Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T21:02:05.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Model for a Statewide Critical Incident Stress (CIS) Debriefing Program for Emergency Services Personnel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Keith W. Neely  and
William J. Spitzer
Keith W. Neely*
Affiliation:
Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon, USA
William J. Spitzer
Affiliation:
Director of Social Services, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, USA
*
Oregon Health Sciences University, 3181 S. W. Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97201-3098USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose:

Emergency services personnel are highly vulnerable to acute and cumulative critical incident stress (CIS) that can manifest as anger, guilt, depression, and impaired decision-making, and, in certain instances, job loss. Interventions designed to identify such distress and restore psychological functioning becomes imperative.

Methods:

A statewide debriefing team was formed in 1988 through a collaborative effort between an academic department of emergency medicine and a social work department of a teaching hospital, and a metropolitan area fire department and ambulance service. Using an existing CIS debriefing model, 84 pre-screened, mental health professionals and emergency services personnel were provided with 16 hours of training and were grouped into regional teams.

Debriefing requests are received through a central number answered by a communicator in a 24-hour communications center located within the emergency department. Debriefings are conducted 48–72 hours after the event for specific types of incidents. Follow-up telephone calls are made by the debriefing team leader two to three weeks following a debriefing. The teams rely on donations to pay for travel and meals.

Results:

One hundred sixty-eight debriefings were conducted during the first four years. Rural agencies accounted for 116 (69%) requests. During this period, 1,514 individuals were debriefed: 744 (49%) firefighters, 460 (30%) EMTs, and 310 (21%) police officers, dispatchers, and other responders. Deaths of children, extraordinary events, and incidents involving victims known to the responders (35%, 14%, and 14% respectively) were the most common reasons for requesting debriefings. Feedback was received from 48 (28%) of the agencies that requested the debriefing. All of those who responded felt that the debriefing had a beneficial effect on its personnel. Specific individuals identified by agency representatives as having the greatest difficulty were observed to be returned to their pre-incident state.

Conclusion:

CIS debriefings are judged as beneficial. A statewide response team is an effective way to provide these services at no cost to agencies.

Keywords

coping mechanismscritical incidentcritical incident stress debriefingdebriefingdebriefing teamdecompensationemergency workerspsychological supportstress
Type
Special Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1997 , pp. 43 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Mitchell, JT: Critical incident stress management. Response! September/October 1986:24–25.Google Scholar
2. Mitchell, JT: Emergency medical stress. APCO Bulletin 1983.Google Scholar
3. Mitchell, JT: Recovery from rescue. Response! 1982;7–10.Google Scholar
4. Mitchell, JT: The psychological impact of the Air Florida 90 disaster on fire-rescue, paramedic and police officer personnel. In: Crowley, RA (ed), Mass Casualties: A Lesson Learned Approach, Accidents, Civil Unrest, Natural Disasters, Terrorism. US Department of Transportation (DOT) publication No. HS 806302. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1982.Google Scholar
5. Mitchell, JT, Bray, G: Emergency Services Stress: Guidelines for Preserving The Health And Careers of Emergency Services Personnel. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
6. Duffy, J: The role of CMHCs in airport disasters. Technical Assistance Center Report 1979;2:1:7–9.Google Scholar
7. Glass, AJ: Psychological aspects of disaster. JAMA 1959;171:222–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Brown H, Weiners, Akabas, S, Sommer, J (eds) In: Mental Health Care in the World of Work. New York Association Press, 1973.Google Scholar
9. Appelbaum, SH: Stress Management For Health Care Professionals. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corp., 1981.Google Scholar
10. Certification data, Oregon Health Division, Emergency Medical Services and Trauma System, August 1992.Google Scholar
11. Certification data, Oregon State Fire Marshall's Office, August 1992.Google Scholar
12. Certification data, Oregon State Bureau of Police Standards and Training, August 1992.Google Scholar
13. Personal conversation with Jeffrey Mitchell, PhD, developer of CIS debriefing model, May, 1989.Google Scholar