[Yearning0723]

Just finished with consult #4. Asked the T if she had a supervisor - the answer: I've been practicing for 15 years and I'm done with supervision, I've been there and don't need it anymore. BUT she has her own therapist (volunteered this information without me having to ask) and consults with her peers when necessary, but "it's an equal relationship, not like a supervisor." I just got a weird vibe from that...and during the consult she seemed very skilled, very knowledgable, but I just didn't feel much...warmth?

I don't know...perhaps I'm too used to current T's high level of warmth...but this T kept saying, "I'm not a mind reader; you would have to tell me things or I wouldn't know them," like when I asked how she would know if we weren't working well together or about what would happen if I developed a maternal attachment to her...and when I opened up to her about my issues with that, I just didn't feel like she was very understanding, even though she has a lot of experience working with these kinds of attachment issues. But I felt the need to backtrack and tell her it probably wouldn't happen with her, I'm more aware of it now, it's less of an issue, etc. And I felt like maybe that was a bad sign. She just sounded very no-nonsense and not as warm as I might need, just because I am really sensitive...

On the bright side though, the T has over 15 years of experience, allows out of session contact when needed as long as you don't abuse it, seems pretty direct and straightforward, and sounded very confident and competent...I just don't know if I don't feel right with her because I don't feel right with her, or I am just very resistant to finding a new T.

[stopdog]

I have no idea if the first one I see has a supervisor. She is married to another therapist (second marriage/he is older than she is) so maybe she uses him as one. I imagine she does not think she needs one at this point. She mentions every so often that she has 30 years of experience (big whoop is my usual response).
The second mentioned she had someone she talks with at times.
I have never really cared if they had supervision or not. I more care that they have endured therapy themselves rather than having some quasi-super thing where they only tell their side of things.

[BlessedRhiannon]

My T does not have a supervisor. She's been in practice for 20+ years. She does have a peer group that she consults with weekly.

For me, it was not a concern. My T has her life together and she's phenomenal to work with. If she has a client that she needs feedback on, she takes that to her peer group or may consult with a p-doc or other resources.

I wouldn't consider it a deal breaker unless the T was very new to the profession.

The only reason someone who has fifteen years of experience would actually have a "supervisor" is he/she was working in a clinic or hospital setting. A therapist in private practice, who has met the requirements for their "clinical hours" leading to full licensing, doesn't have a supervisor. Those individuals have exactly what she told you she has: her own therapist and a peer group of fellow therapists who provide "peer supervision or consultation". I'd be more inclined to be worried if someone is in private practice and she said she didn't work or consult with ANYONE because she's through with all that stuff.

The other thing is that a well seasoned therapist who works in a clinic and/or hospital probably IS the one who is supervising less experienced therapists. If she has a supervisor in that setting it would probably be the clinic director and that person wouldn't probably be doing weekly supervisions sessions with the seasoned clinician, it would be more "clinic related issues" like who is up for the next admission, who needs to go for training etc.

As for the "warmth" issue, I have interviewed a LOT of potential therapists and some are immediately warm and fuzzy and others are a bit more reserved. I don't know about you but I can't always tell if someone is warm or open until I've met with a few times. Those initial few meetings are often uncomfortable or at least stressful for both the new therapist and the potential client--after all, neither of you are sure if you're going to make a good solid connection. I say, give her a try. The thing you mentioned that was very important to you was to work with someone who was seasoned and experienced.

[WrkNPrgress]

Hm.... I think I'd be okay as long as the T was in therapy for themselves, I guess. When you think about it not every T can have a supervisor— for one the supervisor themselves wouldn't have one would they?

But it sounds like you might have other issues with this T. If they seemed cold, or cocky, I would trust your instincts on that. If the conversation just didn't feel good, why bother?

[Yearning0723]

I am being very picky...I think the only reason the supervision thing even feels like an issue is just that all the other therapists I did consults with, who had about the same amount of experience, had supervisors, and several told me that ALL therapists ought to have supervision...and maybe just the way she was talking about supervision, like in a disdainful way? I don't know. I think it probably isn't "necessary" if she's got her own therapist.

