teams. Research on the use of formulation in teams has so far been limited to relatively small practice-based studies in inpatient settings. For example, Kennedy et al. (evaluating anew inpatient service in which a key intervention was the collaborative production of a formulation, concluded that it was a powerful systemic intervention in itself which was regarded positively by both service users and staff. Summers (explored staff views of the impact of introducing psychological formulations to a high dependency rehabilitation service and found that they believed that formulation benefited care planning, staff-patient relationships, staff satisfaction and team-working, through increasing understanding of patients, bringing together staff with different views and encouraging more creative thinking. Wainwright and Bergin (2010) provided a similar assessment of staff views on the effectiveness of introducing formulation meetings onto an acute inpatient ward for older adults. Lake (2008) has described a team formulation approach facilitated in regular meetings by a psychologist, which was evaluated very positively by all staff (2008). Berry et al. (2009) found that formulation meetings resulted in staff feeling increased confidence in their work, and perceiving service users more positively and optimistically. Among the conceptual and methodological hurdles to be overcome in researching formulation are Defining formulation (process versus event). ●
Separating the effects of the formulation from the therapy of which it is an integral part. (Although team formulations avoid this problem because they are by definition separate from individual therapy in fact therapy may not be a feature of the intervention at all.)
● Deciding the terms in which formulation is evaluated. A narrative/personal meaning approach would see usefulness as a more appropriate criterion than ‘truth’, or reliability, validity etc, although usefulness immediately raises the questions useful to whom and how would this be assessed On the other hand, the ‘truth’ perspective implies a consensus on what it means to say that a formulation is ‘valid’, and who makes this judgement. Suggestions for assessing the quality of formulations have been made by Butler (1998) Ten tests of a formulation Lane) ‘Stopthengo’ checklist Kuyken (2006) ‘Evidence-based guidelines and Persons (2008) Five tests’. Margison et al. (2000) have recommended that evidence for the effectiveness of therapy, including formulation, should come from practice-based evidence as well as evidence- based practice. Good Practice Guidelines on the use of psychological formulation 35
Division of Clinical Psychology Anderson, P. & Fenichel, E. (1989). Serving culturally diverse families of infants and toddlers with disabilities. Washington: National Center for Infant Programs. Barham, P. & Hayward, R. (1995). Relocating madness From the mental patient to the person. London: Free Association Press. Beck, J.S. (1995). Cognitive therapy Basics and beyond. New York Guilford Press. Berger, Min press, a. On the record or off the record Challenges for psychologists in the age of the electronic clinical record – Part 1.
Clinical Psychology Forum.
Berger, Min press, b. On the record or off the record Challenges for psychologists in the age of the electronic clinical record – Part 2. Clinical Psychology Forum. Bentall, R. (2003). Madness explained Psychosis and human nature. London, New York: Penguin. Berry, K, Barrowclough, C. & Wearden, AA pilot study investigating the use of psychological formulations to modify psychiatric staff perceptions of service users with psychosis. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 37 , 39–48. Bieling, P.J. & Kuyken, W. (2003). Is cognitive case formulation science or science fiction? Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 10 (1), 52–69. Boyle, M. (2002). Schizophrenia: A scientific delusion? (2nd ed. London, New York: Routledge. British Psychological Society (2010). Accreditation through partnership handbook Guidance for clinical psychology programmes. Leicester: British Psychological Society. British Psychological Society (2011). Guidelines on the use of electronic health records. Leicester: British Psychological Society. Bruch, M. & Bond, F.W. (Eds) (1998). Beyond diagnosis Case formulation approaches in CBT. Chichester: Wiley Butler, G. (1998). Clinical formulation. In AS. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds, Comprehensive clinical psychology. Oxford: Pergamon.
Callcott, P. & Turkington, D. (2006). CBT for traumatic psychosis. In W. Larkin & AP. Morrison (Eds,
Trauma and psychosis New directions for theory and therapy (pp.222–238). Hove, New York Routledge. Chadwick, P, Williams, C. & Mackenzie, J. (2003). Impact of case formulation in cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 14 (6), 671–680. Christofides, S, Johnstone, L. & Musa, M. (2011). Chipping in Clinical psychologists’ descriptions of their use of formulation in multidisciplinary team working. Psychology and Psychotherapy Theory, Research and Practice. Clarke, I. (2008). Pioneering a cross-diagnostic approach founded in cognitive science. In I. Clarke & H. Wilson (Eds, Cognitive behaviour therapy for acute inpatient mental health units Working with clients, staff and the milieu (pp.65–77). Hove Routledge.