Module & Chapter 16
Tier 1
Module Cover Sheet
Faculty & Student Reference · Regulatory Anchor
Module 16 — Phase 6: Specialized Tracks & Empowerment Phase 6
Supporting Independent Home Travelers
Some participants choose to journey at home — for reasons of access, privacy, cost, personal tradition, or autonomy. This module equips facilitators to prepare those travelers as thoroughly as possible so they can journey independently and safely. The emphasis is on the traveler: what they know, what tools they carry, how their support person is trained, how their environment is prepared. The facilitator does not monitor an active home journey. The facilitator is available if the traveler or support person reaches out — but the journey is theirs. The professional obligation is thorough preparation, clear scope, and a preserved relationship the traveler can rely on.
30 hrs Total
21 sync / 9 async
6 Lessons
PC7 — Advanced Specialization
Phase 6 Elective
Module Learning Objectives
Bloom's tagged · 6 objectives · By module completion
-
1Identify the unique risk landscape of independent home journeys — environmental, interpersonal, logistical, and emergency-response — and distinguish which risks are within facilitator scope to address versus refer.
-
2Demonstrate how to equip a traveler and support person with an escalation decision tree and contact protocol that enables them to manage the journey independently — and reach the facilitator when needed.
-
3Conduct a structured support person briefing that equips a non-facilitator with the specific knowledge, communication tools, and escalation thresholds needed to support a traveler safely.
-
4Design a pre-journey home environment checklist covering physical safety, emergency access, communication tools, and environmental preparation within facilitator scope.
-
5Apply minimal-data documentation practices to remote facilitation contexts — protecting participant privacy while maintaining the records that professional accountability requires.
-
6Conduct a teleintegration debrief session that adapts standard integration practice to the remote setting — including technology-failure protocols and distance-appropriate scope boundaries.
Regulatory Crosswalk & iETA Alignment
iETA exclusive content · No direct CO/NV regulatory analog
Regulatory Note — Phase 6 Scope
M16 content does not map to specific CO NMTP regulatory requirements because home-based psilocybin journeys outside licensed healing centers are not currently within CO NMTP authorized practice. This module prepares facilitators to provide harm-reduction-adjacent support — preparation information, remote availability, support person training, and post-journey integration — for participants who are making autonomous choices. Facilitators do NOT facilitate home sessions, arrange access to substances, or authorize any activity outside CO NMTP scope. The professional obligation is to reduce risk for people who will travel regardless, not to endorse the activity.
| Source | Standard | Requirement | Lesson Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
| iETA X.2 | Harm Reduction — Independent Settings | Facilitators trained to support participants in non-clinical settings using harm-reduction framework within facilitator scope | L1–L4 — primary coverage |
| iETA X.2 | Consent in Non-Clinical Contexts | Consent and communication tools adapted for settings outside the healing center structure | L1, L3 — consent framing |
| iETA X.2 | Remote Safety Protocols | Check-in cadence, escalation trees, EMS coordination for remote facilitation contexts | L2 — primary coverage |
| iETA X.2 | Documentation — Minimal Data | Privacy-protective documentation practices for non-center remote contexts | L5 — primary coverage |
| iETA X.2 | Teleintegration | Integration practice adapted for remote delivery, including technology protocols | L6 — primary coverage |
| PC1 | Ethics & Regulatory Alignment | Scope discipline maintained throughout — facilitator does not authorize or facilitate illegal activity; harm reduction framing throughout | All lessons — cross-cutting |
Assessment Summary
Module-level overview
Formative (ongoing)
Risk landscape mapping exercise (L1) · Support person check-in simulation (L2) · Support person briefing roleplay (L3) · Home safety checklist design (L4) · Documentation audit (L5) · Teleintegration roleplay + remote protocol (L6)
OSCE — Summative (single station)
Task: Conduct a telesupport check-in call with an anxious traveler mid-home journey — assess state, apply the escalation decision tree, maintain scope, and produce a spoken documentation note.
