Chapter 15 — Advanced Facilitation & Risk Management · iETA Field Manual

iETA

Field Manual for Natural Medicine Facilitation

Student Textbook · Inner EDGE Travel Agency

V2.0 · Phase 3
Draft Edition

Chapter 15 Phase 3 · Clinical & Practical Applications · Final Core Chapter

Advanced Facilitation &
Risk Management

Chapter 15 doesn't teach new skills. It puts the skills built across M08–M14 into situations that are harder, faster, and more ambiguous than anything practiced before — then tests whether they hold.

4 Lessons + 4 OSCEs 20 Hours Total PC1–PC6

By the End of This Chapter You Will Be Able To

Apply the five-layer complex case decision framework to multi-factor cases where two or more legitimate concerns are simultaneously in tension — producing a specific decision with documented reasoning.
Build and execute a group operations plan covering ratios, environment zones, co-facilitator roles, and M.4 compliance requirements.
Deliver the group pre-session agreements briefing — all five components — within the OSCE time window without reading from a script.
Execute the group emergency egress protocol within the timed window — activation signal, movement to muster point, headcount, and contemporaneous documentation initiation.
Identify the five policy pitfall categories in provided documents and propose specific correcting language — not vague critique, but actual revised text.
Produce a self-evaluation of mock facilitation performance that matches what external observers saw — specific, honest, and actionable.

§1 Complex Cases & Decision Framework

§2 Group Journey Facilitation

§3 Policy Pitfalls

§4 Mock Facilitation & Integration

Chapter Introduction

"M15 doesn't teach new skills. It puts the skills students already have into situations that are harder, faster, and more ambiguous than anything they've practiced before."

The complex cases in Section 1 are designed to be genuinely difficult — multiple factors in tension, no obvious answer, reasonable facilitators who would make different decisions. Section 2 adds the dimension of group dynamics: what happens to every M08–M14 skill when there are multiple participants, a co-facilitator to coordinate, and a room that requires simultaneous monitoring? Section 3 surfaces the ethical ambiguity that lives in real policy language. Section 4 is the integration event — a compressed end-to-end simulation demonstrating who you've become across the program.

The Group OSCE triple is the highest-stakes performance assessment in the program before the Capstone. G1 tests group consent and agreements. G2 tests mid-session triage when one participant is in distress and the rest of the group still needs to be held. G3 tests emergency egress — timed. All three together answer one question: is this person ready to manage a group journey?

Section 1 · Lesson 1

Complex Scenarios & Decision Framework

Multi-factor cases · prioritization hierarchy · the documentation of complex decisions · the easy cases sort themselves

3.0 hrs sync · 1.0 hr async · 4.0 hrs total

Why This Matters

The easy cases sort themselves. A participant discloses active suicidal ideation — you know what to do. M15 addresses the cases that don't sort themselves: two legitimate concerns pulling in opposite directions, a clock running, a participant watching you think. These are where professional judgment lives — not knowledge. The framework provides structure, not answers.

The Multi-Factor Case Structure

Complex clinical cases in facilitation typically involve at least two factors in simultaneous tension. Common pairings: participant autonomy vs. safety (the participant insists they're fine; your observation suggests otherwise); scope integrity vs. immediate care (a participant needs something you're not trained to provide; the clinical resource isn't available); group safety vs. individual care (addressing one participant's distress is pulling attention from others); documentation standards vs. time pressure (the contemporaneous note requires attention while the session requires presence).

None of these pairings have a universal answer. All of them have a structured decision process. And crucially — the documentation of a complex case must be detailed precisely because it is complex. A note that says "participant appeared distressed — facilitator responded" is not a defensible record in a complex case. The standard of care being demonstrated needs to be visible in the documentation.

Prioritization Hierarchy — Where to Start When Multiple Factors Activate

When factors are in tension, apply a consistent hierarchy. First: immediate physical safety — life risk supersedes everything else and activates EAP regardless of other considerations. Second: participant psychological safety — within physical safety bounds, what does this participant need to remain contained? Third: scope integrity — what is the facilitator trained and authorized to do, and what requires referral or consultation? Fourth: documentation and communication — what needs to be recorded and who needs to know? This hierarchy doesn't resolve every case. It tells you where to begin.

iETA Field Manual · Reference Tool Complex Case Decision Framework — Five Layers

Layer 1Identify All Active Factors

Before deciding anything, name every factor that is active. Participant status. Ethical obligations. Scope limits. Documentation requirements. Time pressure. Group safety if applicable. If you start deciding before naming all the factors, you'll optimize for the first one you saw.