[anilam]

Not a dealbreaker for me - My T is not even in individual therapy, "just" peer supervision once a month for few hours

It would be for me. After my awful abandonment by my "oh so experienced" therapist who didn't have a supervisor I wouldn't want to see one who didn't no matter how many years they have been practicing. I would even go so far to say that being in practice for a long time causes a "blindness" or a burn out or an inability to look at things in a new way. I think for that reason therapists need someone to run things by who can help them be objective.

Only one of my T's has actually had a supervisor because he was early on in the profession. The other two had oodles of experiences so they have other professionals they consult with when needed, but it isn't as if they have a supervisor the have to check in with all the time. That has been no problem. I think that term "supervision" is often the same thing as "consultation" really. It may be more of a semantics issue. The reality is that professionals with years of experience tend to work with others in consultation rather than supervision most of the time, and often they are the ones supervising others with less experience. Personally, so long as my therapist is experienced and is willing to consult with others when needed, that's perfectly acceptable for me.

[Yearning0723]

Perhaps I should amend my question to: Do you have either supervision, a therapist, or peers who you consult on a regular basis?

Originally Posted by Yearning0723

Perhaps I should amend my question to: Do you have either supervision, a therapist, or peers who you consult on a regular basis?

I think that would be a good question. A therapist who doesn't consult with others on a regular basis would raise major red flags for me. Some of them do, I think, get a "god" complex and I think they need to be in contact with other therapists or whatever and not their wife or spouse. LOL.

[RedSun]

Just popped up out of exile and read this thread and felt I wanted to reply....my t has years of experience, and of course has a supervisor. I wouldn't work with her if she didn't and, in the UK, her registration wouldn't be valid. My t is also a supervisor, and her supervisor also will have a supervisor...like pyramid selling! My college tutor has been a supervisor and t, tutor and dr for years and has fortnightly supervision.
I guess I felt this was important to point out to balance other views on here. Also, anecdotal evidence that I, just personally, have been given suggests that it can be those T's who think they don't need supervision are often the most in need of checking/guidance.
So yeah, it might raise alarm bells for me. But, most important, is that your instinct is telling you something here, and you are the expert on what is right for you.

[ScarletPimpernel]

My new T has peers she consults with. She offered that information due to confidentiality reasons. If they have their own practice then I doubt they have a supervisor. If they work for an office, they might. I have never asked a T if they had a therapist themselves. I don't really care whether they do or don't. To me it's more important that they have a peer group they can consult with.

[justdesserts]

My t has colleagues with whom he regularly consults. I think that a supervisor is something very specific for new therapists or for people working in an environment that has a hierarchy of employees.

I'm in the UK too, all Ts here have to have a supervisor. I can't quite understand why Ts don't in the US. It seems to me to be pretty essential for a T to offload, and to have a third party's view on things.

Found this explanation that might help:

Clinical Supervision & Consultation - Cultural Distinctions Vary by Discipline

As mentioned by another poster, supervision and consultation is essentially the same thing. When someone is working toward getting their "clinical hours", they have to pay for supervision. That means that they find a senior psychologist, MSW, mental health counselor and pay that person a fee to meet with them on a regular/weekly basis to discuss and consult on their caseload. This "supervisor" signs off on the person's "application" for licensing, indicating that the individual has met the requirements for hours in the harness and has received proper supervision. Once a person is licensed in the U.S., he/she is not obligated to document or turn in the hours that they have received supervision. He/she is only obligated to document the correct number of hours of continuing education hours on a yearly basis. However, most well-trained and ethical therapists I know and have gone to continue to participate in weekly or bi-weekly peer supervision/consultation groups. They bring to the group issues they are struggling with and seek the assistance and analysis of their peers. The nice thing about peer supervision is that it is a cooperative group and the participants are equals and no one has to pay for it

I've known very experienced therapists who have reached a point in their career that they are changing their focus and need more experienced help in a particular area of therapeutic intervention and he/she has sought out paid supervision again. An example of this is a therapist who is interested in learning to provide DBT or Schema Therapy or Transference focused Therapy. He/she would enroll in an institute, learn the techniques and then pay for a length of time for professional supervision using the techniques he/she has learned. A therapist who decides that he/she would like to become certified in psychoanalysis would do the same thing. It's costly but worthwhile if one wants to add to his/her repertoire of skills.