Duration: 12 minutes · Pass/Fail checklist (6/7 required) + Analytic rubric
Portfolio artifacts: Support person briefing packet (L3) · Home safety checklist (L4) · Remote protocol document (L6)
Lesson Overview
6 lessons · 5.0 hrs each · 30 hrs total · 21 sync / 9 async
| Lesson | Title & Focus | Time | Key Activity | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 | Home-Travel Risk Landscape Unique risks; mitigation mapping | 5.0 hrs · 3.5 sync + 1.5 async | Risk-mapping exercise; case sort | Quiz · Risk map artifact |
| L2 | Remote Availability & Escalation Protocols Support person decision tree; facilitator availability; EMS coordination | 5.0 hrs · 3.5 sync + 1.5 async | Live check-in simulation; decision tree build | OSCE telesupport (12 min) |
| L3 | Support Person Training Briefing non-facilitator supports | 5.0 hrs · 3.5 sync + 1.5 async | Briefing roleplay; support person packet design | Portfolio artifact |
| L4 | Environment & Logistics at Home Checklist design; environmental prep | 5.0 hrs · 3.5 sync + 1.5 async | Checklist design workshop; peer review | Home safety checklist artifact |
| L5 | Documentation & Privacy at Home Minimal-data practices; digital security | 5.0 hrs · 4.0 sync + 1.0 async | Documentation case analysis; privacy audit exercise | Quiz · Documentation sample |
| L6 | Post-Journey Debrief at Distance Teleintegration basics; technology protocols | 5.0 hrs · 3.5 sync + 1.5 async | Teleintegration roleplay; remote protocol document | Teleintegration roleplay · Remote protocol |
| OSCE | Telesupport OSCE Active home journey check-in; escalation | 12 min per candidate | Telesupport call with anxious traveler; escalate appropriately; spoken documentation note | Pass/Below · Rubric + Checklist |
Prerequisites & Sequencing
Required before M16: Capstone completion (Phases 1–5 all passed). M16 is Phase 6 — it presupposes the full core curriculum arc. The specific content this module builds on: M05 (suicide risk and escalation), M08–M09 (readiness and screening), M11 (administration protocols and EAP), M12 (integration facilitation), M13 (self-care and professional limits). Students without these foundations cannot meaningfully engage with M16's advanced application contexts.
Framing note for students: Phase 6 is elective and specialized. Choosing M16 signals a specific professional intention — to work at the edges of facilitation scope with people who most need a trained professional's support. The professional discipline required is higher, not lower, than in healing center contexts. Students who choose this track should be prepared to encounter more ethical ambiguity, not less.
iETA Program Context — Why This Module Exists
iETA's founding identity is rooted in the reality that many people experience psychedelics outside licensed settings — and that harm reduction principles demand that trained facilitators be equipped to engage responsibly with that reality rather than refuse to acknowledge it. M16 is not a workaround to CO NMTP scope — it is a deliberate harm-reduction framework for providing professional support to autonomous individuals. The facilitator in M16 does not facilitate home journeys. The facilitator provides preparation support, remote safety availability, support person training, and post-journey integration. The distinction is not semantic — it is the professional and ethical foundation of the entire module.
Tier 2
Instructor Guide
Facilitator Copy · Not for Distribution · Full Lesson Arc + OSCE Package
M16 Instructor Guide — Phase 6
Supporting Independent Home Travelers
The organizing principle of this module is simple: the facilitator's job is to prepare the traveler so thoroughly that the facilitator does not need to be present during the journey. The traveler travels. The support person supports. The facilitator has done the work before the journey begins — and is available if contact is initiated by the traveler or support person, but is not actively monitoring. This shifts the weight of M16 heavily toward preparation quality: the risk assessment, the support person briefing, the environment checklist, the teleintegration skills. Students who have trained in healing center contexts will need to actively resist the pull toward active monitoring. The most important thing you do in M16 happens before the journey, not during it.
6 Lessons · 30 hrs
1 OSCE (12 min)
PC7 Primary
Phase 6 Elective
Lesson 1
5.0 hrs · 3.5 sync + 1.5 async · PC7, PC3
Home-Travel Risk Landscape
3.5 hrs sync + 1.5 hrs async
Objective: Identify the unique risk landscape of independent home journeys and distinguish which risks are within facilitator scope to address versus refer.
Most of the risk management curriculum in this program was designed for a specific context: a licensed healing center, with controlled environment, trained staff, emergency protocols, and physical co-presence. Remove that context and almost every assumption changes. There is no clearing path you designed. There is no other facilitator a few rooms away. There is no EAP you can activate by turning toward another person. Emergency services may be 20 minutes from a rural home. The participant's family may not know what is happening. The risk landscape for a home journey is not worse than a healing center journey — it is different. Facilitators who have only trained for one context will make category errors in the other. This lesson is about developing a complete, specific, and honest picture of what the home context actually contains.
Lesson Sequence
1 · Opening — The Range of Participant Realities (20 min)
"Before we begin — in one sentence, what's the most significant difference between a healing center journey and a home journey, from a safety standpoint?" Take 4–5 responses. Hold without evaluating. Then: "We're about to map this in detail. Keep those first instincts — some are right. Some miss critical things. We'll find out which."
This opening surfaces existing mental models before the lesson shapes them. Students who have worked in harm reduction contexts will often name access-to-emergency-services immediately. Students who haven't will often focus on set and setting (correct but incomplete). Neither is wrong — together they start building the full picture. Do not correct yet.
2 · Lecture — Four Risk Domains in Home Contexts (45 min)
Frame the four domains: (1) Environmental — physical space, egress, hazard removal, neighborhood context, proximity to emergency services. (2) Interpersonal — support person availability, reliability, and competence; family members who may or may not know what is happening; participant isolation risk. (3) Logistical — communication reliability, device charge, GPS access for emergency dispatch, medication access. (4) Emergency response lag — EMS response time in different contexts; what happens in the time before help arrives; what a support person can and cannot be expected to manage alone.
The emergency response lag discussion is where the room often gets quiet. Students realize that a 3-minute EAP response in a healing center becomes a 15–20 minute EMS response in a rural setting. Name this directly: "That gap is not a reason to refuse to engage with people who are choosing this path. It is a reason to prepare them and their support more carefully, and to know when the risk profile means you cannot in good conscience provide support."
