I'm not sure why it took me almost two years to realize that some of our pet therapists had a limited view of why they were there, but now I'm determined to rectify the problem. It's twofold, I think: (1) Since pet therapists in past training groups were not given a focus, they arrived at the conclusion that they were strictly there for people to pet the dog - not an unreasonable conclusion, I might add, because they were given all the statistics about lowered blood pressure, lowered heart and respiratory rates and better sleep patterns in patients following a pet visit. Since the focus was put on the pet, the volunteer's involvement in the process became superfluous. He or she saw himself as accompanying the dog. (2) I don't believe it's conscious, but even with all the training about active listening and good communication skills, it's still daunting to walk into a stranger's room and start up a conversation with patients and families, any of whom might be depressed, or angry, or distraught, or just plain uninterested. It's easy to arrive at the conclusion that standing in a doorway for a few minutes while everyone oohs and aahs over the cute puppy and dutifully pats him on the head constitutes a successful visit. Again, not unreasonable. The dog is happy, the patient and family are smiling and everyone seems more relaxed.
However, I thing the difference in the focus - from accompanying the dog, to using the dog as the entree into the room - is potentially huge. In the latter scenario, the volunteer takes over once the interest in the dog gets him into the room. Then if the patient wants to reminisce about the dog he took on a fishing trip to Montana twenty years ago, the volunteer should be prepared to sit down, get comfortable and use those active listening skills he learned in the volunteer training classes. The conversation doesn't need to include the disease process in order to be doing something positive for everyone in the room. Maybe the half hour spent reminiscing about a happy memory is enough to take the focus off the elephant in the room so everyone can relax a bit. Now that, it seems to me, is a much more satisfying and meaningful visit, fitting the description "therapy" more accurately
However, I thing the difference in the focus - from accompanying the dog, to using the dog as the entree into the room - is potentially huge. In the latter scenario, the volunteer takes over once the interest in the dog gets him into the room. Then if the patient wants to reminisce about the dog he took on a fishing trip to Montana twenty years ago, the volunteer should be prepared to sit down, get comfortable and use those active listening skills he learned in the volunteer training classes. The conversation doesn't need to include the disease process in order to be doing something positive for everyone in the room. Maybe the half hour spent reminiscing about a happy memory is enough to take the focus off the elephant in the room so everyone can relax a bit. Now that, it seems to me, is a much more satisfying and meaningful visit, fitting the description "therapy" more accurately
No comments:
Post a Comment