Evaluation of Complaints About Unethical Conduct

An ethical code provides the guidance for ethical practice. Together with initial training and CPD the code is part of a quality assurance system. However, unethical behavior may still occur. As professions mature the need to take action in such cases becomes necessary, both to protect the public and the good standing of the profession itself. This was recognized in the Meta-code from the first edition and then modified to include reference to mediation in the 2005 version where the last clause of the Preamble states:

"National Associations should have procedures to investigate and decide upon complaints against mem­bers, and mediation, corrective and disciplinary procedures to determine the action necessary taking into account the nature and seriousness of the complaint."

The SCE developed guidelines during the period leading up to the 2005 General Assembly. This process required consider­ation not only of content but also process. At that time many associations were still developing their ethical code and had no, or only rudimentary, systems for dealing with complaints or alleged unethical conduct. In a minority of countries there was a law that regulated psychologists, in which case the rel­ative responsibilities of the psychological association and the state need to be considered. Furthermore, unlike an ethical code that may be used by any psychologist for guidance, an evaluative procedure could only be enforced if the subject of a complaint were a member of the association.

The guidelines, therefore, had to be framed in recogni­tion of those realities. It would not be possible for EFPA to insist, at that time, on each association having a formal system which would need to be of sufficient size, and at some cost, to implement. The BPS, for example, had a very well-designed system which had developed from a relatively informal process, with no lawyers involved, to very formal tribunals, as a result of some psychologists deciding to have a lawyer to defend their case. This, of course, became a very much more expensive system and required a whole section within the BPS office to mn, with annual complaints run­ning at over 100 and about 10 disciplinary committees, some lasting two or more days, by the 2003-2007.

The guidance (wvvvv.efpa.eu/ethics/efpa-guidelines) sets out the need for the evaluation of alleged unethical conduct and, following the format of the Meta-code, provides 15 principles which should guide the evaluation procedure determined by each association. These include access to infonriation, equity, equality of arms, and expert evaluation. Throughout, the aim is to ensure fairness and to take into account the need to address the complainant's concern but also the reasonable rights of the psychologist. For example, the first principle states:

Access to information

• The psychologist should be informed of the details of the complaint and the possible viola­tion of the ethical code.

• Members of the public and psychologists should have easy access to information explaining the procedures concerning the making of a com­plaint; the process of evaluating the complaint and the psychologist's behaviour; and the deci­sions and range of sanctions that are available.

• During any evaluation and disciplinary proce­dure, both psychologist and complainant should have easy and equal access to all information and evidence.

11

The guidance also addresses the need to ensure the system has public confidence, which is assisted by transpar­ency as well as thoroughness and efficiency. Including nonpsychologists in the process is advocated as a means of enhancing public confidence but this is not a requirement, in recognition of the different traditions across Europe. Also, the guidance specifies the need to distinguish the procedures for investigation, evaluation, and the determination of actions necessary. Any disciplinary action should take account of factors such as the nature of the infringements of the ethical code, harm caused, and mitigation. However, Principle 11 also states that. "Even where disciplinary actions are determined, the need for corrective actions in addition (e.g., further education or supervision) should be considered."

These guidelines were accepted, along with the revision of the Meta-Code of Ethics, at the General Assembly in Granada, 2005. Since that time, there have been further developments whereby state regulation of psychologists has been introduced. In the UK, the BPS's highly developed system was much reduced when statutory regulation of psy­chologists was introduced in 2009. Practitioner psycholo­gists must now register with the Health Professions Council and be subject to their procedures (Health Profes­sions Council, 2008; Lindsay, in press). However, the BPS has retained a system for dealing with complaints against nonpractitioner members.

Subsequently, Guidance on mediation in the context of complaints about unethical conduct was developed and approved by the 2007 General Assembly in Prague (http:// www.efpa.eu/ethics/efpa-guidelines). This complements both the Meta-Code of Ethics and the guidelines on dealing with complaints and addresses the concern that dealing with complaints is often a negative experience for both complain­ant and psychologist. It was accepted that some forms of unethical conduct must be the subject of a sanction, the highest level of which is expulsion from the national associ­ation or, where legal regulations exist, a removal of the license to practice. However, experience has shown that many complaints are real but at a lower level. Perhaps the psychologist was tardy in acting, was not as sensitive as expected, or their report was less helpful than it might have been. These examples represent less than optimal practice, which may also be less than optimal from an ethical stand­point. But in some cases the infringement is readily acknowledged and action has been taken to ensure nonrecur-rence. Mediation, therefore, may be a more appropriate approach. This brings together the psychologist and com­plainant in order to resolve the issue. It is an opportunity for the psychologist to appreciate the problem and upset caused and to explain and'or apologize. This may be helpful and resolve the issue to the complainant's satisfaction.

The BPS decided to include mediation in its procedures but there was a lack of opportunities before its responsibil­ities were superseded by the HPC so we have no evidence of its usefulness. The process is, however, used a great deal in various legal domains and is often found to be useful (e.g.. see http://www.human-law.co.uk/About-Mediation/'Why-mediate.aspx) but there is also evidence of the problems that can occur, for example, if one of the participants is not acting in good faith (e.g., http://www.mediate.com/articles/ PollackPbl20101213.cfrn).