Module 18 - Instructor Guide

Part 1 — Why this field is distinct (12 min): A data breach exposing a participant's psilocybin session notes — including experience content, personal disclosures, and the participant's identity — can affect professional licenses, security clearances, employment, family relationships, and custody situations. Veterans, people in recovery, LGBTQ+ participants, anyone in a profession where participation could trigger consequences: for each of these populations, documentation exposure carries stakes that generic healthcare breach response does not capture. The security standard is calibrated to those stakes, not to general healthcare.

Part 2 — The three documentation categories (18 min): Session notes belong in end-to-end encrypted applications — not Google Docs, not Apple Notes, not plain text files. Standard Notes (open-source, E2E encrypted) and Joplin (local storage option) are accessible starting points. Participant communications — texts, emails, voice memos — should use encrypted channels: Signal for messaging, ProtonMail for email. Standard SMS and Gmail are not acceptable for communications containing participant information. Consent forms are administrative documents most facilitators handle carelessly — they contain the participant's name, session date, and signature connected to the nature of the service and should be stored with the same encryption as session notes. For digital signatures: DocuSeal (open source) or PandaDoc HIPAA-compliant tier.

Part 3 — The minimal data principle (12 min): Minimal data means collecting and retaining only what the facilitation relationship actually requires. Session notes document: observable behaviors and states (descriptive, not interpretive), interventions offered with consent, safety-relevant events, post-session orientation and stated wellbeing, follow-up plan. Session notes do not document: content of visions or experiences unless directly safety-relevant, personal disclosures not relevant to facilitation, clinical interpretation. The test: if this note were accessed in a legal proceeding, would its content protect the participant or expose them? Retention: minimum 7 years from last contact absent jurisdiction-specific guidance; build an annual record review into your calendar.

Part 1 — The preflight protocol (12 min): Three domains. Technical: platform tested, backup contact confirmed, encrypted documentation ready, recording status confirmed. Participant readiness: environment confirmed private, current state checked, digital consent supplement confirmed. Safety (critical — any item unconfirmed = delay the session): support person available or on call, emergency contact confirmed reachable, participant's current physical address confirmed, connection-loss protocol reviewed with participant explicitly. The Student Guide contains the complete preflight checklist. Walk through it one item at a time; for each item ask why it matters specifically in a remote context.

Part 2 — Digital consent adaptations (8 min): Standard consent needs specific additions for remote work: the platform and its security status explained in plain language; recording policy stated explicitly; what happens if connection is lost and the specific protocol; the privacy limitations of the participant's own environment; and that emergency services would go to the participant's physical location. See Digital Consent Supplement Card in Student Guide. Timing: review in the preparation conversation, not five minutes before the session.

Part 3 — The connection-loss response flowchart (8 min): Five steps: attempt immediate reconnect → contact via backup method → contact support person → activate safety protocol → post-incident documentation and debrief. Timing for each step established in the preflight conversation and documented. Participants should not be surprised by any step — they were briefed before the session. The flowchart is the facilitator's reference; the briefing is the safety mechanism. Students fill in their specific timing windows on the flowchart before using it.

Part 1 — Platform setup and confidentiality (15 min): Minimum platform configuration before any group session: waiting room enabled; recording disabled at platform level, not just verbally; participant screen sharing disabled; breakout rooms pre-configured and tested; know how to remove a participant. Virtual group confidentiality is structurally different from in-person: a screenshot can leave the room at any time without the facilitator's knowledge. The Virtual Group Confidentiality Agreement (Student Guide) addresses this explicitly and should be reviewed verbally in the first session — not emailed as a pre-session document only. Review creates shared accountability; emailing creates individual compliance.

Part 2 — Distress response in an online group (15 min): Graduated response when a participant becomes visibly distressed: Step 1 — slow the group: "I want to pause here for a moment." Step 2 — minimal direct address to the distressed participant: "I see you. I'm here. Thumbs up or down — are you okay right now?" Step 3 — offer private space: "I'd like to step aside with you for a few minutes. Group — can we take a short break?" Move to breakout room. Step 4 — if unresponsive: contact backup while holding group in break. The ceiling principle: the distressed participant's need is real and the group's experience is also real. The response addresses both — doesn't sacrifice one for the other.

Part 3 — Boundary violations and online group dynamics (12 min): Specific scenarios and responses in the Online Group Safety Protocol Card (Student Guide): the participant who makes an inappropriate comment, the participant giving peer advice, the camera-off participant whose state is unknown (15 minutes off without explanation = brief check-in via chat), the participant needing removal. Removal is a host function — know how to use it before you need it. Maximum group size for a single facilitator: 6–8 participants. Beyond that: co-facilitator or split groups.

