7400 Hours, Psychology, Clinical Supervision

About three years ago, my friend and colleague Judy McGehee LMFT (Partners in Recovery) began a supervision program for Marriage and Family Therapist interns (people that have completed their coursework for Masters degrees) and trainees (those who are about to complete Masters degree coursework).  Borne solely out of a desire to be helpful, and pass on the ability to provide effective human service, for fun and for free, Judy took on supervising 8 or so trainees and interns.  We were joined also by a visiting therapist, Ted Aaseland, Psy.D.  A little over two years ago I joined her in this endeavor, as I care deeply about passing on how to do “The Work”.

Over the course of those years, those interns provided services to the Glendora School District and elsewhere to children and adolescents for free.  Some of these turned into outpatient clients, individuals and families, also for free.  There were also public speaking engagements for adults and adolescents, professionals and non-professionals.  After all was said and done, over 7400 hours of free therapy (not including the speaking/community education efforts) were provided, all for free.

Interestingly and tragically, there are several stories that run in parallel with this one.  Before I get there though, it would be instructive to tell you a little about this process, both from the perspective of the licensed folk/interns/trainees, and from the folk we hope we were helpful to.

Will start with the experience of the trainees/interns/licensed folk.  Most universities require several hundred hours of internship/clinical experience for graduation.  The processing of these hours is supervised by a licensed therapist (who can be a supervisor, as regulated by the Board of Behavioral Sciences), and the student must pay for this process.  Most universities, in an uncomfortable wrenching of common sense, either don’t have someone to organize/and or set up/maintain these supervision placements, or they’re simply not updated for various reasons.  The student/trainee however, is still required to do this.  To add insult to injury, the trainee when in supervision, if they can find an agency, is rarely given a real experience of being supervised at their work.  It seems flabbergasting to consider this, yet it’s tragically true.

Similarly, interns (therapists just out of school) have to complete over 3000 hours of work with patients/clients, just to sit for the two licensing exams.  They have six years to complete this process, requiring continuing education to reset their chance to sit for the exams.  That means that they have to see clients, and that those hours also have to be supervised.  Related to both this issue and Judy’s (Ted’s, and mine) efforts, we were completely unable to get other clinicians to volunteer for either of these processes (for trainees or interns)- not even a couple of hours a month, let alone the minimal 2-4 hours a week.  In light of the complaints of most people we know not feeling like they received quality supervision, this is no small issue.

The second body of material that is really important here is the students and families.  There were of course the predictable experiences with clients who struggled with behavioral problems, substance use/addiction, depression, stress, bullying, pregnancy, self esteem, eating disorders, anxiety and the like.  It was also really common to have active suicidality, reports of abuse, the precursors of “thought disorders” (schizophrenia, and the like), violence, abandonment, PTSD, mood disorders (bipolar disorder and related problems) and more.  There was psychoeducation, crisis intervention, abuse reporting, ensuring of safety, documentation, creation and use of materials, referrals to resources, interfacing with administrators/Department of Children and Family Services/other clinicians/teachers/families and more, interviewing, showing up for IEP/planning meetings and more, and oh yeah… individual and family therapy.

The interns (and will give a little credit to us as well) braved all of these issues and more.  All for free.  Seven thousand, four hundred hours of it, and the attendant signing off of supervision hours.

We met weekly for all this time, as individuals and as a group, to meet the requirements for the relevant university, and for the Board of Behavioral Sciences.  We met in between to take care of paperwork.  To problem-solve.  To handle questions.  We met for lunches, at each others’ homes, in restaurants, in parking lots.  We celebrated birthdays, mourned losses, processed issues, checked one anothers’ heads.  There was a lot of happiness, crying, efforts to glean resource support to continue the work, discovery.

There’s certainly more to be said, and obviously, more work to be done.  Though this cycle of supervision is over, we still have a lot of passion and ideas for what might be next.  The whole point of writing this though, is simply to honor the work of Michael Cardenas, Eryka Gayoso, Elva Cortez, Jessica Wilson, Jeffrey Craig, Melissa Lamoureux MS, Ted Aaselund Psy.D, and most of all, Judy McGehee LMFT.  Thanks so much for making all this matter, and letting me participate.

PTSD, Euphemisms, and George Carlin

The famous American standup philosopher George Carlin has a fantastic piece about euphemisms.  Paraphrasing and simplifying, he offers that he’s against euphemistic language.  Part of what I’m with him on is that euphemisms tend to conceal the truth.

May 5th, there was this article in the Washington Post indicating that there are a group of psychiatrists hoping to change the term “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” (AKA “PTSD”) in the upcoming DSM-V (the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 5th Edition”, the industry standard for all things psychiatric diagnosis… quick primer on my website here) to “Post Traumatic Stress Injury“.  The change, they hope, will make it easier for people, particularly military personnel, to more readily seek help.  They are citing that the term PTSD has a stigma attached to it.

While it arguably does, “Post Traumatic Stress Injury” might also be an equally unhelpful euphemism.  Non-military personnel frequently get the symptoms of PTSD as well.  Victims of crimes, violence, sexual abuse and more often have sufficient symptoms to justify being diagnosed with the disorder (Wiki here, for a quick look).

My concern about this is not simply haggling the diagnosis.  In all candor, the tome (the DSM) is a convention (with some real science too, but arguably still a convention)- a means of shorthand for mental health professionals to communicate.  My interest in the book is mostly about how it helps us guide treatment, and obtain treatment from the relevant funding sources.

Back to Carlin, he specifically addresses PTSD.  He takes us through the historical context- that the problem began with our recognition of the symptoms post war.  A condition we used to refer to as “shellshock” gave way to “battle fatigue”, then “operational exhaustion” (probably the grossest evasion of the depth of the severity of the symptoms of the problem), eventually leading to the current “PTSD”- arguably in light of the awareness that lots of things besides war can cause the aforementioned symptoms above.

We need a shorthand.  This will be the 6th shorthand (if we count “combat stress”) we’ve endeavored to come up with.  What we need more though, is an honest representation (and advocacy of awareness) of the consequences of these horrific events.  I’m less worried as a professional about whether or not someone suffering needs help than I am about whether we can actually get them access to it- and our evasion of these truths, often through our language, prevents us from getting legislation, funding, and other resources necessary that we can serve all victims of trauma in the ways that they need and deserve most.  Sadly, my experience of the last 28 years (at this point) has led me to feel that how we communicate about these problems has led largely to desensitization, in part, due to a euphemistic way of communicating such problems.

On a related note, often, a lot of the language in my discipline serves the individuals and the discipline itself, rather than the sufferer.  Pharmaceutical companies are served, occasionally a “new” theorist is served in terms of marketing their ideas, insurance companies are served, but rarely is it people that are suffering who are served.  It’s a source of consternation for me, both personally and professionally.

Some might say I need to come up with a more accurate term.  Maybe I should, but it’s not really the part of this that I’m invested in.  It takes longer to talk about someone suffering flashbacks, avoiding situations and experiences, fears, hypervigilance, poor regulation of their feelings, struggling with being overwhelmed by sadness or shame, having their ability to function in their responsibilities and relationships diminished (and much more), and explain what these things are to people, specifically.  But seeing how these folk are so suffering, it’s clear that doing so is worth it.  Taking the time to live with these words and feelings means much not just in terms of understanding the suffering, but honoring it.  If we’re truly going to care for people who are suffering, it will take at least that.

Flickr Photos

DSM IV TR

Sadie first day home

Stranger Hand

More Photos
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers

%d bloggers like this: