Skip to main content
NSAG / Continuing Education / Facilitators · Professional Dev
ENROLLMENT NOT YET OPEN Accreditation applications in process across all 7 CE types. Book a discovery call to discuss institutional access or co-accreditation partnerships.
SCOPE BOUNDARY This track teaches governance within facilitator scope: environmental design, protocol standards, referral trigger identification, and documentation advocacy. It does not teach clinical screening, drug interaction assessment, diagnosis, treatment, or any function requiring a medical or mental health license. Clinical referral thresholds are identified throughout — not because facilitators perform clinical functions, but because recognizing when to refer is itself a governance standard.
CE Specialty Track PREREQUISITE: Core CE Program Required

Governance, Safety, and Referral Boundaries for Facilitators and Integration Practitioners

Four sessions. Four governance functions within facilitator scope. Trauma-informed space design, session protocol governance, cannabis disclosure safety, and documentation advocacy — grounded in peer-reviewed evidence, built for the people who hold the container.

4.0
Professional Development Credit Hours
4
Add-On Sessions
On-Demand
Self-Paced Format
Download Track Overview PDF Book a Discovery Call
Professional Development Specialty Track

Facilitators & Integration Practitioners CE

Your participant arrives at your service center before you have said a word. The intake room, the consent language, the lighting, and the keypad entry have already begun shaping their nervous system. Most facilitator training teaches session technique. This track teaches the institutional governance that happens before and around the session.

Four sessions. Four governance domains within facilitator scope. Session F1 applies SAMHSA Four R’s to facilitation space design. Session F2 applies the Johnson, Richards & Griffiths (2008) safety framework to protocol governance and clinical referral thresholds. Sessions F3 and F4 address cannabis disclosure safety and documentation infrastructure — the two governance failures most likely to create invisible safety risks in facilitation programs.

Scope note: Every session in this track teaches governance within facilitator scope. Clinical screening, drug interaction assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and medical decision-making are outside facilitator scope. This track identifies those boundaries explicitly — including the precise point at which facilitator governance ends and clinical referral begins.

Who This Is For
  • Oregon Licensed Psilocybin Service Providers (ORS Chapter 475A)
  • Colorado Natural Medicine Facilitators (Proposition 122 / DORA)
  • Facilitation trainees in OHA-approved or equivalent training programs
  • Integration practitioners (non-licensed)
  • Harm reduction workers and peer support workers
  • Ceremony-adjacent support workers
  • Clinic support staff and program coordinators at psychedelic and cannabis service centers
Accreditation Status
Non-accredited independent professional development
4.0 professional development hours (1.0 per session) — two certificate versions: Oregon Licensed Psilocybin Service Provider and generic Certificate of Completion
In Process

This program is NOT an OHA-approved training program and does not satisfy Oregon facilitator licensure training requirements. Independent professional development only. Oregon Licensed Psilocybin Service Provider certificate includes required OHA non-approval disclaimer.

What’s Included

Each Session Includes

  • ✓Pre-test (5 questions per session)
  • ✓Timed prerecorded video session (60 minutes)
  • ✓Post-test (5 questions per session; minimum 80% required for credit)
  • ✓Practice application exercise (active written or structured response required)
  • ✓Certificate of completion (issued on post-test completion; includes CE type and credit hours)
  • ✓Written materials package (substantive outline, authority map, and hypothetical with model analysis)
Prerequisite

Core CE Program Required

This specialty track is an add-on to the 15-session NSAG Core CE Program. The core curriculum must be completed before enrolling in this track. The core program introduces the four-tier governance framework, six-dimension scoring model, and module-specific evidence bases that this track builds on.

View Core CE Program →
Session Structure

60-Minute Timed Agenda · Every Session

Both sessions in this track follow the same 60-minute structure. Pre-test and post-test are required for credit. The practice application exercise requires an active written or structured response.

Time Duration Segment Content Credit-Eligible
0:00–0:03 3 min Welcome & Disclaimers No legal/medical advice disclaimer; speaker conflict of interest disclosure; CE accreditation status statement; content validation date stated No
0:03–0:08 5 min Pre-Test 5-question pre-test assessing baseline knowledge of the session’s governance domain content. Required for credit. Yes
0:08–0:12 4 min Overview & Learning Objectives Three learning objectives stated; governance problem for this session introduced in one sentence with the primary evidence source named Yes
0:12–0:22 10 min The Governance Problem Evidence base for the governance gap: primary source cited, verbatim key finding presented, governance implication stated Yes
0:22–0:35 13 min Evidence Base & Research Foundation 2–3 primary peer-reviewed sources: study summary, verbatim key finding, DOI displayed; governance implication per source Yes
0:35–0:45 10 min Six Governance Dimensions Each dimension defined and illustrated with a profession-specific institutional example Yes
0:45–0:50 5 min PIONEERING Governance Standards Full PIONEERING tier criteria for this module — observable, documentable governance standards that distinguish PIONEERING from EMERGING Yes
0:50–0:57 7 min Practice Application Exercise Structured exercise requiring active written or multiple-choice response. Completion required for credit. Yes
0:57–1:00 3 min Post-Test & Certificate 5-question post-test; minimum 80% score required for credit; certificate of completion issued on successful completion Yes
Learning Outcomes

