EnableMe | enableme - stroke recovery and support

A subject not widely discussed or readily understood of relevance to stroke survivors is that of trivialising trauma.

From what I understand, Trivialising trauma involves downplaying, dismissing, or mischaracterising the severe impact of traumatic events, often by equating them with common unpleasant experiences or by using clinical terms like "triggered" or "trauma" to describe minor discomforts. This phenomenon, sometimes linked to "concept creep" where the definition of trauma expands to include everyday adversity, can erode empathy for survivors and invalidate their experiences.

One example, which I consider relevant in my case, is a professional failing to acknowledge the severity of a reported event, causing the survivor to feel invalid. When another factor such as an inequitable application of rules is included, it is no wonder that the barrier to seeking help becomes too high and mental health suffers.

In a hopefully soon to be published article with the Stroke Foundation, I liken the experience of stroke to how do the blind experience the colour green? In the article, one of the themes that I explore is the idea that TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) is a better fit for my experience than stroke. In some respects (and in my opinion), the term stroke has lost some of the trauma associated with the experience. This is understandable as identification and improved treatment options have changed the outcome for many ischemic stroke sufferers.

In my case, I have the scars to remind me every day of the trauma associated with my rite-of-passage into the community of stroke survivors. These scars are my bulwark against the invalidation of the experience, but the experience of invalidation and trivialisation still hurts deeply. For those where the impact has been less visible (and for some, the imposter syndrome that comes with it), it is an insidious development.

With easy access to social media, language and culture have changed as the technology has changed, bringing about the phenomenon linked to “concept creep” mentioned earlier. In the article “True Trauma vs. Trivial Triggers” by Robbie Keane, the author makes some great points about combating the creep by promoting responsible language usage through raising awareness, promoting mindful language and embracing compassion. (Check out the References at the end of the link).

While I cannot speak for the stroke experiences of others, I can only describe my experience of stroke and the damage “trivialisation of the trauma” has done in the hope that it raises awareness of the subject.

Something that has taken some time to understand and convey, and a very important part of the issue, is the epiphany that “To err is to be human but how you acknowledge and handle those errors - rather than the error itself - will define you (and your brand).” As my story will hopefully illustrate, it is how those errors were handled that has done the most harm.

In Victoria, a Departmental Secretary can use Donald Trump as a motivational image in an all-staff meeting and still be considered to have met 100% of the objectives needed for a Public Service Medal (PSM). Compare this what happens when you have a stroke, you are considered too critical if people can't spell your name correctly for the card.

My experience - How my experience was trivalised.

My stroke put me in a 2-week coma in the ICU under 24/7 care. Due to complications, I required a tracheostomy where my throat was slit and a tube was inserted to help me breathe and it prevented speaking. As my stroke occurred during the pandemic (July 2021), restrictions in place at the time prevented physical access to my family. They were told they could only see me for end-of-life. Overall, I spent 32 days in hospital without physical access to my loved ones and 3 months recovering before returning to work.

This is how my then workplace (VPS) responded to the news of my stroke. Yes, my wife had clearly stated that I had suffered a brain bleed as I was in no condition to do so.

I was to learn later that someone else in the branch had suffered a fall and was hospitalised. While I can understand "To err is to be human", I believe "it is how you acknowledge and handle those errors - rather than error itself - will define you (and your brand)", the response I got was appalling.

No one could explain why over 100 public servants and several executives could not identify or speak up concerning the error. Keep in mind that included in this email was a senior executive who has been awarded a PSM (Public Service Medal) and holds a PhD in Leadership. This is a person described as having "exemplary leadership", and whose "dedication and commitment to the Victorian Public Service, and to the community, have been of the highest calibre".

When I raised this issue with People & Culture via the grievance process, I was told I was being too critical. Being told I was being too critical was insulting and derogatory, I felt as though my experience of stroke was invalidated with that statement. Unfortunately, I was not surprising as this was how the Department handled grievances which I learnt from personal experience.

Consider that the final unsuccessful outcome of this grievance I lodged in 2017 about being denied my progression was that I had not satisfied the objective to a 100% level. Ultimately, an independent reviewer stated that the heart of my manager's assessment (and his objection to my grievance) is that I had not shown 'leadership at the behavioural and cultural level" and met the "high bar" required of a VPS 5.

Another key point to mention about the report - The reviewer was informed by People & Culture (P&C) that the ISD Approach was not sanctioned by Human Resources and should not have been circulated. It was also explained that requiring employees to achieve a stretch goal in order to get progression, as the ISD Approach does, is inconsistent with the Department's performance management process and the applicable EBA. In any case, there was no dispute that I had achieved my stretch goal.

This is the executive summary of the report done by an independent reviewer. (which still failed to make a difference)

Subject to an inequitable application of rules

It was no surprise to hear that when my position was considered no longer required in 2023, a process where I learnt about it from a slide with my position title shown against another person's name, I was advised this was an administrative error. Even the process to provide alternate responses was not completed in the timeframe outlined by the applicable EBA.

Overall, this is what two PSM recipients consider acceptable behaviour.

To reiterate, the Public Service Medal (PSM) recognises outstanding service by employees of the Australian Government and state, territory and local government employees. ‘Outstanding service’ can be shown through:

service excellence to the public, or to external or internal clients
innovation in programme, project or policy development
leadership, including as a member of a team or
the achievement of more efficient processes, improved productivity or better service delivery.

The Public Service Medal is awarded twice a year by the Governor-General, a person who has expressed a desire to amplify the role of "care" within the Australian identity.

In my case, two PSM recipients were involved in what happened to me. One is described as having "exemplary leadership" and "dedication and commitment to the Victorian Public Service, and to the community, have been of the highest calibre". The other is described as an "active promoter of inclusion and diversity with initiatives to create culturally-safe workplaces for staff".

Remember, "To err is to be human but how you acknowledge and handle those errors - rather than the error itself - will define you (and your brand).” For some reason (and it might be stroke brain), I cannot understand how any of what happened to me satisfies any of these objectives to the 100% level.

If someone could explain this to me, it would be much appreciated.

This has taken me a long time in my journey to be able to reach this point. While not spelling a person's name correctly may be considered by some as trivial, if the context associated with it is of significance, then trivial becomes something else (especially if trauma is involved).

Hopefully, my article highlights the dangers of failing to consider the situational context and how concept creep impacts others.

This is just one of the reasons why I advocate for stroke awareness and prevention.

My Bulwark against the invalidation of my experience of stroke

Thank you and please check out what you can do to advocate Stroke Foundation - Advocate with us

Hopefully you already know about F.A.S.T but if you want some more creative ways to educate people - give these a go - Signs of Stroke

References

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/allinthemind/trauma-mental-health-labels-concept-creep/104453538?utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/allinthemind/if-everything-is-traumatic-is-anything-traumatic/105872096?utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared

https://www.in-tunesupportservices.com.au/youth-mental-health/true-trauma-vs-trivial-triggers#:~:text=While the original intention of,the gravity of their suffering.

https://www.pmc.gov.au/honours-and-symbols/list-australian-honours/public-service-medal