Exercise — Risk Landscape Mapping (50 min)
Small groups of 3. Each group receives a different participant profile with a described home setting. Groups must: (1) Map the risk landscape across all four domains. (2) Identify which risks are within facilitator scope to address. (3) Flag any risks that would constitute a Hold — the facilitator cannot in good conscience provide support for this participant in this setting. (4) Note what would change the Hold to a Go. Full class debrief: each group presents their Hold decision and reasoning.
- Profile A: Urban apartment, reliable support person (friend with no medical training), participant has completed preparation, no concerning history. EMS 5 minutes away. → Most likely Go with thorough support person briefing
- Profile B: Rural property, 35 min from EMS, participant's partner is the support person but has expressed ambivalence about the journey. Participant has a history of cardiovascular issue (cleared by GP). → Likely Hold pending partner commitment and EMS proximity assessment
- Profile C: Participant lives alone, declining to involve anyone as support person. "I do everything alone." EMS 8 minutes away. Prior positive home journey experience. → Clear Hold — no support person is a non-negotiable safety minimum
Debrief Questions
What made Profile C a clearer Hold than Profile B, even though B had more objective risk factors?
Where did your group disagree? What was the actual disagreement about — the risk level, or your scope to address it?
What one additional piece of information would most change your assessment for each profile?
3 · Case Discussion — The Refusal Decision (40 min)
Present: A participant has completed full preparation, has a support person, lives 10 minutes from EMS, has a clear and meaningful intention, no contraindications. The risk profile is favorable by every measurable standard. But you have a persistent gut feeling that something is off — you can't name it. Do you proceed?
This is not a trick question. Let the room sit with genuine disagreement. The correct answer is: your gut is data. You are not obligated to proceed when your professional judgment says something is wrong, even without a nameable reason. Document the concern. Contact your supervisor. Either name the thing or accept that your assessment is incomplete — but do not override persistent professional discomfort with intellectual reassurance. This is PC6 embedded in PC7 content.
Watch For
- Students who minimize the rural EMS gap — this is the most commonly underestimated risk factor in home contexts
- Students who conflate "participant wants this" with "participant is safe for this" — autonomy is real, but it doesn't change risk profile
- Students with strong harm-reduction backgrounds may push back on the Hold criteria — honor the impulse but be clear: "Harm reduction and no-support-person are not compatible"
- Students who overcorrect in the other direction and want to decline support for anyone not in a healing center — this misses the module's purpose entirely
Async Assignment — Due Before L2
Using the four-domain risk framework from L1, map the risk landscape for a hypothetical home traveler of your own design — someone you can imagine working with realistically, given your professional context. Document: (1) The four-domain risk assessment. (2) Your Go/Hold decision and reasoning. (3) One thing about this imagined participant that you would find challenging to hold professionally. Submit as a 400-word structured reflection. This is pre-work for L2's escalation tree exercise.
Bridge to L2
L1 gave us the landscape. L2 gives us the instrument panel — what does it look like to actually be in contact with a traveler during a home journey, and how do you know when to escalate? The remote check-in is not just a safety protocol. It is the entire relational container during a home journey. How you use it determines everything.
Lesson 2
5.0 hrs · 3.5 sync + 1.5 async · PC7, PC4
Remote Availability & Escalation Protocols
3.5 hrs sync + 1.5 hrs async
Objective: Equip the traveler and support person with a clear escalation decision tree and contact protocol so they can manage the journey independently — and know exactly when and how to reach the facilitator if needed.
The facilitator does not monitor an active home journey. The facilitator prepares the traveler and support person so thoroughly that monitoring is not needed. L2 is about designing that preparation: what decision tree does the support person carry? At what specific threshold do they reach out? What happens when they do? The facilitator's availability is real — but it is a safety net the traveler and support person know how to access, not a presence that is actively watching. Done well, this empowers the traveler. Done poorly — either by over-prescribing contact or by leaving the support person without a clear threshold — it creates either dependency or abandonment.
Lesson Sequence
1 · Lecture — What the Traveler and Support Person Carry (40 min)
The facilitator's L2 work product is a clear contact protocol the traveler and support person hold before the journey begins. Frame the four states the support person needs to be able to recognize and respond to: (A) Traveler progressing — hold steady, no contact needed. (B) Traveler distressed but oriented and responsive — use grounding tools prepared in L1/L3; may choose to contact facilitator for coaching. (C) Traveler significantly distressed, support person uncertain — contact the facilitator; facilitator coaches support person remotely. (D) Physiological indicators present — contact 911 immediately; then notify facilitator. The facilitator does not initiate contact during the journey. The support person initiates contact if needed, based on the decision tree they were given in the briefing.
The critical reframe for students: "Your job is to prepare them well enough that they don't need you. If they do reach out, you are available — but the goal of your preparation is their independence, not their reliance on you." Students trained in healing center contexts often resist this. Name the tension explicitly: active presence feels safer. But in a home context where the facilitator is not local, it creates false expectations and dependency. Thorough preparation is the highest form of care here.
