-By Timothy Lyons
Clinical Supervision versus Case Consultation is the topic of this page. They differ from each other in that with supervision, the psychologist is legally responsible for the actions of the supervisee. (Knapp, Younggren, VandeCreek, Harris, & Martin, 2013) The consultant is a psychologist who can help another peer or psychologist on cases or with some area where they might need help being objective.
Clinical Supervision versus Case Consultation
The Supervisor role is one that is more geared toward the psychologist directing the activities of the supervisee. In this case there are greater legal risks. The psychologist who is the clinical supervisor is responsible for and must monitor the actions of those they supervise. In this caser the supervisor has to accept personal responsibility for those people who are under them. In that case the actions taken by the supervisee directly reflect the supervisor.
The consultant is a person who would have other therapists who they were assisting but those therapists would ultimately be responsible for their choices after the guidance they receive. In Clinical Supervision versus Case Consultation, with consultation, the consultant is not legally liable for the actions of the consultee because the consultee would already be a licensed practitioner. This type of activity would normally occur in professional settings. The Supervisor would have unlicensed persons under supervision. The supervisee understands the supervisor is responsible for the work that they produce. This type of activity would happen in graduate settings, learning environments and in practicums or residencies.
Consultation is about advice that can be rejected by the consultee. Supervision is about direction and education of a supervisee that is on a more continuous basis. Consultation happens in a specific incident that needs attention. The ongoing relationship of supervisor/supervisee is about feedback, evaluation and performance reviews. The supervisor is legally responsible and any problems must be corrected regularly.
References
American Psychological Association 2010 Ethical Principals of Psychologists and Code of ConductAmerican Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical Principals of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2003 ed.). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. 201604271742031248488665
Knapp S Younggren J N VandeCreek L Harris E Martin J N 2013 Assessing and managing risk in psychological practice: An indivicualized approachKnapp, S., Younggren, J. N., VandeCreek, L., Harris, E., & Martin, J. N. (2013). Assessing and managing risk in psychological practice: An indivicualized approach (2nd ed.). Rockviller, MD: The Trust.
LexisNexis 2015 California Board of Psychology Laws and RegulationsLexisNexis. (2015). California Board of Psychology Laws and Regulations (2015 ed.). Charlottesville, VA: LexisNexis. 201604161236441130416155
Liang L T Davis A S Arnold T A Benjamin A 2013 Ethics for Psychologist: A Casebook ApproachLiang, L. T., Davis, A. S., Arnold, T. A., & Benjamin, A. (2013). Ethics for Psychologist: A Casebook Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Consumer Resources- Patient Bill of Rights – California Psychological Association. (n.d.). Retrieved May 24, 2016, from http://www.cpapsych.org/?52 201604150647011537058473