Abstract

Stress debriefing following critical incidents has been challenged as an effective crisis-intervention tactic following a series of studies carried out in the United Kingdom under the Cochrane Review; one conclusion suggested that debriefing may even be harmful. Despite references to Mitchell’s (1983) original formulation, Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) has been generalized in the studies to describe a variety of unspecified interventions and categorized as ‘psychological debriefing’. Given the specific role of CISD within a comprehensive crisis intervention framework, the implications of employing a discredited component within that framework appear potentially serious. The consequences of the research for the future of crisis-intervention and the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder will be highlighted and discussed.

Course Description

This workshop will review the critical literature to establish the validity of the findings of the critical Cochrane studies by examining the theoretical basis, methodological rigor and ethical standards applied by the researchers. The relevance of the conclusions to the practice of CISD will be appraised and discussed.

By the end of the workshop participants will be able to:

Identify theoretical and methodological flaws in the literature relating to stress debriefing;

Appreciate some of the difficulties of applying randomized control trials (RCTs) to real-world stress issues through an interactive exercise;

Understand some of the implications of failing to apply strict ethical standards to the investigation of stress.

An acceptance of the conclusions of the Cochrane Review has led to the recent (2005) publication of national health service guidelines in the UK, with far-reaching implications for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. The importance of taking a sceptical view of this reputedly high-quality research will be demonstrated.

Presentation Time: 90 minutes