Authentic PPIE – the (re)search for authentic engagement

image: https://www.childsafeguardingconsultant.co.uk/trauma-informed-practice-in-education-and-healthcare/

Yesterday I posted about some thoughts I’d been having about trauma-informed practice and the unspoken social contract of seeking and (hopefully) receiving care. This post was inspired and informed by a conversation I’ve been having with one of my volunteers. I’m supporting them to have a conversation with some of my colleagues in the NHS about their experience of crisis care, so that we can learn and improve on what we’re offering.

I’ve been checking in with my volunteer about this blog post , to sense check it and see if there’s anything which should be changed. They wrote this reply:

Hi Sharon,

I immediately read it. You have already thought and considered far more than many of your peers in the NHS. ☺️ Yes I could tell you some truly shocking experiences of that social contract going wrong, especially in supposedly trauma informed spaces. We must do better to make sure they aren’t just buzz words or mandatory training goals but truly built into trauma informed care.

We also talked about The Three Ps which are part of Social Pedagogy practice. This framework highlights the importance of bringing some personal elements of yourself into the space to help build trust and relationship, whilst also clarifying where the boundaries lie and keeping yourself and your ‘client’ safe.

My volunteer then went on to share with me some thoughts and guidance they’re putting together for an upcoming workshop on trauma-informed leadership. I thought there were some really interesting and helpful points in there, and they’ve given me permission to share them here.

*** *** ***

In trauma-informed leadership, silence in response to lived experience is not neutral…it signals rupture, not safety.

When openness and vulnerability are acknowledged they build connection, trust, and a sense that co-production efforts are genuinely valued. If instead efforts are ignored or met with silence, especially by those who claim to champion trauma-informed values and practices it exposes a gap between principle and practice.

At its foundation trauma informed leadership requires recognising and honouring the courage it takes for lived experience participants to show up and share. Do not mistake this as being about ego. Many lived experience participants have experienced a lifetime of little to no validation. They need to know that showing up now will be met with respect, not further minimisation or dismissal.

Safety is felt by those who have experienced trauma it is not just declared.

It is not enough to just say this is a safe space. If power imbalances go unaddressed, or if leaders show up performatively, the space isn’t trauma-informed it’s just labelled as such. Lived experience participants assess safety by how we are actually treated showing up with our vulnerability not in just being told it’s a safe space.

Will there be mechanisms in place to acknowledge and repair if harm occurs in the workshop itself? Will there be space for someone to express discomfort without being silenced, dismissed, or perceived as being difficult?

Mistakes happen; we are all human. But in trauma-informed spaces, harm cannot be met with silence, awkwardness, or a quick shift of focus. For example, in an open Q&A, if a comment inadvertently harms or triggers someone else it needs to be acknowledged. Not with defensiveness, embarrassment, or silence, but with curiosity, accountability, and care. Repair isn’t about getting it perfectly right; it’s about recognising rupture when it happens and being willing to hold space for it. That’s what builds real safety and trust.

Validation is absolutely essential in trauma informed practice, not optional.

A core part of trauma is invalidation. Ignoring, deflecting, or intellectualising lived experience can actually replicate trauma. A simple, but genuine “I hear you” or “Thank you for sharing” is a powerful act of care.

Co-Production must mean more than just consultation.

Being asked to “contribute your story” without real influence over decisions is tokenism, not trauma-informed practice. True trauma-informed leadership must dismantle hierarchies and treat everybody in the space as having an equal voice. Again, not being performative and reverting to hierarchical structures and roles because it feels more comfortable and safer for you leading. This leads on to…

Beware of utilising the ‘Professional Distance’ stance.

Trauma-informed practice isn’t about staying emotionally removed but trying to stay emotionally regulated in the space. Leaders that hide behind ‘professional boundaries’ often create cold, unresponsive environments that feel unsafe or even punitive to trauma survivors.

Timing, Language, and Tone Matter

The nervous system of a trauma survivor is always scanning for threat, yes really! If we look relaxed, it is only because we have learnt to mask really well. Dismissive tones, being rushed, polite smiles then talking over us, misplaced humour or any number of things can undermine trust.

Emotional Care and Aftercare

Being traumatised or retraumatised doesn’t always show up immediately. After sharing, someone may feel exposed, dysregulated, or ashamed once leaving the workshop. There will be a quiet space built into the event where people can go if they are feeling dysregulated. It would be good to inform people of this during the workshop.

Additional thoughts…

Normalise in the moment people disengaging and stepping away if suddenly it all feels too much. It’s ok to feel you could handle a situation but then realising you can’t, not feeling like you must push through discomfort. Psychological safety includes permission to not feel like you have to perform.