2 · Lecture — Building the Decision Tree the Support Person Uses (35 min)
Walk through the four-node decision tree as a support person preparation tool — not a facilitator monitoring tool. The support person carries this. The facilitator teaches it during the briefing. Node A: progressing — hold steady. Node B: distressed but oriented — use the grounding tools you were given; contact facilitator if uncertain. Node C: significantly distressed, uncertain what to do — contact facilitator for remote coaching. Node D: physiological indicators (unconscious, seizure, chest pain, unresponsive) — call 911 immediately; then notify facilitator. Key teaching: the support person does not need to diagnose. They need to recognize the node and take the indicated action. The facilitator's role is to teach that recognition during preparation — not to be the one making the assessment in real time during the journey.
Node D is where the most important distinction lives: the support person calls 911 — not the facilitator. The facilitator is remote. Emergency services are dispatched from the location. The facilitator may be available by phone while this happens, but the emergency response runs through the support person and EMS, not through the facilitator. Students who have only trained in healing center contexts often need to hear this explicitly multiple times.
Exercise — Support Person Reaches Out: What Happens (60 min)
Triads: Facilitator / Traveler / Support Person. The support person initiates contact with the facilitator based on what they're observing. The facilitator receives the call and coaches remotely. The traveler's state is described by scenario card. Three rounds so all students experience all three roles.
- Scenario 1 (Node B): Support person calls: "They're getting emotional — crying, saying something is pressing on them. I'm not sure if I should do something." → Facilitator coaches support person: what to do, what to say, when to call back if it escalates
- Scenario 2 (Node C): Support person calls, voice tight: "They've been really still for a long time, not responding when I talk to them — I don't know if that's normal." → Facilitator assesses through support person's description; coaches on grounding; makes Node C → D assessment
- Scenario 3 (Node D): Support person calls: "Something is wrong — they're shaking and I can't wake them up." → Facilitator immediately directs: "Call 911 right now. I'll stay on with you." Coaches through the call.
Debrief Questions
What information did you have as the facilitator that you wouldn't have had if the support person hadn't been briefed well? What did the briefing quality change?
In Scenario 2, what made it Node C rather than Node D? What specific indicator would have changed that?
As the support person — what would have made the facilitator's remote coaching clearer or more actionable in the moment?
Watch For
- Facilitators who try to manage the traveler directly over the phone — your only channel is through the support person; coach them, don't bypass them
- Candidates who take over rather than coaching — "let me talk to them directly" is the wrong instinct; the support person is your instrument
- Students who escalate too quickly to Node D from Node B — calibration on the threshold is the core skill; rehearse it
- Students playing the support person role who underplay the difficulty — this is where the training gets real; the support person is scared and untrained; the facilitator's job is to be the calm voice that makes them competent in the moment
Async Assignment — Due Before L3
Write out the complete escalation decision tree and contact protocol you would give a support person during their briefing — the moment when the traveler is likely near or at peak. Include: the four nodes with plain-language descriptions the support person can use · specific threshold for contacting the facilitator · specific threshold for calling 911 · what to say when they do call. 300 words maximum. Bring to L3 — you'll use it during the support person briefing exercise.
Bridge to L3
You've built the decision tree the support person will carry. L3 teaches you how to put it in their hands. The support person's competence is the product of your preparation. L3 is where that preparation happens.
Lesson 3
5.0 hrs · 3.5 sync + 1.5 async · PC7, PC2
Support Person Training
3.5 hrs sync + 1.5 hrs async
Objective: Conduct a structured support person briefing that equips a non-facilitator with the specific knowledge, communication tools, and escalation thresholds needed to support a traveler safely.
The support person is the most important safety variable in a home journey that the facilitator does not directly control. They may be the traveler's partner, a close friend, a sibling. They may have no knowledge of psychedelics. They may be anxious, skeptical, or enthusiastic in ways that create their own risks. They signed up because they love this person — not because they have training. The facilitator's job is to turn a willing but untrained person into a competent in-the-moment support in one briefing. That briefing must be specific, honest, and practical. "Be present and calm" is not a briefing. What follows is.
Lesson Sequence
1 · Lecture — What Support Persons Need to Know (40 min)
Build the four-part support person knowledge framework: (1) What to expect — honest, practical description of what a psilocybin journey looks like at each phase (onset, peak, descent) including what may look alarming but is not (crying, physical tension, silence, inward stillness) and what requires contact. (2) What to do — three concrete behaviors: stay present, don't interpret, report to the facilitator accurately. (3) What NOT to do — do not leave for extended periods, do not introduce stimulating media or unexpected social contact, do not attempt to redirect the journey toward positive content. (4) When to call — the support person's escalation threshold is simple: unconscious and unresponsive, seizure, severe physical distress, or facilitator-directed. Everything else: call the facilitator; let the facilitator direct.
The "what NOT to do" section is where student engagement spikes. Real scenarios generate good discussion: a support person who turned on a true crime podcast "to give them something to focus on." A support person who invited two friends over "to help." A support person who kept asking "are you okay?" every three minutes. These are not malicious — they are untrained. The briefing prevents them.