What You’ll Be Able to Do

Session F1 · 1.0 Professional Development Hour

Trauma-Informed Space Design for Facilitators

1

Apply SAMHSA Four R’s (Realize, Recognize, Respond, Resist re-traumatization) to identify trauma-activating features of a facilitation space or program environment

Competency: SAMHSA Four R’s; environmental governance Evidence: Post-test: identify Four R’s failures in a described service center intake environment
2

Assess a described facilitation environment across three NSAG M1 governance dimensions — physical space design, procedural language, and feedback mechanisms — within facilitator scope

Competency: Environmental governance; institutional design Evidence: Application exercise: score two M1 dimensions for a described service center intake room
3

Draft one governance recommendation for the highest-priority trauma-informed design deficit in a described facilitation space, within facilitator scope and without clinical framing

Competency: Governance advocacy; institutional improvement Evidence: Written application exercise: governance recommendation for a described intake environment
Session F2 · 1.0 Professional Development Hour

Session Protocol Governance and Harm Reduction Standards

1

Apply Johnson, Richards & Griffiths (2008) safety guidelines to evaluate a facilitation program’s session protocol governance across screening, preparation, setting, and facilitator training dimensions

Competency: Protocol governance; safety standards Evidence: Post-test: identify M3 governance deficits in a described program protocol
2

Identify the NSAG M3 governance dimension most likely to be deficient in a described facilitation program and explain the safety consequence within facilitator scope

Competency: Governance assessment; safety identification Evidence: Application exercise: score a described program across M3 dimensions; identify highest-priority deficit
3

Explain the clinical referral threshold in facilitation protocol governance and draft the scope-appropriate communication a facilitator uses when a referral is triggered

Competency: Referral boundary identification; professional communication Evidence: Post-test: given a participant scenario, identify the referral trigger and draft within-scope communication
Session F3 · 1.0 Professional Development Hour

Cannabis Disclosure and Referral Safety for Practitioners

1

Explain the Lapham et al. (2022) 7:1 documentation gap and Sajdeya et al. (2021) structural barriers framework as applied to facilitation intake contexts

Competency: Disclosure governance; structural barriers Evidence: Post-test: identify the structural barrier most responsible for a described disclosure failure
2

Identify three facilitator governance practices that create a disclosure-safe environment for cannabis use without requiring clinical assessment of disclosed use

Competency: Disclosure safety governance; intake design Evidence: Application exercise: draft cannabis-specific intake language for a facilitation program
3

Describe when a participant’s cannabis disclosure in a facilitation context requires clinical referral, distinguishing facilitator governance role from clinical assessment role

Competency: Referral threshold identification; scope clarity Evidence: Post-test: given a cannabis disclosure scenario, identify governance response vs. clinical referral trigger
Session F4 · 1.0 Professional Development Hour

Documentation Advocacy and Participant Visibility

1

Apply Beiler et al. (2024) evidence — structured fields produce 93.6% documentation completion vs. 30.8% unstructured — to explain why documentation infrastructure, not practitioner behavior, drives participant visibility

Competency: Documentation governance; infrastructure evidence Evidence: Post-test: identify the infrastructure failure in a described documentation scenario
2

Identify the governance dimensions that make participant information visible in a facilitation context, distinguishing facilitation documentation from medical records and clinical documentation

Competency: Documentation standards; scope boundaries Evidence: Application exercise: assess a described facilitation program’s intake documentation against NSAG M9 dimensions
3

Draft one documentation governance recommendation for a facilitation program that would improve participant safety without exceeding facilitator scope of practice

Competency: Governance advocacy; documentation design Evidence: Application exercise: draft one structured intake documentation standard for a described program
Sample Course Content

Practice Hypothetical & Model Analysis

The following is a representative hypothetical from this specialty track. Each session includes a practice application exercise based on a realistic institutional scenario. The model analysis below represents the level of analysis expected from practitioners completing this course.

