a lot of goals all at once. I think planning and approaching in this manner could be limiting as it could create disengagement if not done in a compassionate way.
Self-Reflection
Overall, this mock session experience was awakening. I have been reflecting throughout this program often, thinking about how ‘I don’t know what I don’t know.” This exercise is one of those moments where I’ve found a new area of exploration of the abyss.
I think role-playing a meeting with various participants playing various roles was a great way to start thinking about tying all the different roles this terminal degree offers. Specifically, I found it very interesting how the roles of counselor, educator, and supervisor all work in tandem with one another in an interaction where remediation is needed. I found it interesting to contemplate from each vantage especially as we met together as a team. The concept of gatekeeping is something that sparks a bit of anxiety; however, I would want to spend more time reading on and exploring.
Throughout this mock meeting with Ann, I did find myself empathetically connecting with Ann receiving all the criticism and feedback from the first meeting. I would agree with my peers in stating, that I think it is really important to start with the positives before moving through all the areas that need improvement. In reflection of the second meeting, I feel like it was really important to check in with Ann on how she was feeling throughout the process of establishing goals. I think on the conducting end of the mock session we made it a point to list as many goals as possible, which from Ann’s vantage may have been overwhelming and potentially discouraging. So will keep this in mind moving forward.
After completing this exercise, I honestly can’t seem to stop myself from reflecting on a more confrontational situation. Thinking about how this type of interaction could go if we were to be in a situation with a supervisee who was adamant about what they were doing, or not receptive to suggestions. I can’t help but feel anxiety for that type of interaction and how to go about mitigating their confrontation to help them obtain their goals. Though, I think having a team of individuals may serve well to address this concern, I still think there is much more to learn.
In conclusion, I found this exercise to be great learning. I think having this type of interaction and working through all the various levels of things to consider including targeted behaviors of concern, ethical considerations, multicultural considerations, gatekeeping, and remediation plans. I enjoyed seeing how this overlapped with treatment planning, and I am grateful for the learning as this is a proper way to organize for future scenarios.
References
American Counseling Association. (2014). 2014 ACA code of ethics. https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2014-code-of- ethics-finaladdress.pdf
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2019). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018b). Gatekeeper: Jason Patton, PhD. [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018c). Gatekeeper: Maranda Griffin, PhD. [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
McAdams, C. R., III, & Foster, V. A. (2007). A guide to just and fair remediation of counseling students with professional performance deficiencies. Counselor Education and Supervision, 47(1), 2.
Reiser, R. P., & Milne, D. L. (2014). A systematic review and reformulation of outcome evaluation in clinical supervision: Applying the fidelity framework. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 8(3), 149–157. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1037/tep0000031
Remley, T. P., Jr., & Herlihy, B. (2020). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in counseling (6th ed.). Pearson.
Stark, M. D., & Greggerson, K. (2016). Differences in Perceptions of Supervisee Contribution: Supervisors’ vs. Supervisees’ Evaluations. Journal of Counselor Preparation & Supervision, 8(1), 1–28. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.7729/81.1145