Finding those most in need of hep C treatment: Injecting Drug Users or Baby Boomers?

I am writing this blog on a train back from an amazing two days in Scotland looking at hep C services and the challenges faced in eliminating hep C. Scotland has a direction of travel and action plan for its hep C services that it has been investing in for over a decade. The maturity of services and the debate on the way forward is significantly more advanced when compared to the overall chaos and lack of clarity or organisation in many services in England. Scottish hep C treatment services face many of the same challenges as the rest of the UK but Scotland has a can-do attitude compared to England’s often reluctant, grudging intervention. The English attitude is best characterised by NHS England’s untrue characterisation of hep C treatment costs as the biggest financial risk facing the NHS and is in stark contrast to the positive approach in Scotland.

The priority in both Scotland and England is to treat those most in need of treatment. This means people who have hep C and significant liver disease are prioritised for treatment. The difference is that in Scotland your disease is prioritised at a lower level of hep C-related illness. In at least one area in Scotland anyone with hep C has the same priority.

Key to this approach in both countries is finding people with hep C who have significant liver disease to meet the required prioritisation criteria. Brainy people have used lots of formulas and inputted data to come up with an estimate that half of those with hep c do not know they have it.

Given that 90% or more will have contracted hep C from injected drug use, it seems sensible to start looking for those in need of treatment in this cohort. So test lots of people injecting drugs and you find lots of people with hep C. Unsurprisingly, this turns out to be true, but it also means that you also find lots of people with hep C who have yet to develop liver disease to the extent that they qualify for priority hep C treatment. Scotland is treating people at a ratio of two-thirds priority to one-third non-priority. Although you may have to wait if you are non-priority, you are at least on a journey towards a cure. In England the picture is far less clear but anecdotally it seems rare for anyone with hep C but no related illness to be treated.

We could find a ready supply of people via drugs services if we wanted to treat everyone with hep C regardless of related disease. This is something I think could be achieved if we did a deal with pharmaceutical companies based on the volume to be treated. However, aside from some areas of Scotland, this is not the position we are in.

So what do we know about people who will have hep C and are likely to have serious related liver disease? It can take decades for hep C to cause liver damage so people will be older and many will have been diagnosed with hep C and told there is no or very unpleasant treatment. Many of these, the ‘lost found’, will not be in touch with services. Those responsible for hep C treatment in Scotland suspect that a sizeable number of people will have dabbled in occasional injected drug use decades ago and it will not even occur to them they may have hep C. They also suspect that many of those who in the past injected drugs migrated to alcohol as a more acceptable addiction.

Based on the opinion of experts and patient groups in Scotland, if we are serious about finding cases we need to systematically target the baby boomers – those born between 1946 and 1964 who are now aged 50-70. Some will be in drugs services; some will be in the recovery community, AA, NA etc. Others may be in alcohol services or they may be working in the drug and alcohol sector. Many will have no contact with drugs and alcohol services and will not in their wildest dreams imagine they are at risk. In Scotland guidelines already state that anyone presenting with abnormal liver function at the GP should be tested for hep C. There is also clear head of steam in Scotland to see hep C testing become much more standard across the NHS.

Not for the first time I find myself wishing England was run from Edinburgh.

The tip of the iceberg

We have just seen the highest drug related deaths figures ever; these figures record deaths from drug poisoning, but services providers know that this is just the tip of the iceberg. There is an alarming increase in the numbers of people dying in treatment as a result of chronic ill health.

An aging population of people with drug and alcohol problems are becoming unwell and often receive a poor service from the NHS in relation to their wider health needs because they struggle to navigate an increasingly complex treatment system and are often treated as undeserving by both our health system and local authorities that are under extreme financial pressure.

Imagine that you are living with a completely treatable infection, that left untreated, can cause a life changing illness (for some ultimately death) and the health service said you had to wait until you developed this life threatening related illness before they would treat you. You would rightly be outraged.

This is precisely what is happening to those who have hep C despite a range of new highly effective NICE approved treatments, with few side effects, that offers a cure for hep C. Only 3-4% of people a year currently get treatment. Unless you have a hep C related illness e.g. cirrhosis you are unlikely to be treated and even then it will have to be serious enough. Many of those with hep C who are not deemed ill enough to deserve treatment do not have their condition adequately monitored.   Sadly many GP’s tell me that they monitor those with hep C who appear to be in reasonable health but then suddenly get ill very quickly, with often fatal consequences.