Exercise — Support Person Briefing Roleplay (70 min)
Pairs: Facilitator / Support Person. The facilitator conducts a complete support person briefing. The support person plays a realistic version of an untrained but willing person — not hostile, not compliant, genuinely nervous and asking real questions. After the briefing, the support person assesses: "Do I know what to do?" Three rounds with different support person personalities provided on scenario cards.
- Support Person A: Partner of the traveler, has their own ambivalence about the journey, asks "What if I think this was a bad idea and I want to stop it?" → Tests facilitator's ability to hold the support person's ambivalence without either validating it or dismissing it
- Support Person B: Friend, has used psychedelics themselves (recreationally), confident and slightly overconfident. "I know what to do — I've been in this situation." → Tests facilitator's ability to redirect without dismissing experience; prior personal use ≠ support person training
- Support Person C: Family member who didn't know about the journey until two days ago, still uncertain, asks "Should I call the police if something happens?" → Tests facilitator's ability to address the legal/privacy concern honestly and specifically
Debrief Questions
Which support person personality was hardest to brief? What made it hard — their knowledge, their emotional state, or their question content?
At what point did you feel the briefing was actually landing — that the support person understood their role? What changed?
Support Person C asked about the police. What did you say? What should you say?
Watch For — Support Person C's Police Question
- The honest answer: whether police should be called depends on the emergency. Medical emergency → 911 immediately (EMS and police may both respond). Non-emergency distress → call the facilitator, not 911. The legal status of psilocybin outside CO NMTP creates genuine risk — being honest about this with the support person, and emphasizing that medical emergencies always override privacy concerns, is the correct and only defensible position
- Facilitators who avoid this question entirely — this is the question real support persons will ask; avoidance models professional avoidance when the support person needs honest preparation
Async Assignment — Portfolio Artifact Due Before L4
Create a one-page support person reference card — a document the support person keeps with them during the journey. Must include: (1) What to expect at each phase. (2) Three behaviors: stay, don't interpret, report accurately. (3) What NOT to do (three items). (4) Escalation thresholds (call facilitator vs. call 911). (5) Facilitator contact information field. Design it for clarity under stress — a person who is anxious should be able to read it quickly. This becomes a portfolio artifact and is peer-reviewed in L4.
Bridge to L4
You've trained the person. L4 trains the place. The physical environment of a home journey is either a container or a hazard. The difference is preparation — and preparation is something you can teach a traveler to do before you ever arrive on a check-in call.
Lesson 4
5.0 hrs · 3.5 sync + 1.5 async · PC7, PC3
Environment & Logistics at Home
3.5 hrs sync + 1.5 hrs async
Objective: Design a pre-journey home environment checklist covering physical safety, emergency access, communication tools, and environmental preparation within facilitator scope.
A healing center exists because someone spent time and money designing a safe space. The home exists because someone lives there. The furniture, the lighting, the staircase without a railing, the locked door to the garage, the neighbor who might unexpectedly knock — these are not things anyone designed. They are things that need to be assessed and where possible addressed before a journey begins. The environment assessment is not the most intellectually demanding work in this module. It may be the most practically consequential. An unchecked hazard that seems trivial at baseline is a genuine risk to someone who may be moving differently, perceiving differently, or emotionally flooded.
Exercise — Home Safety Checklist Design Workshop (90 min)
Individual work, then peer review. Each student builds a complete home safety and logistics checklist using the six-domain framework provided. After individual work (40 min), students exchange checklists for peer review against the rubric (25 min), then full group debrief on what different checklists caught and missed (25 min).
- Domain 1 — Physical safety: Trip hazards removed; sharp objects secured; staircase access secured or supervised; bathroom accessible but fall risks addressed; outdoor spaces either accessible safely or secured
- Domain 2 — Emergency access: Address visible and in EMS-ready format; front door accessible from outside if needed; neighbor informed at appropriate level if rural; EMS response time assessed and documented
- Domain 3 — Communication: Devices charged; facilitator number in support person's recent calls; backup contact method if primary fails; "do not disturb" mode for unnecessary notifications; known contacts who will not interrupt
- Domain 4 — Environmental preparation: Lighting adjustable; temperature comfortable; music or silence options prepared; meaningful objects available if wanted; triggering media or notifications removed
- Domain 5 — Privacy and security: Household members who are not the support person either absent or briefed appropriately; external visitors prevented; social media notifications off
- Domain 6 — Post-journey readiness: Food and water available for descent; sleep environment ready if needed; integration materials accessible (journal, etc.); no demanding responsibilities scheduled within 48 hours
Watch For
- Students who make the checklist too long to be usable — the participant must actually complete this; a 60-item checklist will be skimmed. Teach: prioritize ruthlessly, note-to-self is not the same as participant-ready
- Students who skip Domain 6 (post-journey readiness) — integration begins the moment the journey ends; the environment should support that
- Domain 2 often has the most variation in student checklists — the "neighbor informed" item generates genuine disagreement about privacy vs. safety
Async Assignment — Due Before L5
Revise your checklist based on peer review feedback. Write a 200-word reflection: which items on your checklist did your peer catch that you had missed, and what does that tell you about your current blind spots in environmental risk assessment? Submit revised checklist + reflection together.
