Prof. Lois Surgenor1, Professor Kate Diesfeld, Associate Professor Marta Rychert, Ms Olivia Kelly, Dr Kate Kersey
1University of Otago at Christchurch, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, 3Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand, 4Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, 5Univesity of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Biography:
Lois is a Professor in Psychological Medicine at the University of Otago, Christchurch. She previously chaired a NZ regulatory authority (NZ Psychologists Board, 2002-2011) and the collective 16 health regulatory authorities (HRANZ 2010-13). She has researched disciplinary and health rehabilitation for 18 years. As a clinical psychologist, she has chaired many complaint investigations and supervised disciplined practitioners who have been subject to disciplinary penalties. Lois is the Co-Principal Investigator (with Professor Kate Diesfeld) and Coinvestigator Associate Professor Marta Rychert (Massey University) of a recently completed Royal Society of NZ Marsden Fund focusing on professional misconduct rehabilitation.
Abstract:
How and why regulated practitioners are given rehabilitation-focused penalty conditions after professional misconducted is a question in many disciplinary jurisdictions. There are recent calls for further theory and specific practical guidance to address this question. Exploring existing expert consensus is one methodology by which to explore agreed principles and practices. In turn, this can contribute to theory, which in in turn promotes transparency and research-based testing for further theory refinement. This presentation describes a Delphi Study exploring expert consensus in New Zealand, including stakeholders (N = 38) making disciplinary decisions, rehabilitation researchers, those overseeing/delivering rehabilitative-focused penalty conditions and practitioners who have been subject to such conditions. Rounds 1 and 2 resulted in consensus (≥ 75% strongly or somewhat agree) of 27 statements. Expert consensus opinion was found for clusters of principles including: positioning of rehabilitative functions of penalties against public protection functions of legislation; actions and stances of the disciplined practitioner before and during hearings; additional information informing the detail of penalty conditions; accessing feedback about rehabilitative effects and assumptions. Round 3 concludes with a final search for consensus on remaining statements not already rejected. Examples of consensus statements will be discussed in relation to how these may align with existing theories of rehabilitation in a general sense, and what might be unique aspects in the professional discipline context.