This discrimination happens because around 90% of those with hep C contracted it via injecting drug use. Although many will have contracted hep C many years ago and have moved away from substance misuse they are often treated with suspicion. They are perceived as unreliable patients on whom expensive treatments are not to be wasted. Alongside this those most at risk of spreading hep C to others are seen as chaotic and thus undeserving or unsuitable.

Naloxone is a drug that saves lives by temporarily reversing the effects of opioid drugs. It costs £18 or less per pack and is recommended by the ACMD, WHO, Public Health Ministers and PHE who actively support its wide provision to those at risk of opioid overdose. Despite this many local authorities, including Liverpool, are still refusing to allow treatment providers to distribute it, denying people access to a life saving tool at a time when we are seeing a significant jump in opiate related overdose deaths. Some years ago Liverpool hosted an international harm reduction conference recognising its historical place in the history of harm reduction in drugs services.

In 2014, (after over 34 years of working in the drug, alcohol and criminal justice sectors, and as Blenheim celebrated 50 years of social action) I committed both Blenheim and myself to do everything in our power to ensure that the worlds best evidenced based treatment system was not destroyed by dogma, localism and cuts to public sector finances. Whilst recovery and ending dependency are hugely important we believe harm reduction is equally as important. Some of our sector’s best work is the daily interventions to keep people alive until they are ready to change.

I was concerned then about disinvestment by local authorities in the drug and alcohol treatment sector to fund a wide range of other equally important and underfunded public health priorities. The subsequent cuts and impending disinvestment have exceeded even my most pessimistic view of the future. We face a return to a post code lottery of underfunded services, ill prepared for the next wave of alcohol and drug dependency or to support those in often chronic ill health.

This year, 2016-17, we are seeing a 30% reduction in funding for drug and alcohol services with local authorities facing often impossible challenges, in the current financial climate, in meeting even their statutory responsibilities. With the ring fence coming off the public health grant and its abolition following the proposed introduction of Business Rate Retention, it will become increasingly difficult for local authorities to justify spending on drug and alcohol services when they cannot adequately fund services they are mandated to deliver. There is an urgent need to make the provision of a full range of drug and alcohol treatment services a statutory responsibility for local authorities.

To quote Collective Voice, an organisation part funded by Blenheim along with other large providers:

“Recent reduction in heroin use has been concentrated amongst the under-30s leaving behind a drug treatment population who are increasingly in frail health because of the cumulative impact of decades of drug addiction, problem alcohol use, poor diet, fragile mental health, and smoking. This leaves them significantly more vulnerable than their age would indicate and places a significant burden on mainstream NHS clinical services.

“Despite this, drug and alcohol treatment is not a natural priority for local authorities, the NHS or public health professionals. This places this area of activity at particular risk from the negative consequences of the proposed replacement of the ring-fenced Public Health Grant with a system of business rate retention.

“Drug and alcohol treatment provides for an unpopular and marginalised population seen by local electors, and politicians as undeserving, particularly in comparison to alternative service user populations such as children and the elderly. Without someone in local systems to champion the agenda there is a continuing risk of deprioritisation and disinvestment.”  

There is growing evidence that local politicians feel that drug and alcohol treatment is an NHS function rather than a local authority public health function. Many are already uncomfortable at the proportion of PHE funding to local authorities that is currently spent on drug and alcohol provision.

At Blenheim we work with a wide range of organisations and government departments to fight for drug and alcohol services and to ensure people in treatment aren’t discriminated against. In doing so we are supported at Westminster, by many hard working politicians from all major parties, who help us hold Government to account.

Elimination

Today is World Hepatitis Day, with the theme of Elimination.

2016 is a crucial year for addressing hepatitis. At the World Health Assembly in May, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Member States endorsed the first ever draft Elimination Strategy for Viral Hepatitis, with the ambitious goal to eliminate hepatitis as a public health threat by 2030.


Hepatitis C is a blood-borne virus that can lead to scarring (cirrhosis) or cancer of the liver if left untreated.

The virus is a serious infectious disease, but with the right early diagnosis and treatment, hepatitis C can be curable.