"What is present right now that requires a response — specifically?"

"What else is present that I might address last — and do I have that right?"

Layer 2Apply the Prioritization Hierarchy

Immediate physical safety first → participant psychological safety → scope integrity → documentation and communication. This hierarchy doesn't resolve the case — it tells you where to begin.

"Is there an immediate risk to physical safety? If yes — EAP protocol, everything else waits."

The priority order exists because life risk overrides all other considerations. Scope integrity matters — but it doesn't matter more than preventing a participant from dying.

Layer 3Identify the Scope Boundary

What is within facilitator scope to address? What requires referral or consultation? What requires supervisor contact? When uncertain — the default is the more conservative interpretation. Document the uncertainty and the consultation.

"What specifically am I trained and authorized to do in this situation?"

"What is this situation calling for that is outside my scope — and who can provide it?"

Layer 4Name Your Decision and Why

State a specific decision. Not "I would proceed carefully." Name the decision in one sentence and connect it to the framework. If you can't name it, you're still in Layer 2.

"My decision is [specific action] because [specific reasoning based on the hierarchy]."

Layer 5State What You Would Document — Specifically

The decision is only as defensible as its documentation. Complex cases require detailed notes — the standard of care being demonstrated needs to be visible. Write the entry, not just "I would document it."

"The documentation entry would read: [specific language, specific timing, specific location]."

⚠Common Pitfall — Skipping Documentation in the Decision

Students focus entirely on the clinical decision and forget that the documentation of that decision is part of the decision. In a complex case, a note that says "participant appeared distressed — facilitator responded" is not a professional record. The specific actions taken, the reasoning behind them, the time they were taken, and the outcome — all of this needs to be in the record. The Capstone oral panel will ask what you would document. Be ready with a specific answer, not "I would write it down."

Self-Check — Section 1

I can apply all five layers of the complex case framework to a multi-factor case — starting by naming all active factors before making any decision.
I know the prioritization hierarchy — and I know that Layer 1 (immediate physical safety) activates the EAP regardless of everything else.
I understand why complex cases require more detailed documentation than routine cases — the standard of care being demonstrated needs to be visible in the record.

Moving Forward

You have the decision framework. Section 2 applies everything you've built to the most complex operational context in the program: group facilitation — multiple participants, a co-facilitator to coordinate, a room that requires simultaneous monitoring, and an emergency egress protocol that is timed.

Section 2 · Lesson 2

Group Journey Facilitation

Group ops plan · co-facilitator roles · group agreements briefing · mid-session triage · emergency egress (timed)

5.0 hrs sync · 2.0 hrs async · 7.0 hrs total

Why This Matters

Every facilitation skill built in M08–M14 was developed in a 1:1 context. Group facilitation multiplies every variable: multiple participants with different DISC styles and different distress patterns, a co-facilitator whose actions affect the room without consultation, and a physical environment that must be designed for simultaneous monitoring. The Group OSCE triple (G1/G2/G3) is the highest-stakes performance assessment before the Capstone.

The Group Operations Plan — The Session's Professional Foundation

Every group session requires a Group Ops Plan before the session begins. The plan covers: participant-to-facilitator ratio (confirmed before the session — not approximate), physical environment zones (main room, low-stimulus area, exit path, muster point — all named and mapped), co-facilitator role assignments (primary and support facilitator roles defined for each phase of the session, including who activates the egress protocol if needed), and equipment and materials confirmed. The Group Ops Plan is a portfolio artifact and is referenced in the G1 OSCE briefing.

Mid-Session Triage — The G2 Challenge

G2 tests the most demanding group facilitation scenario: one participant enters distress while the session is active for others. Two things must happen simultaneously — the support facilitator addresses the distressed participant, and the primary facilitator maintains the group container for everyone else. The primary facilitator's role during a participant distress event is to provide the group with a regulated, grounded presence that communicates "this is being handled and you are safe." Speaking directly to the group — briefly, calmly — is often more effective than silence, which allows anxiety to spread. Then return to container. Document every distress event even if resolved without EAP activation.

