Running the sessions
’
SAID
Venues varied greatly, particularly in community settings. There were instances when even working to a lone worker risk-assessment protocol, facilitators were asked to lock up, being last in the building. On a few occasions, telephone back up with the I-WOTCH team was compromised by a lack of signal. IT problems were mitigated by facilitators having written scripts as backup.Facilitators mostly worked well together, with only occasional disagreements over differences in delivery or choice of sessions. Most would have preferred to work in the same pairings which was not possible within the intervention delivery design. Nurses felt the days were quite ‘full on’ having little downtime because even in breaks and meal-breaks everybody still chatted. Lay facilitators who were having to deal with their own health issues commented that the travel and full days (09:00 to 15:00) left them tired. However, all the facilitators said that the lay facilitator role was key to the groups running well. ‘… do not remove the lay facilitators if you’re going forward, they have to be there…’ N02Group dynamicsThere was sometimes initial scepticism and negativity about the programme which was challenging for the staff to deal with. Resistance sometimes changed around day 2.… I think by sort of early afternoon is when people started you know listening a bit more thinking, ‘Oh ok maybe there is an alternative?’ L07Groups fared differently—occasionally groups bonded or ‘gelled’ as early as day 1 but more often by the end of day 2 and definitely by day 3 where shared experiences and supportive bonds had been formed.Now dealing with positive people looking and moving forward. L04The most challenging groups involved a small minority of participants actively resistant to the information and techniques offered. Some showed challenging behaviour such as ‘rubbishing’ the content or interrupting. Some of these participants did not return after day 1.‘Shutters down’ straight away. L05