Bridge to L5
You've prepared the person and the place. L5 addresses a risk that runs through all of it: information about home journeys may be more sensitive than almost any other content a facilitator holds — legally, professionally, and personally for the participant. How you document this work is a protection, not a formality.
Lesson 5
5.0 hrs · 4.0 sync + 1.0 async · PC7, PC1
Documentation & Privacy at Home
4.0 hrs sync + 1.0 hrs async
Objective: Apply minimal-data documentation practices to remote facilitation contexts — protecting participant privacy while maintaining the records that professional accountability requires.
In a healing center, documentation is a professional practice. In a home context, documentation is also a privacy risk. The participant's psilocybin use outside a licensed setting may have consequences — employment, insurance, custody, professional licensure — that they have explicitly weighed in choosing this path. The facilitator's documentation practices either protect them or expose them. Minimal-data documentation is not a shortcut. It is a professional obligation in contexts where over-documentation creates participant harm. The standard: record what professional accountability requires. Record nothing else.
Lesson Sequence
1 · Lecture — What Minimal-Data Means in Practice (35 min)
Establish the minimal-data framework: (1) What must be documented: that preparation sessions occurred, their dates, any safety concerns identified and addressed, support person briefing completed, check-in cadence agreed, any escalation events and actions taken, post-journey contact and integration sessions. (2) What should NOT be documented unnecessarily: the specific substance used (if not in a licensed context), specific journey details that go beyond safety documentation, any information that could identify illegal activity. (3) Security requirements: encrypted storage, no cloud services without privacy review, no SMS for sensitive content, device password protection. (4) Retention and destruction: how long records are kept and how they are securely destroyed.
Students often push back on the "what should NOT be documented" section: "Isn't more documentation always better for professional protection?" The answer is no — in home contexts, over-documentation creates liability for the participant and potentially for the facilitator. The professional discipline is knowing the difference. This is PC1 applied to a novel context: the ethical obligation runs toward the participant's safety and dignity, not toward documentation maximalism.
Exercise — Documentation Audit (45 min)
Students receive three sample documentation records from fictional home journey scenarios. For each: (1) Identify what is correctly documented. (2) Flag what should not have been documented. (3) Flag what is missing. (4) Rewrite one problematic section using minimal-data principles. Group comparison and discussion.
- Record A: Over-documented — includes substance name, dosage, specific visions described, speculation about psychological meaning. → Strip to: sessions occurred, dates, safety assessment, support person briefed, check-in cadence, no safety events
- Record B: Under-documented — only records "meeting on [date]" with no safety content, no escalation record. → Add required safety elements while keeping minimal-data discipline
- Record C: Correctly documented but stored insecurely — emailed to a personal Gmail address, not encrypted. → Identify security failure; note correct storage protocol
2 · Discussion — Digital Communication Hygiene (30 min)
Practical walkthrough: encrypted messaging (Signal vs. SMS), encrypted email vs. standard email, device-level encryption, cloud storage privacy review. Not a tech tutorial — a professional standards conversation. "Which of the platforms you currently use to communicate with participants are adequate for the sensitivity of this content?"
Most students are using platforms that are inadequate for this content. This is not a criticism — they haven't been in contexts that required this level of care before. Approach as a matter-of-fact professional upgrade, not a safety emergency. The action step is clear: identify your current gaps and address them before doing this work.
Async Assignment — Due Before L6
Conduct a personal digital communication audit. List every platform you currently use to communicate with participants or about participant-related matters. For each: assess whether it meets minimal-data security standards, identify the gap if any, and name one concrete step to address it. 150 words plus a simple table. This is preparation for L6's remote protocol document.
Bridge to L6
You've mapped the risk. Built the check-in cadence. Trained the support person. Assessed the environment. Secured the records. The journey happens. L6 is what comes after — the post-journey debrief at distance, which is where the integration work begins and where the remote format creates its own specific challenges.
Lesson 6
5.0 hrs · 3.5 sync + 1.5 async · PC7, PC5
Post-Journey Debrief at Distance
3.5 hrs sync + 1.5 hrs async
Objective: Conduct a teleintegration debrief session that adapts standard integration practice to the remote setting — including technology-failure protocols and distance-appropriate scope boundaries.
The post-journey debrief 24–48 hours after a home journey is often the most important contact in the entire arc. The traveler has had an experience alone (in the sense of not having a licensed facilitator present). They may have had a profound integration of something. They may be in the middle of something that hasn't resolved. They may be experiencing delayed distress — the quiet, flat presentation of someone whose window of tolerance was exceeded and who doesn't yet know that. The first check-in is your opportunity to catch all of this. The teleintegration format changes what you can observe and how you can respond. Knowing those differences — and adjusting — is the lesson.