In-Session Co-Facilitator Communication

Co-facilitators communicate during a group session without breaking the group container. Pre-agreed signals cover the critical decisions: "I'm moving to the low-stimulus room with participant X" (support facilitator signal); "come support me with participant Y" (primary facilitator signal); "I'm activating EAP" (primary facilitator signal, verbal or clearly visible). These signals must be rehearsed before the session — a co-facilitator pair that hasn't rehearsed is improvising under pressure, and improvisation in an EAP situation is a safety risk.

Portfolio Artifact Group Operations Plan — Pre-Session Requirements

Session Details & Ratio Compliance

Total participants confirmed: ___ · Facilitator(s): ___ · Ratio: ___:1 · Ratio compliance confirmed ☐

Date / time / location: _______________

Primary facilitator: _______________ · Support facilitator: _______________

Environment Zones Confirmed

Main room capacity and layout confirmed for group size ☐

Low-stimulus area identified and accessible ☐ · Location: _______________

Exit path clear ☐ · Muster point confirmed ☐ · Location: _______________

EMS response time assessed ☐ · Address in EMS-ready format confirmed ☐

Co-Facilitator Role Assignments

Pre-session agreements briefing: Primary ☐ · Support ☐

Mid-session monitoring rotation: agreed ☐ · Signal for "support needed": _______________

EAP activation responsibility: _______________

Egress protocol rehearsed between co-facilitators ☐

Participant-Specific Preparation

All participants screened and cleared ☐ · Any individual prep follow-up needed: _______________

Individual support persons briefed ☐ · Touch contracts documented ☐

Any group dynamic considerations from M09 screening (who may need reassurance about group setting): _______________

Group Agreements Briefing — Five Components · G1 OSCE

Collective Confidentiality

"What happens in this room today stays in this room. That means each of you is in a confidential container with everyone else here. You can share your own experience outside — but not anyone else's. When in doubt, ask: 'Is this mine to share?' If you're not sure, the answer is no."

Explicitly name that this applies to what they observe about other participants, not just what is said aloud.

Peer Witnessing — What This Is and Isn't

"You may see or hear other participants having their own experience today. Your job is to be present with your own experience — not to manage or interpret anyone else's. If you have a concern about another participant, get my attention or [support facilitator's] attention. Don't intervene yourself."

This is the group-specific extension of the M12 integration circle framing — witnessing without processing others' experience.

Touch and Physical Space

"Our Touch Contract from our preparation applies today. Touch from me or [co-facilitator] is only offered with your explicit permission for the purposes we discussed. If anyone comes near you in a way that feels uncomfortable, getting my attention is always the right move. You are always allowed to say 'not now' or 'please move back.'"

The Touch Contract applies only to facilitation touch. The opt-out applies to both facilitators and to the physical proximity of other participants.

Movement and Safety Zones

"If at any point today you need a quieter space, [support facilitator] can accompany you to [location]. You don't need to ask permission — signal [co-facilitator] with a gentle gesture and they'll support you in moving."

Point to the exit and low-stimulus room location. Brief, matter-of-fact, not alarming.

Emergency Expectations

"If there is ever a situation where we need to move everyone out of this space, I will use clear, calm verbal direction. [Co-facilitator's name] will support each of you. You'll hear me say '[specific signal phrase]' and the instruction will be to [specific action]. We've planned this carefully — I want you to know it's part of how we take care of everyone here."

The signal phrase and specific action must be agreed with co-facilitator before the session. Practice it. Do not improvise this in session.

G3 OSCE — Timed · Know This Before the Session · Not a Script to Read During Activation Group EAP / Emergency Egress Protocol Checklist

G3 is timed — you must execute this protocol within the defined window. Practice the sequence until it is automatic. The checklist is a reference, not something you read during activation. If you have to think about the next step, you haven't practiced enough.

Activation — Primary Facilitator

State activation signal phrase — clearly, calmly, no urgency language that increases panic

Direct co-facilitator to support participant movement toward exit path

Maintain calm verbal direction throughout

Contact service center emergency line if medical emergency present

Movement — Support Facilitator

Support each participant in moving — do not leave any participant unaccompanied

Begin headcount as participants move — track names against intake list

Guide participants to muster point — specific location confirmed in Ops Plan

Any participant requiring medical attention — stay with them; call for primary

Muster Point — Headcount

Confirm all participants by name — against intake list

Confirm both facilitators accounted for

Report headcount: "All [N] participants and [N] facilitators accounted for."