Hepatitis C disproportionately affects the marginalised groups of people Blenheim works with, including intravenous drug users, prisoners and immigrant populations. Public Health England reported that in 2015 50% of injecting drug users have hepatitis C, up from 45% in 2005.

Therefore, for years, Blenheim has called on NHS England, Public Health England and the Department of Health to make the elimination of hepatitis C a clear priority. We advocate that substance misuse services, the NHS and local authorities must do more to test, treat and cure those with hepatitis C.

In 2014, Blenheim became a member of the Hepatitis C Coalition – along with a group of leading clinicians, patients, organisations and other interested parties, we are committed to the reduction of morbidity and mortality associated with hepatitis C, and its eventual elimination.

To achieve elimination of hepatitis C, we need:

  • greater awareness about the virus,
  • better prevention – including harm reduction such as injection safety,
  • increased testing and diagnosis, and

Greater Awareness, Better Prevention

Injecting drug use continues to be the most important risk factor for contracting the infection because the virus is able to directly enter the blood stream via a needle. Approximately 50% of intravenous drug users are thought to be infected with the virus. Other forms of drug use, like sharing bank notes or straws to snort powders, also pose a significant risk of transmission. More information about risk factors can be found on the Hepatitis C Trust website.

Increased Testing and Diagnosis

You can always go to your GP or GUM Clinic and ask to be tested for the virus. If you are accessing a drug or alcohol service then you should speak to your keyworker or a member of staff about having the test. Services can provide a blood-borne virus (BBV) test for you, but if this isn’t available then they will support you to arrange this with your GP, or another healthcare provider.

Hepatitis C is a ‘silent epidemic’ because it is often asymptomatic in the early stages and can be difficult to diagnose. This means that in most cases, the symptoms are absent, mild, or simply vague. It is important to get tested if you have ever shared injecting equipment, even if it was many years ago, because you may not experience any symptoms. Although there are no set symptoms, common complaints related to the disease can include:

  • Problems with concentration and memory
  • Chronic fatigue
  • Flu-like symptoms, including sweating or headaches
  • Alcohol intolerance
  • Depression or mood swings
  • Digestive problems, including nausea, loss of appetite or weight loss
  • General aches and pains, or specific discomfort in the area of the liver

These symptoms can usually be alleviated with therapy. However, the symptoms people suffer are not necessarily an indication of whether they have liver damage or not.

Better Treatment

Anti-viral therapies have advanced greatly in recent years and are now able to clear the virus, thus preventing the progression of liver disease. These NICE approved treatments cure the virus for around 70-80% of people. Treatment has been shown to reduce both inflammation of the liver and fibrosis. There is also evidence that cases of cirrhosis can sometimes be reversed through treatment.

Decisions about treatment options should be made with your doctor. You can also contact the Hepatitis C Trust’s helpline on 0845 223 4424 for more information.

Blenheim: Test, Treat, Cure

In order to address the low levels of hepatitis treatment amongst our service users, in 2014/15, we introduced a range of initiatives in partnership with PHE, Hepatitis C Trust and the London Working Party on Hepatitis C. We have trained over 100 hepatitis champions throughout the organisation to identify the levels of hepatitis amongst our service users and to support the people affected with accessing treatment.

And progress is being made. Last year, 94% of Blenheim’s new clients that inject drugs or have previously injected drugs, had a Hepatitis C test – an increase from 87% in 2014/2015.

Furthermore, we are currently supporting the I’m Worth… campaign, which has been created to support people living with hepatitis C. It aims to address the stigma that many people with hepatitis C face, encouraging and empowering people living with hepatitis C to access care and services. It emphasises that everyone living with hepatitis C is entitled to the best care.


To find out more about Hepatitis C, please take a look at the factsheet on our website.

Test, Treat, Cure.

Stigma: One of the greatest barriers to employment

If we are to help people into employment we need to remove the stigma around substance misuse treatment, make a real effort to tackle barriers, and provide empathetic education, training and employment (ETE) support to both employees and employers. Local Authorities and other public bodies must take a leading role in providing employment opportunities.

People enter substance misuse treatment with a wide range of health and social needs. These need to be addressed alongside building motivation and aspiration for sustainable change.

