FIELD VISIT REPORT

Experiential Learning at Addiction and Psychosocial

Rehabilitation Facilities

TITLE PAGE
Name of Institution: Jain University School of Sciences
Course Name: MSc Psychology
Title of Report: Field Visit Report: Experiential Learning at Anunita Addiction Rehabilitation Center
and Cardabam’s Amitha Campus Psychosocial Rehabilitation Facility
Student’s Name & Roll Number: Lavanya Bubna

Roll Number: 25MSPSR023

Date of Submission: November 14, 2025

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Objectives
This field visit was designed to offer firsthand exposure to rehabilitation practices in India, specifically in
addiction treatment and psychosocial rehabilitation. The goal was to observe how multidisciplinary teams
work, understand admission and treatment processes, interact with residents, and reflect on how
theoretical knowledge translates into real-world practice.

1.2 Institutions Visited

Anunita Addiction Rehabilitation Facility is a 13-year-old, 130-bed center (including 12 beds for
women) that treats both behavioral and substance-related addictions. It offers different treatment
durations depending on clinical needs—ranging from 1-month harm reduction programs to intensive 3- or
6-month programs for dual diagnosis cases. The facility is affiliated with Cardabam’s Neuropsychiatric
Hospital.

Cardabam’s Amitha Campus, part of the Cardabam Group (established in 1982), focuses on long-term
psychosocial rehabilitation for individuals with severe mental health conditions, intellectual disabilities,
autism, and dementia. Their programs range from 90–180 days (extendable up to a year) and include
specialized spaces such as the Wisdom Ward and the Dementia Ward.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIENCE
2.1 Activities Undertaken
At Anunita, we toured the campus and engaged in detailed conversations with the staff. They walked us
through their admission pathways—hospital referrals, online applications, and direct referrals from
doctors. We also learned about their screening process for withdrawal symptoms, the structured treatment
phases, and the roles of counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists in patient care.

Therapeutic modalities included CBT-based mindfulness activities, DBT skills, AA meetings, art and
movement therapy, music therapy, and yoga. One policy that stood out was their communication
structure: no family contact for the first 21 days to help clients focus on treatment. Counselors provide
twice-weekly family updates, and patients eventually receive weekly 10-minute calls.

We also discussed how the Mental Health Act 2017 shapes their admission practices, especially around
voluntary, involuntary, and supported admission.

At Amitha Campus, we observed a deeply structured routine—from the 6 AM wake-up and guided yoga
sessions to the carefully supervised medication distribution during breakfast. The daily structure included
personal hygiene hours, counselor rounds (where ADLs and IADLs were monitored), scheduled
therapeutic activities, and mandatory outdoor time.

We learned about the PRIAS multidisciplinary team meetings, where psychologists, psychiatrists, social
workers, and counselors collaborate on treatment plans. Safety features such as AI-recorded sessions,
alarm beds, and emergency call buttons were also demonstrated.

We visited specialized wards including:

● Wisdom Ward: For individuals with significant cognitive or developmental challenges

● Dementia Ward: With environment-sensitive protocols
● Blossom Ward: For long-term stays (1–2 years)

We had the chance to speak directly with two male residents.

2.2 Patient Interactions

Patient 1 was a 55-year-old man with severe OCD who had been living at the facility since March 2025.
Originally from Hong Kong, he shared that relocating to India worsened his symptoms. He spoke openly
about his progress and setbacks, even showing us his treasured Seiko watch—a gift from his father.
Although he appeared coherent and well-groomed, he frequently expressed concern about his skin and
frustration with not being able to maintain his usual skincare routine. Despite these worries, he remained
motivated, telling us he wanted to “get a grip over his mind, thoughts, and behaviors.”

Patient 2 was a software developer who had spent nearly 9 months at Amitha. He described his work
creating websites and teaching computer skills to young girls. He spoke about visions of God that guide
him and shared how, during his stay, he lost his sister, mother, and father—all in quick succession.
Despite this unimaginable grief, he radiated resilience, saying that God told him “to be resilient and hold
on.”
3. OBSERVATIONS AND LEARNINGS
3.1 Key Insights
Structure as Therapy:
Both facilities showed how structure itself becomes therapeutic. Predictable routines help reduce anxiety,
support healthy habits, and create opportunities for therapeutic engagement.

Multidisciplinary Teamwork:
The PRIAS model highlighted the value of integrating psychiatry, psychology, counseling, and social
work. Counselors, who interact with residents daily, play a particularly crucial role in monitoring
functioning and supporting progress.

Understanding Chronic Conditions:

Anunita’s frequent monthly readmissions illustrated how addiction is chronic and often relapsing. Both
facilities design treatment with this reality in mind, emphasizing harm reduction and long-term stability.

Balancing Family Involvement:

The 21-day no-contact period at Anunita helps clients recalibrate emotionally, while structured family
communication ensures continued connection. This balance helps families understand their roles in
recovery.