Any missing participant — initiate search; do not leave muster point unmanned

Post-Egress Documentation

Begin contemporaneous incident log as soon as participants are stable

Contact supervisor — same day

Healing center incident report — within 24 hours

Individual follow-up plan for each participant — confirm support person contacts

Self-Check — Section 2 · Group OSCE Preparation

My Group Ops Plan is complete and covers all four sections — including ratio compliance confirmed, environment zones mapped, co-facilitator roles assigned, and egress protocol rehearsed.
I can deliver all five components of the group agreements briefing within the G1 OSCE time window without reading from a script.
I can execute the emergency egress sequence in order from memory — the checklist is a reference, not something I need to read during activation.
I understand the G2 challenge: addressing one participant's distress while maintaining the group container for everyone else — and I know what the primary facilitator says to the group in that moment.

G3 is timed. If you have to think about the next step during activation, you haven't practiced enough. Run through the egress sequence until the order is automatic.

Moving Forward

You can manage a group session under pressure. Section 3 shifts to the professional skill of reading policy documents for the gaps and gray zones — not just for what they say, but for what they imply, assume, and leave unaddressed.

Section 3 · Lesson 3

Policy Pitfalls & Ethical Gray Areas

Five pitfall categories · reading policy for gaps · the critique structure · proposed remedy required

2.5 hrs sync · 1.5 hrs async · 4.0 hrs total

Why This Matters

The policies that cause the most harm in facilitation aren't the ones that are clearly wrong. They're the ones that look reasonable on their face and create unexpected problems in application. The critique skill is reading policy for the gap between what it says and what it does — and producing specific correcting language, not vague observation.

The Critique Structure — Vague Critique Without Proposed Remedy Is Observation, Not Analysis

For each policy document: identify the intended ethical obligation it serves; identify the gap or gray zone (what the policy doesn't address or addresses ambiguously); name the specific scenario where the gap creates a problem; propose clarifying language that addresses the gap without overcorrecting. The proposed language must be specific — not "this should say more about conflicts of interest" but "add the following sentence after [location]: [specific language]." Vague critique without proposed remedy is observation, not professional analysis. The 750–1,000 word policy critique assessment uses this same structure.

1 · Scope Creep in Language

Policy uses clinical language to describe facilitation services, or implies clinical outcomes that exceed facilitator scope. Common markers: "therapeutic," "healing," "treatment," "evidence-based outcomes."

What specific language creates this problem — and what should it say instead?

2 · Conflict of Interest Gaps

Policy addresses financial conflicts abstractly without naming specific scenarios — referral fees, shared ownership, revenue from recommended products. Abstract policies don't protect against specific harms.

What specific conflict scenario is not addressed — and what language would address it?

3 · Power Imbalance Blindness

Policy treats participant autonomy as absolute without acknowledging B.3 altered-state vulnerability. A policy that says "participants always decide" without acknowledging impaired decision-making capacity after a session is dangerous.

What scenario makes this gap visible — and what should the policy add to address it?

4 · Confidentiality Ambiguity

Policy states confidentiality requirements without specifying exceptions — leaving mandatory reporting obligations unclear. Incomplete confidentiality statements may create confusion when a mandatory report is required.

What specific exception is not named — and what language would make it explicit?

5 · Consent Drift Enablement

Policy describes the consent process once without specifying that it applies to every session — implicitly enabling the consent drift pattern (Ch14 §3). Policies that are silent on frequency imply that once is enough.

What language would close the silence — requiring fresh consent for each service period specifically?

Policy Critique Practice — Policy Critique Assessment Preparation

Identify a pitfall category in a policy document your instructor provides (or in one piece of iETA's own documented professional standards). Name the gap, describe the specific scenario where it creates a problem, and write the specific correcting language you would propose. This is the policy critique structure — a 750–1,000 word version of this same exercise is the assessment.

Self-Check — Section 3

I can name all five policy pitfall categories — and for each one, describe the scenario where the gap causes a specific harm.
I know the critique structure requires proposed correcting language — vague critique without a specific proposed remedy is observation, not professional analysis.
I can identify the sentence in a policy document that "sounds fine and still worries me" — and articulate specifically why it worries me and what it should say instead.

Moving Forward

You can identify gaps in policy documents. Section 4 is the integration event for the entire program — a compressed end-to-end simulation demonstrating who you've become across M08–M15, assessed against a five-domain rubric that includes self-evaluation accuracy as a domain in its own right.