Part 1 — Advocacy within scope vs. outside scope (12 min): Within scope: speaking to regulatory bodies about the facilitation relationship and what it requires to be conducted safely; providing public comment on proposed regulations; participating in professional organizations; describing the facilitator's role accurately in public contexts. Outside scope: making efficacy claims about psilocybin's treatment potential; positioning facilitation as treatment for specific conditions; making clinical predictions about participant outcomes; lobbying for drug policy changes beyond facilitation practice. The line is not about enthusiasm or commitment — it is about what facilitators can know from their position and speak to with integrity.

Part 2 — CO/NV regulatory landscape and comment periods (12 min): Colorado's Prop 122 created the Natural Medicine Health Act with the Colorado Department of Revenue Natural Medicine Division overseeing licensing. As of this curriculum's publication, the licensing framework was in active development — verify current requirements at cdor.colorado.gov before teaching. Nevada has not established a comparable framework; facilitators there should consult legal counsel and monitor the Nevada legislature. Finding open comment periods: Colorado Secretary of State regulatory activity database; Nevada Register of Administrative Regulations; federal: Federal Register and regulations.gov. See Regulatory Comment Period Quick-Reference Card in Student Guide. Coordinating with professional organizations (ATMA, PMA) multiplies the impact of individual comments.

Part 3 — The advocacy brief (8 min): A one-page document: specific issue named, position stated clearly and briefly, grounded in evidence or direct experience, specific ask. For a facilitator, the "evidence or direct experience" component is drawn from facilitation practice — direct observations described without identifying participants, specific features of the regulatory landscape named, published research cited accurately. Not efficacy statistics. Not therapeutic outcome data unless directly cited from peer-reviewed research. The Advocacy Brief Template in the Student Guide provides the structure.

Part 1 — The positioning challenge (12 min): The positioning statement has three requirements: accurately describe what the facilitator does and doesn't do; differentiate from therapy clearly enough that a participant or referring provider understands the distinction; resonate with people who would genuinely benefit without attracting those for whom it is contraindicated. None of these can be traded off against the others. The Language Audit Card in the Student Guide walks through specific phrases that overclaim and phrases that work. Distribute it now, walk through 2–3 examples, give students 2 minutes to look at their warmup writing and identify which category it falls into.

Part 2 — Building the referral network (15 min): The referral network runs in both directions — providers who can refer to you, and providers to whom you can refer. Priority categories: licensed therapists (especially trauma-informed), primary care physicians and psychiatrists, peer support and community organizations, other facilitators with complementary specializations. The most common failure mode is approaching referral network building as marketing — reaching out to generate referrals before those providers understand the facilitation context. The effective approach is mutual education: "I'd like to meet for 20 minutes to explain what I do and learn about your practice — so we both understand when it might make sense to refer to each other." The Referral Relationship One-Pager (Student Guide) is the leave-behind for those conversations.

Part 3 — The professional landscape and the long view (8 min): The facilitation practitioners who build their practices now are building the field's professional identity alongside their individual practices. The language choices they make, how they communicate with referring providers, how they position themselves collectively — these shape how the field is perceived by regulators, the medical community, and the public. This is not an abstract professional obligation. It is the practical consequence of being early in a field that matters and that will be judged partly by the quality of its practitioners' self-presentation.

Part 1 — Supervision and peer consultation as infrastructure (14 min): Supervision is the ongoing professional relationship in which a facilitator brings their practice — difficult cases, ethical dilemmas, personal reactions, scope questions — to an experienced practitioner for structured reflection. It is not remediation for problems. It is regular maintenance that keeps practice current and grounded. Minimum viable structure: one supervision session per month; after EOL sessions, high-complexity cases, or any unexpected session event — supervision within the week. This is not optional at the standard of care this program produces. If students graduate without a supervision arrangement in place, finding one is the first act of beginning practice. Peer consultation is complementary — collegial mutual support from people navigating the same landscape. It supplements supervision; it does not replace it.

Part 2 — Research literacy (12 min): The psychedelic research literature is expanding rapidly and unevenly. Media coverage consistently over-indexes positive findings, under-covers adverse event data, and frames preliminary results as established conclusions. Five questions for any study: What was the population? What was the sample size? Was there a control condition? Has it been replicated? Who funded it? These don't require graduate methods training — they require the habit. Key studies every facilitator should know: Griffiths et al. (2016) and Ross et al. (2016) — foundational EOL research; Davis et al. (2021) — major depressive disorder, open-label, preliminary; 2023 FDA Advisory Committee on MDMA — more complicated than headlines; accumulating adverse event literature. Students should read the Research Literacy Reference Card in the Student Guide.

Part 3 — Frozen practice and the CE plan (10 min): Frozen practice is the predictable endpoint of not building a learning infrastructure: a practitioner who practices the way they practiced when they graduated, regardless of how the field has developed. The Frozen Practice Warning Signs Card in the Student Guide describes the behavioral patterns. The CE Planning Worksheet is the antidote. It asks for three things: specific learning goals for the next 12 months (specific enough to verify), specific CE sources (names, not categories), and one action scheduled within 90 days with a specific date. Build it in before the momentum of training ends and the inertia of practice begins.