Complexity of Lived Experiences:

The OCD patient’s awareness of his symptoms while feeling unable to control them highlighted the gap
between insight and behavioral change. The software developer’s spiritual coping demonstrated how
meaning-making interacts with mental health, especially in culturally diverse settings.

3.2 Theoretical Linkages

● Biopsychosocial Model (Engel, 1977): Clearly reflected in the combined use of medication,
therapy, family involvement, and environmental design.
● Harm Reduction: Anunita's model accommodates relapse as part of recovery.
● Stages of Change (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983): Observed in patients navigating cycles of
progress and setbacks.
● Recovery Capital (Cloud & Granfield, 2008): Highlights how personal skills and spiritual
beliefs support resilience.
● Stigma Theory (Goffman, 1963): Explains identity challenges faced by individuals in
institutional settings.

4. PERSONAL REFLECTION
4.1 Impact on Understanding
Meeting the residents brought theory to life. The man worried about his skin reminded me that clinical
labels never capture full humanity. The software developer’s resilience after profound loss reminded me
of the depth of human strength.
Observing tightly structured environments also helped me appreciate how much work goes into creating
therapeutic spaces. I gained clearer insight into the gap between textbook ideals and messy clinical
realities—where concepts like autonomy, safety, and consent constantly intersect.

4.2 Challenges and How I Managed Them

● Emotional Impact: Hearing the software developer’s story was deeply moving. I stayed present
and professional, processing the emotional weight later with self-reflection.
● Cultural Interpretation: His spiritual visions required cultural humility—looking beyond
Western diagnostic categories to understand their function in his meaning-making.
● Bias Awareness: I previously believed institutionalization was inherently harmful, but observing
the Wisdom Ward helped me recognize that “least restrictive” is not universal—it depends on
individual needs.

4.3 Self-Awareness
The visit made me aware of my own “fixing impulse” and tendency to intellectualize distress. I also
recognized my ability to hold emotional space without feeling overwhelmed—a reassuring sign for future
clinical work.

5. CRITICAL ANALYSIS
5.1 Relevance to Academic Learning
This visit made abstract concepts tangible—dual diagnosis, harm reduction, the Mental Health Act,
involuntary admissions, and CBT/DBT applications. However, a single visit shows only a snapshot of
practice, not long-term outcomes.

5.2 Broader Issues

● Social Justice: With treatment costs ranging from ₹23,000 to ₹5 lakhs, access to quality mental
health care is shaped by privilege.
● Gender Gaps: Only 12 of Anunita’s 130 beds are for women, illustrating hidden stigma and
underreporting of female addiction.
● Cultural Context: The reliance on Western frameworks raises questions about cultural fit for
Indian populations.
● Policy Gaps: Supported admission under the Mental Health Act still blurs lines around consent
and autonomy.

5.3 Areas for Improvement

For Myself:
Strengthen cultural sensitivity, emotional regulation, and advocacy for accessible care.
For Institutions:
Increase transparency through outcome data, expand gender-sensitive services, and incorporate more
peer-support models.

For Field Visits:

Pre-visit briefing, follow-up observation days, and visits to under-resourced facilities would deepen
learning.

6. CONCLUSION
6.1 Major Takeaways
This field visit created a bridge between classroom theory and human experience. It showed that recovery
is not linear and that structured environments, family involvement, and multidisciplinary care form the
backbone of rehabilitation. Most importantly, it reinforced that every clinical concept is connected to real
human lives, emotions, and stories.

6.2 Implications for Practice

Going forward, I aim to:

● Conduct more holistic assessments

● Incorporate environmental and family-level interventions
● Approach relapse as part of the process
● Practice cultural humility
● Advocate for fair access to care
● Maintain ongoing self-reflection

6.3 Overall Value

This was one of the most impactful learning experiences of my academic journey. Meeting individuals
who shared their vulnerabilities with us cultivated humility and deepened my understanding of what
mental health work truly entails: not just intervention, but human connection and dignity.

7. References
References should be cited in APA 7th edition format if theories, models, or readings are referenced.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.
Harvard University Press.
Cloud, W., & Granfield, R. (2008). Conceptualizing recovery capital: Expansion of a theoretical
construct. Substance Use & Misuse, 43(12-13), 1971-1986. [Link]
Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science,
196(4286), 129-136. [Link]
Frankl, V. E. (1985). Man’s search for meaning. Washington Square Press. (Original work published
1946)
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall.
Government of India. (2017). The Mental Health Care Act, 2017. Ministry of Law and Justice.
[Link]
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward
an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390-395.
[Link]
Seligman, M. E. P. (1972). Learned helplessness. Annual Review of Medicine, 23(1), 407-412.
[Link]

Acknowledgments: I am grateful to the staff at Anunita and Amitha Campus at Cadabams for their
generosity and openness, to the residents for sharing their stories, and Dr. Sonia David and Dr.
Nagalakshmi for coordinating this enriching visit.