Lesson Sequence
1 · Lecture — What Changes in Remote Integration (35 min)
Three specific differences in teleintegration: (1) Observable data — you lose somatic observation (posture, breathing, physical tension). Compensation: more explicit verbal check-ins on body state; ask what they are noticing physically. (2) Relational depth — remote format can reduce participant disclosure, particularly for difficult or shameful content. Compensation: longer warm-up, explicit permission-giving, slower pace. (3) Technology failure — calls drop, video freezes, connection fails. This is not just inconvenient — for a participant processing significant material, an unexpected disconnection is a real relational rupture. Compensation: explicit technology protocol agreed in advance; backup contact method; clear re-contact procedure the participant knows.
Exercise — Teleintegration Roleplay (75 min)
Pairs. The facilitator conducts a post-journey debrief call 24 hours after a home journey. The traveler receives a scenario card describing what happened during their journey and their current emotional state. Three rounds with different scenario cards — include one technology-failure scenario mid-session.
- Scenario A: Journey went well — profound and integrative. Traveler is in a positive state but slightly overwhelmed by the depth of what emerged. → Facilitator holds without directing or interpreting; open questions; integration plan seeded
- Scenario B: Journey was difficult. Traveler describes "going somewhere very dark" and not being sure they want to do this again. Currently stable but subdued. → Facilitator assesses current safety, normalizes without dismissing, explores without clinical interpretation
- Scenario C: Connection drops at minute 12 when the traveler is mid-disclosure of something significant. → Facilitator must re-establish contact using the backup method, acknowledge the rupture explicitly, and help the traveler return to what they were sharing without forcing it
Debrief Questions
In Scenario B, at what point — if any — would you have shifted from teleintegration to recommending an in-person session?
In Scenario C, how did you handle the reconnection? What did you say first? Why?
What somatic information did you miss during the call that you would have had in person? Did it matter?
Watch For
- Students who overcompensate for the lack of somatic data by asking too many direct questions — this creates interrogation, not integration space
- Scenario C reconnection: students who launch immediately back into content without acknowledging the rupture — always name it first: "We got disconnected — I want to make sure you're okay and come back to what you were sharing when you're ready"
- Scenario B: watch for students who minimize the difficult journey experience or rush toward reassurance — the traveler's ambivalence is valid data, not a problem to be solved
Async Assignment — Final Portfolio Artifact: Remote Protocol Document
Compile your complete M16 remote protocol document — the living reference you would use in actual home traveler support practice. Must include: (1) Pre-journey risk assessment framework (L1). (2) Check-in cadence and escalation tree (L2). (3) Support person reference card (L3). (4) Home environment checklist (L4). (5) Minimal-data documentation standard (L5). (6) Teleintegration protocol and technology-failure plan (L6). This is your M16 Capstone portfolio artifact. Submit as a structured document, not a reflection. It should be practically usable.
M16 OSCE — Telesupport During Active Home Journey
12 min per candidate · PC7, PC4 · Pass/Below
M16 OSCE — Telesupport Call: Anxious Traveler
12 minutes · Candidate conducts a remote check-in during an active home journey · Ends with spoken documentation note
Station Setup
The candidate is acting as a facilitator who has previously completed full preparation with a traveler and their support person. The journey is underway. The support person initiates contact because the traveler is distressed. The candidate receives the call and responds. The assessor has a version card (Version A or B) assigned before the station begins. Version A: traveler is verbally distressed but oriented and responsive — anxiety, no physiological indicators. Version B: support person describes physiological indicators (elevated pulse, unusual color, unresponsive to direct questions) at minute 8 of the call.
Standardized Support Person Brief — Assessor Reference
Opening: "Hi — I'm calling because [traveler name] is having a hard time. They said something is pressing on them and they seem really upset. I wasn't sure if I should call but I wanted to check."
If facilitator coaches clearly and calmly: support person becomes more grounded. "Okay. That helps. What should I do now?"
If facilitator is unclear, overwhelms with information, or takes over: support person becomes more anxious. "Wait — I can't do all that."
Version B only — at minute 8: "Actually — wait. They look really pale and I can't get them to respond to me." Candidate must direct 911 call immediately; stay on the line.
Candidate Instructions (provided on printed sheet)
You completed full preparation with a traveler and their support person. The journey is underway. You receive a call from the support person. Respond as you would in a real context — your job is to coach the support person, not to manage the traveler directly. The station ends after 12 minutes or when the assessor signals time. Close with a spoken documentation note.