I wouldn't pooh pooh peer supervision/consultation groups. I think a cross range of therapeutic intervention and advice from a variety of practicing clinicians can be healthy and enlightening for a therapist. The only therapist I'd stir clear of is one who is practicing in total isolation, never seeking out other therapists assistance--after all, we all know that we can be our own worst enemies and can get so blinded that we can't see the forest from the tress!

[LonesomeTonight]

My T doesn't have a supervisor, but she has like 30 years of an experience and works in a practice with other T's and p-docs. They have weekly clinical meetings where, if one of them is having trouble with a case, they (anonymously), present it for feedback from the other T's. My T also will consult other T's separately there if she's unsure how to handle something--I know because she did this for an issue I had recently (involving transference for another T there--my marriage counselor). So I think as long as they have a fair amount of experience (I'd consider 15 years to meet that qualification), they're willing to ask peers if they're unsure about something, and don't just assume they know everything, then they don't need to be seeing a supervisor (or be in their own therapy).

If you just didn't feel comfortable, that could be a reason not to see her. But as others have said, a T might seem reserved on first meeting, or just be getting basic background info, so you might not really get a sense of who he/she is.

[Perna]

I would define what you mean by "supervision" and why that matters to you? Are you thinking they can catch your therapist before a mistake is made or you can think of something going wrong in a wider context, imagine it could be the supervisor's fault instead of your therapist's (the supervisor made me do it :-) or what? It sounds like you are trying for some sort of safety net? If your therapist turns out not to be "good enough" for you, her having a supervisor isn't really going to make a difference?

Are you going to have supervision being a client?

[stopdog]

Originally Posted by Perna

Are you going to have supervision being a client?

Isn't that what some of psych central is used for?

[Ididitmyway]

I see you are in Canada, and I don't know what the requirements are for being in supervision in your country. Here, in the US, only unlicensed therapists get supervision. It's a legal requirement, not a choice, so their clients don't need to worry about it. Once the therapist is licensed they are not required to be in supervision, but they are recommended to consult with their peers regularly. People here usually aren't concerned if their therapists are consulting with their colleagues. It is generally assumed that they do and also it is assumed that the fact that they are licensed ensures that they have had sufficient education and training to work independently. I think, this issue varies from country to country depending on the local regulations.

[stopdog]

I don't think it is assumed across the board in the us that those things are true. I have known some licensed experienced therapists who had supervision by their own choice (they called the person their supervisor). I don't usually concern myself with it because I don't have any faith that a supervisor, who only gets their info from the supervisee, would know how to handle anything either.

[wotchermuggle]

My T does not have a supervisor, but he used to BE a supervisor....more than good enough for me.

[doyoutrustme]

After a certain point "supervision" becomes as needed peer to peer consult. Namelessly of course.

[Lauliza]

One the post masters supervision requirement is filled a T doesn't technically need a supervisor anymore. If a T works in a group practice with is a director who may serve as a direct superior and will consult with them on cases. T's that are in private practice, however, won't have this structure and instead often consult with colleagues. Others may have their own therapist to bounce things off of. So in general I wouldn't let this effect your decision since most Ts have someone they can consult with, it's just not "supervision".

It sounds like your hesitation has more to do with connection and her personality. If you don't like her then don't bother. If she's just different from what you're used to, maybe she's worth a try. Sometimes it's good try a T that is different from the usual person you gravitate towards. A different personality can open you up to different perspectives. You may want to consider trying to see two at once so you have a backup if you decide to try one out and end up not liking them. One meeting isn't always sufficient to get a real sense of someone.