Critical incidents in school communities

One of the key strengths of applied psychology is the opportunity to build relationships and work collaboratively with a range of colleagues from diverse professional contexts with the aim of ensuring optimal outcomes. It is therefore perhaps, surprising that inter-professional training and working is less common than it might be. There have been calls in re-written professional standards for this to be more prevalent (e.g. Health & Care Professions Council standards for Practitioner Psychologists from September 2023: 8.2; 8.3; and 8.4. HCPC, 2023).

Recent developments that have located mental health support in schools have put colleagues from the worlds of educational psychology and clinical psychology in closer professional proximity. This provides opportunities for increased collaboration, which have not always been seized. Exploration of how this can best happen at both national and local levels is still being negotiated and articulated, in many cases leaving professionals 'on the ground' to develop collaborative practice.

In the context of responses to critical incidents (CIs) in school communities, this has been a journey that the two of us have been on together over the past 15 years. Since meeting at a training organised by Frank Murphy, an educational psychologist (EP), we have attempted to devise, refine, and disseminate a joint response to traumatic events. In producing a doctoral thesis, Matt had the privilege of summarising and synthesising the work of EPs and EP services across the country. The literature review that accompanied this thesis drew from a wide range of evidence, including that exploring PTSD in children as well as the work of EPs in response to CIs as captured in EP professional literature.

There have been many conversations between us over these 15 years as representatives of the clinical psychology and educational psychology profession considering what a joint response might look like and how to integrate these perspectives into a coherent framework of support, making the most of each other's areas of expertise. This included discussions about the UK Trauma Council resources that were designed to maximise the capacity and resources within school systems to prepare for and respond to critical incidents. We have also negotiated this in training provided to a range of EP services, learning from local contexts and discussions with EPs and other professionals working in response to critical incidents.

Naming, articulating, valuing, and respecting specific professional strengths has been key in this process. Critical incidents affect school communities as systems as well as individuals within these systems, indicating the potential need for support with both aspects. Putting together the EPs' knowledge of school systems and ability to influence them through continuous relationships with school staff together with clinical psychology expertise in initial mental health support is just one way in which the strength of each profession can be mobilised as part of a coordinated plan.

Evidence from social identity theory indicates that attempts to assimilate or conflate professional roles can be unhelpful in fostering collaborative working (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). Instead, the insertion of a super-ordinate identity within which the strengths and unique contributions of each profession are recognised and mobilised may support greater cooperation and effective joint working. In practice, in the context of critical incident response, this can mean the formation of a temporary critical incident response team (CIRT) to provide consultation to school staff where specific professional expertise can be provided and coordinated.

Such an approach has been advocated in several papers (e.g. Lockhart & Woods, 2017; Beeke, 2021), mainly in the EP professional literature. There may be a role for both EPs and Clinical Psychologists in the CIRT, but their roles are likely to be complementary rather than interchangeable – they bring different areas of expertise. There may be some common ground, but the more that each can recognise and celebrate the other's unique contribution, the more likely that the response will be effective. As well as different professional trainings, we also work in different contexts, we draw on different frameworks and even use different languages. Good collaboration is not easy – but it is better.

As in constructing a house, building a strong structure of theory and practice requires trades to collaborate as well as demonstrate and mobilise their own particular expertise in a planned and agreed way to achieve the desired aim. And without sufficient care and attention, the work can end up being competitive rather than collaborative. Our own journey has benefited hugely from discussion, shared experiences, a massive respect for each other's contributions, and an awareness of our own limitations. At times it might have been simpler to work individually, but the work would not have been as good. We will continue this difficult but rewarding journey.

Critical incident work is just one example of this need for joint work that necessitates difficult conversations. Debate must continue at all levels including in training, at organisational levels and on the ground to continue the journey of developing efficient and coherent frameworks that adopt and utilise the research and professional strengths of different branches of applied psychology.

Dr Matt Beeke
Educational & Child Psychologist at Cambridgeshire County Council and Professional Tutor at the University of East Anglia

David Trickey
Consultant Clinical Psychologist and Co-Director UK Trauma Council

References

Beeke, M. (2021). Towards a Co-Ordinated Framework for Critical Incident Response in School Communities: A Review of Current Evidence. Educational & Child Psychology, 38(1), 75-86. 
Health & Care Professions Council. (2023). Standards of proficiency: Practitioner Psychologists 
Hornsey, M.J. & Hogg, M.A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 143-156. 
Lockhart, C.F. & Woods, K. (2017). Exploring the development of critical incident response teams. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 5(4), 243-254.