Stigma is one of the greatest barriers to employment for those who have completed treatment or who are in treatment for drug and alcohol use. The double whammy of belonging to a group of people that is stigmatised is that those affected begin to believe the messages that they encounter everyday. While two thirds of employers would not employ someone who had a history of heroin or crack use*, many of those with a history of substance misuse believe they would not be employed either. There is an urgent need to develop employment ‘in-reach’** and other initiatives to provide employers with the confidence to employ people with a history of drug and alcohol misuse.

The journey for many people towards good health, recovery and being ready for employment is often slow. New skills need to be learnt and old habits left behind. At the point of accessing treatment for drug and alcohol misuse, people often have a wide range of physical and mental health issues which are often compounded by a myriad of social problems. It may take an extended period of time for people learn or re-learn softer but essential skills such as communication alongside building self-confidence/esteem. This is alongside getting treatment for physical and mental health conditions including their drug and alcohol use.

Some people have either no housing or insecure housing. This alone is a barrier to employment since employers require an address. Conversely housing is difficult to secure without a job therefore a vicious circle operates which continually pushes people further away from mainstream society.

Many people using a Blenheim ETE service were left feeling ashamed and stigmatised when accessing Job Centre Plus. They also reported that “work programmes are too intense” and as a result those who are either “not in treatment and/or subject to easements” struggle to keep up with the rigors of the programme and are therefore at risk of losing benefits. This can result in a return to the old pattern of offending and re-offending. There was a general consensus amongst the groups that the Job Centre wasn’t very helpful and the atmosphere was often poor.

In contrast people using specialist ETE services, felt they were good, offering the opportunity to get onto courses, gave an incentive to change and helped people think about and prepare for employment as they resolved or came to terms with other issues.

We are looking for employers in London to provide volunteer, employment and training opportunities for our service users. If you or know anyone that can help please contact us.


Blenheim has ETE services in Redbridge, Lewisham, and Kensington and Chelsea.

*Getting Serious about Stigma: The problem with stigmatising drug users UKDPC 2010

**In-Reach means where employees starting work with a history of drug or alcohol use are provided with additional support in the work place, as are their employers, to overcome any anxiety they have about employing those with a history of drug and alcohol problems.

How are funding cuts affecting drug and alcohol services?

The State of the Sector report, conducted by the Recovery Partnership, is documenting serious concerns about the declining ability of the substance misuse sector to meet the needs of those it serves.

The first survey, covering 2013, provided a snapshot of the experiences of drug and alcohol treatment services as they entered a new delivery landscape. This landscape was characterised by the closure of the National Treatment Agency (NTA) and its absorption into Public Health England (PHE), as well as the transfer of budgets and commissioning responsibilities for substance use services to local authorities.

While the first report found no evidence of deep and widespread disinvestment, in its second year (2014) the survey found that many respondents were experiencing or anticipating substantial funding reductions. This trend has continued into 2015, with a considerable proportion of both community and residential providers reporting a reduction in funding. Overall, the 2015 report finds that 38% of community drug services and 58% of residential services reported a decrease in funding. Given the announcement in the Autumn Spending Review that public health funding will be reduced by 3.9% per year for the rest of the current Parliament, challenges around resourcing safe and high quality services clearly remain.

Reductions in funding are causing significant disruption to service delivery. In London, reliable sources have indicated that over the last five years up to 50% of the funding for substance misuse services has been cut. The impact of cuts can include; larger caseloads, declining access to workforce development, limited core services, less outreach, less access to employment, training and education provision, and less capacity to respond to complex needs.

Frequent recommissioning is another disruption to service delivery. The 2015 State of the Sector report finds that 44% of services had been through tendering or contract re-negotiation in the previous year and half (49%) expected to go through one of these processes during the year ahead. Furthermore, the income volatility is putting many smaller excellent providers under significant financial strain.

Funding is not the only cause for concern. The challenge of offering effective, joined-up support to service users with multiple and complex needs, and in particular individuals with co-occurring substance use and mental health issues, is a thread which runs through the three reports.

Beyond addressing substance use, the most significant support needs of those using services are: self-esteem, physical and mental health, employment support and financial support and advice. A fifth of respondents in the 2015 State of the Sector report felt that access to mental health services and housing/housing support has worsened over the last year, indicating that better joined-up support for people with dual diagnosis and multiple and complex needs is still required. This is particularly concerning given the documented view in 2014 was that services had got worse. This reflects a worrying downward trend.

