This reflection examines the facilitation of an educational support group meeting on Alzheimer's disease treatments and medications for nursing home residents. The author describes the meeting setup, participant engagement, discussion of treatment options, and how the co-leadership team managed sensitive topics including end-of-life concerns. The paper documents what went well—member participation, objective completion, and staff feedback—and identifies three key areas for improvement: communication among facilitators, conversation redirection techniques, and engagement of quieter participants.
Upon arrival at the nursing home, my co-leaders and I set up a table with snacks and refreshments for the participants. The meeting was held in the same lounge area as the previous week. This room offered ample space, bright lighting, and an intimate atmosphere where participants could hear and see the speaker and interact with one another. Management was readily available to assist us with whatever we needed, which helped ease our nerves and made us feel welcomed.
This week, ten participants attended: nine female and one male resident. Five previous participants did not return, but we gained three new members. It was noted that some participants who were absent reported not feeling well or being too depressed to attend. The meeting started five minutes late while we waited for one co-leader to arrive, which occurred without prior notification to the other facilitators. The co-leader also walked in while the lecture was already underway.
I began by welcoming everyone back and asking new members to introduce themselves. After introductions, including those of the co-leaders, I reviewed the group rules for new members. I then proceeded to the first objective: reviewing the previous week's topic and opening the floor for questions. No one had questions, but one member stated, "You gave us a lot of great information and answered our questions." Many other members agreed with this assessment, which indicated to us that participants were engaged and interested in the material we were presenting.
I then moved to the second objective: introducing and discussing various treatments, medications, and alternative treatments for Alzheimer's disease. This prompted members to share stories about family members who suffered or are suffering from Alzheimer's, describing how medications either positively or negatively affected their loved ones. One new member participated readily, while the other two new members and some returning members were initially reluctant to share. This observation suggested that the group was transitioning from the forming stage toward the working stage of group development.
As members shared their experiences, several important questions emerged. One participant asked, "Do the medications act on the brain or the physical body?" Another asked, "Since patients do not get better and medications can cause side effects, why don't they create a pill to give to Alzheimer's patients that can put them to sleep?" This latter question came from a member whose husband had passed away with Alzheimer's. She expressed that she would have preferred her husband to take a pill to end his suffering rather than watch him progressively decline and experience the strain of being a caregiver.
This vulnerable disclosure led the group to discuss the Death with Dignity Law, which exists in some states, causing the conversation to deviate from the planned lecture content. At this point, one of my co-leaders expertly redirected the discussion back to the main topic while still acknowledging the member's concerns and grief. The third co-leader intervened when necessary and primarily served as the minute taker for the meeting. This incident highlighted the emotional complexity of facilitating support for people caring for loved ones with a progressive, terminal illness.
The meeting lasted approximately thirty minutes. Members were notified when the conclusion was approaching, and the floor was opened for a final question-and-answer session. We thanked all participants for attending and provided a brief description of the following week's topic. Members were also reminded to write down any questions that arose after we left and to ask them at the next meeting. Everyone seemed satisfied, with many members stating they would return the next week.
All co-leaders agreed the meeting was successful based on several criteria: the majority of previous members returned; all members actively participated by sharing feelings and stories; facility staff confirmed members were enjoying our meetings; all co-leaders contributed without the main speaker feeling overshadowed; and all objectives were met—questions were answered, feelings were explored, and members gained general knowledge about medication mechanisms.
"Communication gaps, redirection skills, and source evaluation"
You’re 84% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.