Section 4 · Lesson 4

Mock Facilitation & Integration Assessment

End-to-end simulation · five-domain rubric · self-evaluation accuracy · who you've become across the program

4.5 hrs sync · 0.5 hr async · 5.0 hrs total

Why This Matters

M15 L4 is not primarily about technique. Students have built technique across M08–M14. It is about integration: does the student use what they know smoothly and appropriately across the arc? Does their presence quality hold through the turbulence event? Does their documentation reflect what actually happened? Does their self-evaluation match what the observers saw? These are the questions the Capstone OSCE tests — L4 is the practice.

What the Mock Facilitation Arc Covers

The compressed simulation runs a student through the full facilitation arc — screening review and Go/Hold/Refer decision, preparation briefing with intention-setting and expectation calibration, an administration excerpt with a turbulence event, and an integration close with follow-up plan. The total arc is approximately 45–60 minutes per student. The turbulence event is designed to test presence quality under pressure — not technique selection (which is almost always correct) but whether the student's actual physiological regulation holds when something goes wrong in the room.

Self-Evaluation Accuracy — Domain 5

Domain 5 of the debrief rubric assesses self-evaluation accuracy — whether the student's self-assessment of their performance matches what external observers saw. This is not about self-criticism or self-praise. It is about calibration: can the student see what actually happened in their facilitation, including the moments when they overcorrected, the moments when their scope held under pressure, and the moments when it didn't? A student who gives themselves high marks on everything the observers flagged has not demonstrated reflective capacity. A student who catastrophizes every minor misstep has not either.

iETA Field Manual · Portfolio Artifact Mock Facilitation Debrief Rubric — Five Domains

1Readiness Assessment

Go/Hold/Refer decision quality and documentation. Specifically: factors named, decision clearly reasoned, documentation captures the decision basis.

→ Exemplary: Decision clearly reasoned with specific factors named. Defensible in debrief.

→ Developing: Lacks clear reasoning; significant factors missed; student cannot explain the decision when asked.

2Preparation Quality

Intention-setting specificity, expectation calibration language, three-space framework. Is the preparation genuinely collaborative and scope-appropriate?

→ Exemplary: Intention-setting genuinely collaborative. Language accurate and scope-appropriate. Three-space framework natural, not mechanical.

→ Developing: Preparation perfunctory or missing essential elements. Outcome language overclaims or is stripped bare.

3Turbulence Response

Presence held under pressure. Technique calibrated to type and intensity. Threshold assessment accurate — no unnecessary EAP activation, no missed EAP when warranted.

→ Exemplary: Presence quality holds through the turbulence event — student visibly regulated. Threshold correctly identified.

→ Developing: Presence breaks significantly. Threshold badly misjudged in either direction.

4Integration Close

M12 structure applied naturally. Scope maintained throughout — no interpretation or clinical framing. Follow-up plan specific with next contact timing and safety plan status.

→ Exemplary: Integration close uses M12 structure naturally. Scope maintained. Follow-up plan specific.

→ Developing: Close absent or minimal. Scope drift present. No meaningful follow-up plan.

5Self-Evaluation Accuracy

Honest and specific. Matches observer assessment. Growth edge named specifically and behaviorally — not general aspiration. Student can say "I missed..." or "I overcorrected when..." without prompting.

→ Exemplary: Self-evaluation matches what observers saw. Growth edge specific and behavioral. No defensive rationalization.

→ Developing: Significant divergence from observer assessment. Cannot name a specific growth edge. Defensive or excessively self-critical.

Chapter 15 — Am I Ready?

I can apply the five-layer complex case framework to a multi-factor case — naming all active factors before making any decision, and stating what I would document specifically.
My Group Ops Plan is complete, co-facilitator roles are assigned, and the egress protocol has been rehearsed.
I can deliver the five-component group agreements briefing without a script — within the G1 OSCE time window.
The emergency egress sequence is automatic — I don't need to think about the next step during activation.
I can identify all five policy pitfall categories in a document and produce specific correcting language — not vague critique.
My self-evaluation of mock facilitation performance is specific, honest, and matches what external observers would see — including the growth edges.

End of core curriculum. Chapter 15 is the last core chapter. The Capstone is next — portfolio review, comprehensive OSCE, oral defense. Everything built from M01 forward is now in play. Students who arrive with a specific, honest PD plan, a boundary policy addendum that names their actual risks, and the ability to defend an ethical position under challenge are ready. Start there.