I know these concerns are shared by frontline staff, commissioners and providers, and as funds are cut further there is an increasing risk of unmet need and unsafe service models. Unless Local Authorities are careful we may find services being closed as result of serious concerns being identified by the Care Quality Commission. Another risk is Local Authorities are forced to cut substance misuse services to the extent that they can no longer provide community-based alternatives to custody for those with drug and alcohol problems, placing additional pressure on a prison service already in crisis and struggling to cope with drug-use in many establishments.

When the drugs strategy is published this year perhaps the first job should be a long hard look at its affordability.

Negative Impact

At Blenheim we have serious concerns about the commissioning, procurement, tendering, payment terms and the application of payment by results in the drug and alcohol sector. We also have great sympathy for the impossible funding environment that Local Authorities have been placed in by Central Government. This is not helped by the latest 6.2% cut in Public Health England (PHE) funding to Local Authorities, a £200 million in year cut. We share the growing concern that cutting £800 million from the PHE budget over the next four years will only be the tip of the iceberg, with some expecting the PHE budget to be decimated by the spending review in November or in subsequent years. Given that drug and alcohol treatment and indeed all PHE services provided by Local Authorities are subject to the NHS constitution it is outrageous that PHE spending, which is mainly invested in services for stigmatised and vulnerable groups is under attack.

It is right that local authorities now responsible for the provision of community based drug and alcohol treatment in England have a process for retendering the work provided to them by organisations such as Blenheim, however there needs to be a level playing field for charities of varying sizes, large private sector companies, NHS and local authorities. More importantly any recommissioning needs to be aware of the impact on service users.

Poor and frequent commissioning and procurement has a number of serious consequences not least of which is the cost. An exercise done by a provider to quantify the costs of tendering services over 10 years ago came up with a figure of £300,000 as the cost expended by all bidders and the commissioning authority per tender. Unintended impacts include deteriorating service provision, poor staff morale, and more importantly the fact that transitions between providers along with early exits from treatment are known factors in drug and alcohol related deaths. For example 1 in 200 injecting heroin users released from prison die within a month of release.

Increasingly charities like Blenheim seem to be in the business of tendering rather than in the business of caring for people in desperate need. In the last two years nearly 100% of drug and alcohol services have been through retendering processes according to a Drugscope survey.

A report, ‘Review of Alcohol Treatment Services’ published in August 2015 by the Recovery Partnership funded by the Department of Health into the state of alcohol services raises serious concerns about the impact of the current commissioning environment as did the ‘State of the Sector’ report, by Drugscope in 2014 into drugs and alcohol services.

Transfer of Financial Risks

The move from NHS to Local Authority commissioning has often seen a switch from payment in advance to payment quarterly in arrears. This has had a significant negative effect on cash-flow within many provider organisations. Many charities are facing increasing delays in Local Authorities paying invoices some waiting up to 6 months for payment in relation to money expended on delivering contracts. There is often little meaningful compliance with new regulations requiring payment of undisputed invoices within 30 days in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

Payment by Results (PbR)

Inappropriate poorly designed PbR schemes are a significant financial risk to charities. This is due to delayed payment of the PbR element for lengthy periods of time which impacts on cash-flow and because PbR is usually in our sector set against the cost of service delivery rather than as an incentive above this.

PbR is often set against stretch targets, which is appropriate where PbR operates as an incentive scheme. However almost all PbR schemes operate in our sector as repayment or non-payment schemes with funding deducted from core operating costs when often aspirational/stretch targets are not met.

When used PbR would be better to be clearly separated from core costs in contracts and be an incentive for excellent performance. Where non-payment or repayment conditions apply these we believe should be set in relation to under performance rather than against stretch targets and be clearly labelled as such and linked to processes in the contract related to under performance.

Procurement, tendering and contracts

All providers in the current environment need to accept that the tendering of services is here to stay and that charities like Blenheim will win and lose contracts, however we think there is a case to be made to increase from the standard 3 year contract to a 7-10 year minimum contract length or possibly longer to avoid regular disruption to the treatment of a vulnerable group of people. Such a move would allow providers to invest in equipment, staff training and buildings of the highest quality and build long term community links.

