Connecting the Intensive Interaction ‘Means’ to its ‘Ends’

This Blog is the collective work of the attendees of the Intensive Interaction Weekend Workshop 2024 – where we all looked at the ‘means’ to doing good quality, regular, consistent and reflective Intensive Interaction i.e. what processes, people and resources need to be in place for such an outcome to happen, and also at the ‘ends’ of this process i.e. the outcomes of using Intensive Interaction.

The ‘Means’ to Intensive Interaction: i.e. the processes, people and resources that were identified fell into 3 categories:

1. Overall – the processes, people and resources required to develop and sustain good quality, regular, consistent and reflective Intensive Interaction: ongoing training (incl. induction), ongoing supervision/support, reflective practitioners, positive and open working culture, space and time, available/accessible resources, sharing practice and video reflection, II ‘champions’, teamwork, research evidence, informed management, governors, trustees and commissioners, etc.
2. The processes, people and resources required to develop and sustain good quality, regular, consistent and reflective Intensive Interaction specifically for children: ◦ Information designed for parents/family carers; ◦ Ensuring II in EHCPs and care plans; ◦ Informed SENCOs and SEND teams; ◦ Informed inspectors e.g. OFSTED.
3. The processes, people and resources required to develop and sustain good quality, regular, consistent and reflective Intensive Interaction specifically for adults: ◦ Information designed for parents/family and paid carers; ◦ Ensuring II in care plans and/or PBS plans; ◦ Informed Community LD Teams/therapists; ◦ Informed inspectors e.g. CQC

So, if the above-listed processes, people and resources were to be put in place we should be confident of developing and sustaining good quality, regular, consistent and reflective Intensive Interaction for the children and adults that we work with and care for.

Then we tried to identify the ‘Ends’ (Outcomes) of Intensive Interaction across all the people who might be involved in developing, resourcing, managing and applying the approach. This time, as well as there being a range of ‘overall’ outcomes, we ended up with 10 categories of people who might be looking for different (although obviously associated) outcomes from using Intensive Interaction.

Overall outcomes from Intensive Interaction: social inclusion, sense of agency, connection, communication and social development, psychological well-being, hope, a sense of purpose, happiness, love, fulfillment, opportunity, inspiration, reduced anxiety … but more specifically for different people within the overall process, other potential outcomes were identified:

The Person: • Psychological well-being • Developmental progress • Access to self-expression • Unconditional positive regard • Security & Connection • Empowerment • Curiosity • FUN!

Practitioners: • Increased fulfillment • Increased confidence • Professional development • Less burnout • FUN!

Carers: • Deeper relationships • Security • Purpose • Empowerment • Increased confidence • Less burnout • FUN!

Family: • Better care • Happier people • Deeper relationships • Security about the future • Reassurance • Weight lifted • FUN!

Therapists: • Improved communication • Improved engagement • Preventative intervention: therefore, fewer referrals • Building ‘connection’ • Job satisfaction
• FUN!

Management/trustees: • Coherent fit with stated ‘values’ • Value for money • Staff retention • Staff feel more confident and understood • Reputation • Less crisis management • Job satisfaction

Educators: • Person-centred pedagogy • Targets primary learning needs • Developmental progression • Relationship development • Empowered and increased job satisfaction • FUN!

Commissioners: • Appropriate use of funds • ‘Values’ led commissioning • Person-centred commissioning • Supporting development • Reduction in overall costs

Funders: • Better value for money • Demonstrable use of funds • Improved reputation • Supporting inclusion and development • Positive publicity

Inspectors: • More person-centred view of care/education • Improved insight • Measurable data • Supporting development • Supporting social inclusion

But that wasn’t the end of the analytic process – no, a ‘Feedback Loop’ was identified from the successful development and identification of the desired outcomes of Intensive Interaction (the ‘Ends’) to a potential for increased procurement and availability of the processes, people and resources required to sustain the ‘Means’ of further good quality Intensive Interaction.

So my job was to bring all this together into a single (hopefully coherent) model that would visually represent the overall process. So below is this admittedly quite complex model.

So finally, if there is one big, clear take away for me from developing this model it is this – that the visibility and clear articulation of the outcomes of Intensive Interaction need to be communicated to all those people, in all the included positions, if we want to sustain and indeed further develop the use of Intensive Interaction. Just doing it and contentedly keeping quiet about it isn’t enough.

We need to show everyone involved that Intensive Interaction is vital in meeting the needs of the person (most importantly of course), but also that it can clearly meet the needs of their family, of their carers, of their educators and therapists, of the service managers, trustees and governors, of the funders and the service commissioners, and also of those who inspect our services as well.

Only then will we have done everything we can to keep the ‘means’ to good quality Intensive Interaction available to everyone who needs it.