Chapter 15 — Key Takeaways

M15 doesn't teach new skills. It reveals whether the skills built across M08–M14 hold under real pressure — harder cases, group complexity, timed protocols, and integration assessment.
The prioritization hierarchy for complex cases: immediate physical safety first → participant psychological safety → scope integrity → documentation. Life risk overrides everything else. Scope integrity matters — but not more than preventing a participant from dying.
In complex cases, the documentation must be detailed. "Participant appeared distressed — facilitator responded" is not a professional record. The standard of care being demonstrated needs to be visible in the note.
Group facilitation multiplies every variable. The Group Ops Plan is the session's professional foundation — ratios, zones, co-facilitator roles, and egress protocol all confirmed before the session begins.
G2 requires two simultaneous actions: support facilitator addresses the distressed participant; primary facilitator maintains the group container. "I'm going to ask you all to take a moment with your own experience" — brief, calm, then return to container.
G3 is timed. The egress sequence must be automatic — not consulted. The checklist is a reference for after, not a script for during. Practice until the order requires no thought.
Policy critique requires proposed remedy, not just identification of gaps. "This should say more about conflicts of interest" is observation. "Add the following sentence: [specific language]" is professional analysis.
Domain 5 of the mock facilitation rubric is self-evaluation accuracy — whether your self-assessment matches what observers saw. Defensive overrating and catastrophizing underrating are both Domain 5 failures.
The Capstone is next. Everything from M01 forward is now in play. Students who arrive with a specific, honest PD plan, a boundary policy addendum that names their actual risks, and the ability to defend an ethical position under challenge are ready.

Chapter Glossary

Key terms from Chapter 15 — defined for reference and study.

Co-Facilitator Communication Protocol

Pre-agreed signals for communicating during a group session without breaking the container — including signals for "I'm moving a participant to the low-stimulus room," "I need support," and "I'm activating EAP." Must be rehearsed before the session. Improvised signals under pressure are a safety risk.

Complex Case Decision Framework

A five-layer structure for multi-factor cases: (1) name all active factors, (2) apply the prioritization hierarchy, (3) identify scope boundaries, (4) name a specific decision and why, (5) state the documentation. Produces a defensible position under examination pressure.

Emergency Egress Protocol (Group)

The timed sequence for moving all participants to the muster point — activation signal, support facilitator movement support, headcount, and contemporaneous incident documentation initiation. Assessed in G3 OSCE within a defined time window. Must be automatic, not consulted.

G1 / G2 / G3 OSCE

The Group OSCE triple: G1 (group pre-session agreements briefing, 15 min), G2 (mid-session triage with simultaneous distress management and container maintenance, 15 min), G3 (emergency egress protocol, timed). All three required for Capstone clearance.

Group Operations Plan

A portfolio artifact completed before every group session — covering participant-to-facilitator ratio (required ratio confirmed before each session), physical environment zones, co-facilitator role assignments, and participant-specific preparation notes. The session's professional foundation.

Policy Pitfall Categories

Five categories of policy gaps: scope creep in language, conflict of interest gaps, power imbalance blindness, confidentiality ambiguity, and consent drift enablement. Each gap is identified with a specific scenario where it causes harm and a proposed correcting language revision.

Prioritization Hierarchy (Complex Cases)

The decision ordering when multiple factors are simultaneously active: (1) immediate physical safety, (2) participant psychological safety, (3) scope integrity, (4) documentation and communication. Life risk overrides all other considerations. Scope integrity is third, not first.

Self-Evaluation Accuracy (Domain 5)

The mock facilitation rubric domain assessing whether the student's self-assessment of their performance matches what external observers saw — specifically, whether growth edges are named specifically and behaviorally rather than generally or defensively avoided.

Knowledge Check

Attempt each question before checking the Answer Key at the back of the textbook. For the case-based questions — practice the response aloud before your Group OSCE window.

Q1Multiple ChoicePrioritization Hierarchy · L1

During a session, a participant suddenly experiences what appears to be a seizure. Simultaneously, a second participant is in the middle of an emotionally significant disclosure. The facilitator's first action should be:

Stay with the disclosing participant and signal the co-facilitator to manage the medical event
Activate EAP for the participant with the possible seizure — immediate physical safety supersedes all other factors
Assess both participants simultaneously before deciding which needs priority response
Gently close the disclosure conversation and redirect both participants to grounding exercises