A recent ACMD report “How can opioid substitution therapy (and drug treatment and recovery systems) be optimised to maximise recovery outcomes for service users?” Published in Oct 2015 stated

“The ACMD has early evidence of the negative impacts of frequent re-procurement on local drug treatment systems and service users’ outcomes. It is very concerned that this ‘churn’ in the system, together with significant cuts in resources, is mitigating against stability in drug treatment systems, hampering quality and the implementation of evidence-based interventions (especially if they are deemed ‘expensive’) and may result in negative impacts on recovery outcomes. Furthermore, localism and the lack of ‘levers’ by bodies such as Public Health England and the Local Government Association may hinder government efforts to positively influence local systems.”

Local Authority contracts are often inequitable and allow cancelation by the local authority with three or six months notice, paying little regard to provider infrastructure costs and lease commitments. Often providers are asked to agree to contracts as a condition of being allowed to tender.  We would like to see contracts that are far less easy for Local Authorities to cancel once signed with the expectation that any but the most major changes required are done via contract variation rather than retendering. We fully understand and support contracts enabling cancellation where there are clear performance issues.

Minimum Turnover Requirements

At Blenheim we are concerned about the minimum turnover requirements that increasingly limit the ability of even large and major charities to tender for contracts they currently deliver. This is where to bid for work you have to have a minimum organisational turnover of say £10 million or £15 million. Whilst we realise this is a way of assessing the ability of an organisation to financially manage large contracts we believe it unfairly discriminates against smaller charities many of whom can easily manage larger contracts and that more sophisticated and more appropriate methods of assessing organisations should be applied.

I am aware of many smallish and medium sized charities that have not been able to bid for their existing contracts in their own right. This forces them into shot gun marriages with other charities as sub-contractors. Partnerships have a lot to offer and Blenheim is in many great and highly effective partnerships but they rarely work well when they are marriages of convenience or haste.

Tendering Processes

At Blenheim we are deeply troubled about the many instances of poorly managed tendering processes which create huge wastes of time and effort both at commissioning level and within provider organisations. Issues of concern include;

  • A lack of transparency about the process.
  • The number of tendering processes which have to be suspended due to flaws in the process.
  • A lack of knowledge about tendering and procurement within tendering teams
  • A lack of understanding by many commissioners of TUPE rules
  • A significant pension liability on incoming organisations where NHS or LA is the outgoing organisation particularly where down sizing is managed via a retendering process transferring liabilities for redundancy whilst often hiding cuts.
  • Unworkable specifications
  • Transfer of risk from Local Authorities to providers via Payment by Results with poor data to assess risk and often in relation to performance targets the provider has little control over.

Equally we would reflect that we have seen some excellent examples of commissioning regardless of whether we were successful.

Conclusion

If we want a thriving drug and alcohol sector we need to create a funding and commissioning environment where it can survive. Otherwise we face the risk of a choice of four or five mega charities as all but the largest go the way of the corner shop and the local butcher. Like banks and NHS Trusts these large charities maybe too big to let fail, but get into financial difficulty some will in the not to distant future as cuts in funding and huge public sector liabilities catch up with them.

Guest blog: ITEP goes to India by Kim Maouhoub

Anyone that knows me or has been in my airspace for more than five minutes knows of my love for India.

There was a time when Delhi was a place I zipped through on the way to either south India or the Himalayas, scooping up the odd friend for a whirlwind coffee/dinner/shopping spree/enfield admiration party and leaving them in my wake.

This year I have been lucky to spend more time in Delhi and have increasingly grown to love this beautiful, chaotic, breath taking (literally, and at times not in a good way) city.

It was an idea I had entertained for awhile but a last minute breath of inspiration pushed me to google drug treatment facilities in Delhi and send out a template email offering my services for a two day ITEP training a couple of days before I left London.

I got few responses but with a blur of emails and whatsapps I eventually arrived at Shafa in Rohini, Delhi and was asked to take a seat in the cool lobby, which offered sanctuary from the searing heat outside. There were a number of people there watching an information film about the facility so I watched whilst I collected my thoughts.

The CEO of the organisation soon came to collect me and ushered me into his office. I had the sense that he was really trying to get the measure of me and we proceeded to take it in turns to offer snippets of our CVs in the work that we did and as general human beings. We built on our many shared values and quickly established a rapport with lots of laughter and easy conversation.

