Critical Incident Stress Management CISM

¶ … Stress Management

What does the literature suggest is the appropriate application of debriefing?

In principle, debriefing within critical incident stress management (CISM) is an appropriate method of monitoring first responders and others who are exposed to stressful environments within their vocational responsibilities to identify possible negative effects on those individuals before they manifest themselves in harmful ways (Heglund, 2009). It is useful in connection with mitigating the potential negative consequences to the individual and to the ability of the individual to maintain optimal vocational performance as a function of the stresses associated with exposure to stressful environments and circumstances on the job. Ideally, debriefing should be conducted shortly after the exposure to the stressor but not necessarily immediately afterwards before the individual has had a chance to go through the immediate post-event processing on a personal level (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2008).

Where should caution be used?

Caution should be used in connection with individuals who are by nature not particularly communicative about their feelings and who tend to be more private (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2008; Young & Brumley, 2009). Certainly, they may need and benefit from debriefing as much as other individuals but they are more likely to perceive the debriefing process as intrusive and as another aspect of stress associated with the stressful circumstances instead of as a form of assistance that is helpful to them in so far as processing the stressful experience and reducing the effects of that exposure on their psyche. In their cases, it is important that they have the opportunity to exercise autonomy with respect to the scheduling of the debriefing session so as not to impose it on them before they are receptive to and capable of benefiting from it (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2008).

Where is the use of debriefing contraindicated?

Debriefing would be contraindicated anytime there is evidence that the individual is not receptive or not yet capable of benefiting from the debriefing process; similarly, debriefing would be contraindicated where the individual is not inclined to communicating with specific members of the debriefing team (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2008; Young & Brumley, 2009). If the individual is subjected to debriefing against his preference, before he is psychologically ready to participate in the process, or by debriefing team members with whom the individual cannot readily relate, the consequences can be exacerbation rather than mitigation of the potential harms caused by the initial stressor (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2008).

Conclude with your recommendations on how to proceed.