Pass/Fail Checklist (7 items — Pass requires 6/7)
- Receives the call with grounded, unhurried presence — not rushed or alarmed by the support person's anxiety
- Assesses traveler orientation and distress level using open questions, not closed binary checks
- Provides verbal anchor without directing the content of the journey or interpreting it
- Coaches support person role appropriately within the call (acknowledges their presence; directs their assessment)
- Version A: Does NOT activate EAP — anxiety with no physiological signs addressed with de-escalation only. Version B: Directs 911 call immediately when support person reports physiological indicators; stays on with support person through activation
- Closes check-in with clear plan — next contact timing, support person instructions, escalation reminder
- Delivers spoken documentation note: time of call, traveler state at opening, intervention used, escalation decision (and reasoning for Version B), next contact scheduled
Analytic Rubric (1–4 scale per domain)
| Domain | 1 — Deficient | 2–3 — Developing | 4 — Exemplary | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remote Presence Grounded, unhurried, non-interpretive | Rushed; robotic; applies healing center language to remote context without adaptation | Generally present; occasionally slips into scripted responses or interpretation | Full adaptation to remote context; genuine warmth through audio only; no over-talk | |
| Escalation Accuracy Version-appropriate decision | Wrong direction: EAP for anxiety-only (V.A) or no EAP for physiological signs (V.B) | Hesitant but reaches correct decision; threshold reasoning unclear | Decision clear and immediate; reasoning stated; participant notified before action (V.B) | |
| Support Person Coaching Clear direction; competence-building | Ignores support person or overwhelms them with information | Addresses support person but direction unclear or incomplete | Clear, specific, sequenced direction; support person visibly more capable at end of call | |
| Documentation Note Minimal-data; factual; complete | No note, or note contains substance reference or clinical interpretation | Note covers most required elements; one or two gaps | All required elements; minimal-data standard maintained; decision documented with reasoning |
Cut Score: 6/7 checklist pass + average ≥3 across rubric domains. Domain 2 (escalation accuracy) weighted: a version error (wrong EAP decision) produces automatic below-standard regardless of other domain performance.
L1–L6 Assessment Bank
Instructor use only · Rotate items across cohorts
MCQL1 · PC7, PC3 · Analyze
A participant lives alone in a rural property, 28 minutes from the nearest EMS. They have identified their neighbor — who has not met the participant before — as their support person. The neighbor agreed "in principle." This profile is MOST accurately classified as:
Answer: B — A neighbor who agreed "in principle" without a prior relationship is not a reliable support person. Combined with 28-minute EMS lag, the interpersonal and emergency-access risk domains together constitute a Hold. More frequent check-ins (C) do not compensate for an unreliable support person.
MCQL2 · PC7, PC4 · Apply
The support person sends a brief message at the 90-minute mark: "All good here. They said they don't want to be disturbed." The MOST appropriate facilitator response is:
Answer: B — A verbally responsive traveler confirming they are okay, with a calm support person confirming normal appearance, is Node A. Extending the call or remaining on the line disrupts a well-progressing journey. Node C is not appropriate — the traveler is responsive and oriented.
Short AnswerL3 · PC7, PC2 · Evaluate
A support person asks during their briefing: "What do I do if they start crying and won't stop?" Write your response in 3–4 sentences using scope-appropriate language.
Model Answer: Crying during a psilocybin journey is often part of the process — not a sign that something is wrong. Your role is to stay present, offer a tissue or a light hand on the shoulder if they've consented to touch, and let them know you're there without trying to stop or explain the emotion. If the crying escalates to something that concerns you — significant physical distress, inability to respond to your presence — call me. Otherwise, hold steady and trust the process.
MCQL5 · PC7, PC1 · Apply
A facilitator is documenting a home traveler support arc. Which of the following items should NOT appear in the documentation record?
Answer: C — Minimal-data documentation does not include substance specifics that could expose the participant to legal risk. Professional accountability requires documentation of preparation, safety planning, and any escalation events — not substance details. A, B, and D are all required elements.
EssayCross-module · PC7, PC1 · Evaluate
A participant who completed a home journey contacts you and asks you to write a summary of the journey for their therapist, noting that it "helped tremendously." Describe: (a) what you can and cannot include in that summary; (b) the scope issue in the phrase "helped tremendously"; and (c) what a scope-compliant summary looks like.
Model Answer Elements: (a) CAN include: preparation sessions occurred and dates, safety planning completed, post-journey integration contact initiated. CANNOT include: substance specifics, efficacy claims, clinical assessment of psychological change. (b) "Helped tremendously" is a clinical outcome claim — outside facilitator scope to assert. (c) Scope-compliant summary: "I provided preparation support for [participant's name] including [number] preparation sessions, a support person briefing, and post-journey integration contact. No safety events occurred. Integration sessions are ongoing." No efficacy language; no substance specifics; factual and professionally defensible.
Remediation Protocol — M16
OSCE below standard: one retake using alternate scenario version within 30 days; mandatory instructor consultation targeting the specific domain(s) that failed. Portfolio artifact (remote protocol document) deemed incomplete: resubmit within two weeks addressing specific feedback. Students who do not complete M16 to standard receive M16 incomplete notation — does not affect Capstone standing (Phase 6 is elective) but must be resolved before representing M16 competency in any professional context.
Module Bridge — M16 → M17: M16 built the structural framework for supporting people outside licensed settings. M17 applies that framework to one of the most specific and culturally distinct populations a facilitator may encounter. Veterans and first responders bring occupational culture, moral injury history, and often significant resistance to receiving support. Everything you built in M16 — the care with environments, the attention to support persons, the precision with documentation — carries forward. What M17 adds is the population-specific relational intelligence that makes any of it useful.
-
Our downloads have everything you need to supplement this course.