PIE accreditation?

Within the growing but still relatively small active community of PIE enthusiasts - trainers, consultants, commissioners and 'PIE leads' - you will sometimes hear the suggestion that we may need some kind of accreditation for PIEs.

The viewpoint of this website so far - reflecting that of the editor and the original author of the term 'PIE', Robin Johnson - is that this suggestion of some form of external accreditation is understandable; but it is the wrong way to to go. There are several main reasons for that, which we can explore; but first:

 

The case for accreditation

As the PIE approach is so flexible, it's all too easy, it is said, for any service to simply state that it IS a PIE, while making at best a few superficial changes - or at worst, simply imposing this claim as a demand on services - with no-one to disagree or hold them to account for that claim.

Meanwhile we find that many services are required, by their funders, 'to be a PIE'. There is little to suggest that these funders have any real grasp of what this means; and it is argued that some kind of definitive assessment of who really qualifies for the term woid be helpful, in clarifying the expactations as well as in setting standards.

Meanwhle there is a growing body of research and evaluation of servoces that style themsleve as PIEs, or as 'working towards developing on the lines of the PIE approach'. To have some consistency in what is being researched would be illuminating, and a clear yardstick would provide some measure (literally) of consistency.

 

The case against accreditation

Firstly, the PIE approach is multifaceted, so that it is very possible - in fact, it is quite normal - to make more progress in one area than in another; and in some cases development in some aspect may be constrained by factors outside the service's control.

Second, working as a PIE is always a matter of degrees of progress, in each and every area. It is always, we tend to say, more like a long jump than a high jump. Working as at least 'a little bit PIE'd' is something that all services can benefit from.

Third, accreditation would remove the power to learn and develop and innovate from the frontline of services, given to some external 'authority', whereas the real authority needs to be action learning, lived experience, and learning from the client.

Fourth, there is the dubious credibility of external assessment. There have been too many failures of regulation in many industries, and in health and social care, in particular, there have been a number of scandals, where very poor practical has been exposed after a favourable inspection report.

Fifth, external accreditation build in a risk of lip service and box ticking; self assessment by contrast at least tends towards honesty.

Sixth, there is the cost. Any assessment in depth of any multi-facetted service by multi-facetted criteria will be labour intensive for the assessors, and expensive. For many cash-strapped services, the additional burden of paying for an assessor's time would be prohibitive.

Seventh, with so many commissioners and senior managers lately inclined to stipulate that they want services to 'be' a PIE, there would be a high risk that any service that was honest about what progress it was making, and what challenges it is tackling, would risk losing the contract to run the service. So there would need to be an appeals process. The whole thing could become needlessly - but deadly - bureaucratic. This is the exact opposite of what a PIE needs to be free to be.

Finally, more philosophically, working at least as  'a little bit PIE'd' is something that all services can benefit from. We have no wish to see a small, rather exclusive 'eleite group of services that are 'proper' PIEs, with the implication that the others are not.

 

Plus: there is a better alternative

But a still better reason to reject external accreditation is that we do have a better alternative, and it is one that is far more compatible with the PIE approach.

It is self assessment, combined with peer review of services, rather than accreditation by any external body, that we are pursuing on the PIElink, and with the self-assessment process, the Pizazz. Built into that is the principle that all services can make progress, and all are on the journey. There should be no-one left behind.

For those local funders and commissioners who wish to have some simple and clear-cut means of confirmation that their services are making progress, we would suggest that they encourage them to use the Pizazz process, whether on paper or in the new software version, the PIE Abacus; and seek a peer review from a reasonably reputable peer, rather than appeals to any 'higher power'.

 

Nevertheless..

The intention of the PIEs 2.0 framework was to get through to the underlying mtovation that inspires service provision, rather than their external accountability issues; and to be broad and 'cross-platform' - that is to offer a common language between services that find themselves subject to regulations and inspection regimes that otherwise apply only to their particular sector.

Nevertheless some services ARE subject to statutory regulation; and wherever possible we would like to help to identify ways in which working as a PIE can help to provide the evidence required for such inspections. It is possible, for example, that we may some day see versions of the Pizazz handbook that are specifically geared towards the language of particular setting or service sector.

Another approach that may have some benefits is the full range of 360 degree evaluation, extending the peer review element of the PIzazz process to its natural conclusion. Where an agency has many 'stakeholders' in any locality with their own views on the suitability of its procedures, for example, a 360 degree evaluation can provide very valuable feedback for the service, as well as for the funders.

For any services that - for whatever reason - do feel that they would like to have an external confirmation of their progress, we would suggest taking a look at the UK Royal College of Psychiatrists' Enabling Environments' award, as it is probably the closest in spirit, and in process, to the Pizazz, except with external verification where peer review would otherwise be.

 

 

 

Further background reading/listening/viewing

PIElink pages

Can commissioning help to encourage PIEs? : HERE

The Inner Game of PIE : HERE

A single framework : HERE

The Pizazz approach to assessment : HERE

360 degree evaluation : HERE

 

Library items

Psychologically informed environments and the enabling environments initiative : (HERE)