Session F2 · Session Protocol Governance and Harm Reduction Standards

Hypothetical F2: The Protocol Gap

A licensed psilocybin service center in Oregon has two trained facilitators who conduct excellent sessions. The program has no written screening protocol. Participant intake consists of a 15-minute phone call with the service administrator (not a licensed clinician) asking about ‘general health’ and ‘intentions.’ There is no question about current psychiatric medications. There is no documented screening outcome.

A participant arrives for their preparation session. During conversation, they mention they started sertraline (an SSRI) three weeks ago for situational anxiety. They are enthusiastic and motivated. The facilitator is aware at a general level that serotonergic medications are relevant in psilocybin facilitation contexts.

Discussion Questions
  1. Apply Johnson, Richards & Griffiths (2008): what governance failure in this program’s screening dimension created the safety risk described?
  2. Apply NSAG M3 Dimension 1 (participant screening governance): what does a PIONEERING screening protocol include for this scenario, within facilitator scope?
  3. What is the clinical referral trigger? Draft the within-scope communication a facilitator uses to name the concern without making a clinical claim.
  4. SCOPE BOUNDARY: The facilitator is curious whether sertraline and psilocybin have a documented interaction. What does the facilitator do with that curiosity, and what is explicitly outside their scope?
Model Analysis
  1. Governance failure: Johnson et al. (2008) establish that participant screening is a primary adverse event determinant. The governance failure is not the facilitators’ expertise level — it is that the program has no documented screening protocol requiring disclosure of current psychiatric medications. The safety risk was designed into the intake structure before this participant arrived.
  2. PIONEERING screening within facilitator scope: (1) Written screening protocol specifying what questions are asked, by whom, and with what documentation; (2) Explicit intake question about current psychiatric medications — not clinical assessment, a governance question; (3) Protocol specifying that any psychiatric medication triggers clinical review before session eligibility is confirmed; (4) Named licensed clinical contact responsible for medication review; (5) Eligibility decision documented with clinical reviewer approval.
  3. Referral communication: ‘Based on our program’s screening protocol, a recently started psychiatric medication requires a brief review by our clinical oversight contact before we confirm your session eligibility. This is a standard step — not a concern about you specifically. I’ll connect you with [name] to complete that check-in. We want to make sure timing and context are right for you.’ The facilitator does NOT say: ‘sertraline can cause serotonin syndrome with psilocybin’ or advise the participant about medication changes.
  4. Scope boundary with sertraline curiosity: The facilitator may be aware at a general level that serotonergic medications are relevant in psilocybin contexts. Actions within scope: acknowledge the question; note that it is exactly why clinical review is required; activate the referral protocol. Actions outside scope: research the specific interaction and apply it to this participant; advise the participant on whether their medication is contraindicated; make the session eligibility determination; pressure the clinical reviewer to expedite.

This model analysis represents the depth of reasoning expected in the practice application exercise. The post-test (minimum 80%) assesses conceptual mastery of the session’s evidence base and governance framework.

View the full Evidence Library → for the primary sources cited in this and all other specialty track sessions.

Related Tracks

Practitioners Who Take This Track Also Benefit From

SW-CE
Social Work Specialty Track

The Social Work track (Session SW1) covers trauma-informed governance in legal settings using the same SAMHSA Four R’s framework as Session F1. Social workers and facilitators frequently work with overlapping populations. Taking both tracks provides a cross-role governance vocabulary for institutional advocacy and client referral.

View track →
CLE
Law Specialty Track

The Law track (Session L1) covers trauma-informed governance in legal settings from the attorney’s perspective. Facilitators whose participants navigate legal systems — criminal justice involvement, custody proceedings, immigration — benefit from understanding the legal governance framework that shapes those environments.

View track →
Institutional Access

License This Track for Your Organization

Institutional licensing includes cohort enrollment across both the Core CE Program and this specialty track, facilitator support, and options to integrate with existing CE tracking systems. Pricing includes all 15 core sessions plus this specialty add-on.

$5,000
1–50 employees
Core CE + This Specialty Track
$10,000
51–200 employees
Core CE + This Specialty Track
$15,000
201+ employees
Core CE + This Specialty Track
Inquire About Institutional Access
Download Track Overview

Get the condensed 2–3 page program overview

Program description · All learning outcomes · Full 60-minute timed agenda · Accreditation status · No enrollment required.

The overview is not gated. Download it directly, without an email address. If you do enter one it is sent to NSAG so we can tell you when accreditation completes, and nothing else — see the privacy notice.