My test was not over yet I suspect, even though I was there to talk to him about training his staff team he wanted me to meet ‘the guys’ as he called the residents. We went upstairs and my heart came out of my chest as we entered a huge hall with men sitting cross legged in rows…it was at that point I started to get an idea of the size of the programme they were running. So with the aid of a translator and a grand introduction from Ranjan I spoke to the residents of the programme.

12004145_523265787836998_5883855277377995444_nI am used to standing up and talking in front of groups of people but to do it with the aid of a translator to an audience some of whom are in withdrawal is quite an experience. It is hard to keep your nerve and maintain eye contact and the normal means with which I communicate were put to the test. And oh did I mention the fact I was being filmed, photographed and monitored from the side-lines by the entire staff team? It was extremely gratifying to see expressions start to soften and nods of the head as they started to get why I was there. When I had finished speaking there was a chance for them to ask questions which they did by first raising their hand and being invited to stand and speak.

Many took the opportunity to do so and when they had finished a member of the group seemingly overwhelmed by the whole occasion jumped up and said thankyou ma’am which made the whole room laugh. Even as I write this now I feel the tightness in my throat his beautifully spontaneous action provoked.

Having met ‘the guys’ I went downstairs to meet with the staff team and some of the senior peers to discuss the mapping training I proposed to run. They were extremely enthusiastic and it was agreed that the first of two days training would take place the next day.12036849_523266397836937_4921126196957729621_n

I cannot tell you how much fun it was to go home, amend my material to suit the purpose and then go to work in rush hour on the Delhi metro. I think my metro experiences alone could be a blog in themselves but suffice to say as with every human interaction it gave me lots of opportunity for growth and enough anecdotes to dine on for the foreseeable future!

It was my first experience of delivering this training to a mix of staff and senior peers and I had to give careful consideration to my amendments to maintain safe boundaries without compromising the work. In all honesty I saw it as more of a challenge so I was taken aback with delight when I saw the value of staff experiencing not only their own journey with maps but their amazement witnessing the changes in those they had worked with for almost a year. As with every training the mapping sells itself but with the hundreds of times I have facilitated this process I have never seen anything quite as beautiful as this.

Due to the confidentiality agreed which is crucial to support the integrity of this training I cannot say more but I can say that everybody engaged with a passion and joy that was infectious and it soon became apparent that some members of the group were thinking of their own sessions and planning their own bespoke maps.

At the end of our session mindful that I would be returning to the UK I wanted to formulate an action plan with the team to ensure that this would be carried forward.

12009785_523265867836990_5857122002329707386_nTogether we agreed phases of implementation including cascading the training to absent staff, showcasing the maps to clients, adapting maps to client need in terms of language and a Skype call with me to review actions achieved and actions to complete.

Shafa published their own experience of the training. Tushar said “I take the whole concept of mapping as one of the most important tools that someone has given to me to play with. Session continued for two days and still I felt that it was not enough. The whole technique enables you to find out the solutions of your problems by using out own inputs to any situation. More over I would like to add to it that it also helps to identify our true self like our strengths, our weaknesses, our challenges, the people who matters in our life the most etc. It allows a counsellor to record all the necessary information about the counselee in a more systematic order” Sachin said “Attended this session on Mapping which would be so informative i had never expected. It was like peeling an onion layer by layer, same was the case with this session on mapping it had different layers of valuable information within it. A very thoughtful innovation to get information related to any body and any sort. By attending this session I feel more powerful and confident, because for the first time I saw things from a different perspective and tried to find out solutions for my problems with the resources available with me. This was really motivating and skilful technique for life.”

It is not uncommon at the end of the two day training that there are emotional goodbyes, tears and hugs from 12032923_523271207836456_1180870037899864262_ndelegates. Over the years I have been privileged to witness huge events unfold, decisions made and action plans put into place through mapping over the two days. ITEP node-link mapping is one of my favourite trainings to run, the privilege of facilitating such powerful change is not lost on me and is always an honour. I have forged powerful connections with delegates I may never meet again but the link will never be broken.

I found it so hard to go after such an emotional three days but I know that I will meet the Shafa family again. I want to thank them for allowing me to work with them and am grateful for all the learning I underwent whilst with them. I know because of them I left a better trainer.

By Kim Maouhoub, Training Manager at Blenheim

To find out more information or to book training please contact our training team using this enquiry form.