One chief challenge faced when implementing “The Recovery Protocol Breakthrough” is related to getting physicians onboard with this program. The use of the word “physician” refers to primary care doctors, nurse practitioners and psychiatrists. Having an awareness of what you could face puts you in the driver’s seat.

“The Recovery Protocol Breakthrough” for most clinicians is not a part of their primary care or psychiatric education and training. Therefore, what is being proposed by Citizen Psychiatry is, in all likelihood, new for everyone involved. Novel information that does not reflect medical standards of care practices and training can produce skepticism, and for some is threatening. This is a normal reaction for anyone who is being asked to consider participating in something new that is out of their scope of practice. The aim, as a client, is to ask for openness and consideration from one’s treating physician with what is being proposed as an adjunct to treatment. An open-minded physician is more than likely to agree to a trial of this protocol. After a trial, decisions about continuance can be discussed. This is the best-case scenario to shoot for.

Resistance to the idea of applying this protocol can come from many corners. One form of resistance is related to how this protocol is out of their scope and is not their area of training and knowledge. This can leave a physician feeling very uncomfortable.

Another form of leeriness is with Section 1, Survey “A”, “Recovery Care Considerations”. Most psychiatrists and primary care doctors, for example, would say such care considerations are not included in standard assessment guidelines. Especially, with Blood Test considerations, there can be a passing of the buck from a psychiatrist, for example, to one’s primary care provider because blood tests of this nature are their responsibility and not theirs.

With regard to brain scans and blood testing considerations as highlighted, in Section One, Survey “A”, one might get a reply such as, “This is nonsense and has no merit”. This response is true within the parameters of traditional education and learning provided by the institutions of psychiatry. Keep in mind, it is not possible for all physicians and psychiatric bodies to know everything researched in the world by various disciplines on approaches to recovery and treatment. These are inherent limitations of the profession.

However, a natural response for any public institution that has such a reach into people’s lives is to protect its founding core premise of existence. This response runs deep in psychiatric practice. Introducing anything that may be of value to the public at large, in the natural course of change, generally is not welcomed, initially, because protecting and preserving the status quo is more important. On another front, resistance can be related to, and rightfully so for some physicians, who do not want to leave their practice open to investigation by their college whose job it is to keep everyone on board with an accepted scope of practices. For a treating physician, the decision to move forward with “Recovery Protocol Breakthrough” can come down to a professional choice and comfort.

Other forms of resistance can be tied to fees for service. The doctor who is open will need to consider under what code they can bill the insurance company or public funding body in order to get paid for providing this recovery protocol service.

There is also the consideration of the learning curve to undertake this protocol and the time element within the treatment room appointment with the patient, and this can be a barrier to negotiating. The last comment to make is about reluctance coming from the idea that this protocol is a form of psychotherapy that is outside their present scope of training. This is a valid concern. However, by definition The Recovery Protocol Breakthrough, as outlined here is not psychotherapy. Rather this protocol is a method of practice that has a regenerative scope, much different from what defines “psychotherapy”.

The experience of Citizen Psychiatry is that most physicians who practice mainstream psychiatry tremendously care about their patient’s welfare and success in life. Suffering and pain are not what they want for their clients.

Below are outlines on how to approach one’s treatment team. Be authentic and state your request and position. If an oral presentation works then introduce this protocol to the physician verbally. If this is not a strength of yours, write out the request and then follow up with a discussion.

Outlines
The best approach to introduce “The Recovery Protocol Breakthrough” is with a preamble that looks like the two texts below but in your own words. Keep in mind if there is a refusal to proceed, then decision options can look like: a) locate an open-minded psychiatric provider and or b) advocacy work, especially if one lives in a town or rural area where the chances of finding another treating physician are low to none. There is also the matter of distance to travel. In cases like this, advocacy work calls on a person to stand one’s ground and not take no for an answer. There are many routes to take to this advocacy work. Remember, in the end, this is about your life. When one leaves the treatment room, the provider does not walk or live with the pain and suffering walking in your shoes. It is up to you to strive for what will make a difference in the life you want to lead.

1) For an overall approach to introduce this recovery protocol these words can be spoken,
Both you and I know this has been a long road for me. I have struggled for a long time with no luck in taking medications. It has been a very despairing long road for me. What I want so badly is the opportunity to have a life, finally. I am losing all hope. Can you appreciate my plight? The good news is I believe I have found a way to regain my life, but I do need your help. I can’t do this without you. I want to add a “Recovery Protocol” to our time together. Have you heard of this practice? If not, this would be new and unfamiliar territory for both of us, but I am willing to do a test trial if you are willing. I have nothing else to lose but much to gain. I am at my wits’ end. It is about my life after all. I shall leave you with the website address to review the protocol. Go to, www.citizenpysychiatry.com. All I ask is for you to review this information and hold your conclusions until we discuss this further at our next appointment. Can we agree on this?

2) The best approach with which to introduce, Section 1, survey “A” is with a preamble that can look like this,
Both you and I know this has been a long road for me. I have struggled for a long time with no luck in taking medications. It has been a very despairing long road for me. What I want so badly is the opportunity to have a life. I am losing all hope. Can you appreciate my plight? The good news is I believe I have found a way to regain my life, but I do need your help. I can’t do this without you. I want to add a “Recovery Protocol” to our time together. Have you heard of this practice? If not, this would be new and unfamiliar territory for both of us, but I am willing to do a test trial if you are willing. I have nothing else to lose but much to gain. I am at my wits’ end. These “Recovery Care Considerations” from what I gather would be as foreign and new to you as it is to me. Would you agree? However, from a holistic, mind/body, perspective, the care factors outlined seem to be a no-brainer for the next step to examine and take action. In my view, asking for these holistic care considerations for my mental state is on par with requesting this examination for my physical health. For me, this is about my health and happiness. Don’t you agree with wanting this for me?

I shall leave you with some information about this protocol, www.citizenpsychiatry.com. All I ask is for you to review this information and hold your conclusions until we discuss this further at our next appointment. Can we agree on this?