The purpose of this study was to investigate potential association between psychopathology and subjective evaluation of the experience of debriefing in disaster-exposed rescue and recovery workers.

Structured diagnostic interviews for DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders were conducted with 166 firefighters who served as rescue and recovery workers for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, who categorized their satisfaction with the debriefing on 4 levels. “Very dissatisfied” responses were examined for their association with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and with PTSD symptom groups.

Being “very dissatisfied” with the debriefing was significantly associated with the DSM-III-R avoidance and numbing group and with PTSD.

These findings suggest that debriefing may be an unsatisfactory intervention for people with prominent avoidance and numbing symptoms, such as those with PTSD. These individuals might be better served by referral directly to psychiatric treatment (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;12:718-722).

Debriefing, a controversial crisis intervention delivered in the early aftermath of a disaster, has not been well evaluated for use with children and adolescents. This report constitutes a review of the child debriefing evidence base.

A systematic search of selected bibliographic databases (EBM Reviews, EMBASE, ERIC, Medline, Ovid, PILOTS, PubMed, and PsycINFO) was conducted in the spring of 2014 using search terms related to psychological debriefing. The search was limited to English language sources and studies of youth, aged 0 to 18 years. No time limit was placed on date of publication. The search yielded 713 references. Titles and abstracts were reviewed to select publications describing scientific studies and clinical reports. Reference sections of these publications, and of other literature known to the authors that was not generated by the search, were used to locate additional materials. Review of these materials generated 187 publications for more thorough examination; this assessment yielded a total of 91 references on debriefing in children and adolescents. Only 15 publications on debriefing in children and adolescents described empirical studies. Due to a lack of statistical analysis of effectiveness data with youth, and some articles describing the same study, only seven empirical studies described in nine papers were identified for analysis for this review. These studies were evaluated using criteria for assessment of methodological rigor in debriefing studies.

Children and adolescents included in the seven empirical debriefing studies were survivors of motor-vehicle accidents, a maritime disaster, hostage taking, war, or peer suicides. The nine papers describing the seven studies were characterized by inconsistency in describing the interventions and populations and by a lack of information on intervention fidelity. Few of the studies used randomized design or blinded assessment. The results described in the reviewed studies were mixed in regard to debriefing’s effect on posttraumatic stress, depression, anxiety, and other outcomes. Even in studies in which debriefing appeared promising, the research was compromised by potentially confounding interventions.

The results highlight the small empirical evidence base for drawing conclusions about the use of debriefing with children and adolescents, and they call for further dialogue regarding challenges in evaluating debriefing and other crisis interventions in children.

PfefferbaumB , JacobsAK , NitiémaP , EverlyGSJr. Child Debriefing: A Review of the Evidence Base. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(3):1 10.

The objectives of this study were to assess current postresuscitation debriefing (PRD) practices in Canadian pediatric emergency departments (EDs) and identify areas for improvement.

A national needs assessment survey was conducted to collect information on current PRD practices and perspectives on debriefing practice in pediatric EDs. A questionnaire was distributed to ED nurses, fellows, and attending physicians at 10 pediatric tertiary care hospitals across Canada. Summary statistics are reported.

Data were analyzed from 183 participants (48.7% response rate). Although 88.8% of the participants believed that debriefing is an important process, 52.5% indicated that debriefing after real resuscitations occurs less than 25% of the time and 68.3% indicated that no expectation exists for PRD at their institution. Although 83.7% of participants believed that facilitators should have a specific skill set developed through formal training sessions, 63.4% had no previous training in debriefing. Seventy-two percent felt that medical and crisis resource management issues are dealt with adequately when PRD occurs, and 90.4% indicated thatED workload and time shortages are major barriers to effective debriefing. Most responded that a debriefing tool to guide facilitators might aid in multiple skills, such as creating realistic debriefing objectives and providing feedback with good judgment.

PRD in Canadian pediatric EDs occurs infrequently, although most health care providers agreed on its importance and the need for skilled facilitators.

Stress debriefing following exposure to a critical incident isbecoming more prevalent. Its aim is to prevent or minimize the development of excessive stress response symptoms that lead to loss of productivity or effectiveness in the workplace or at home. There is little evidence that any form of psychological debriefing is effective. This study evaluated the effectiveness of three intervention strategies, and attempted to correlate the symptoms with the severity of the incidentand level of intervention.

A randomized, controlled trial of three levels of critical stress intervention was conducted in the British Columbia Ambulance Service (BCAS), in British Columbia, Canada, among paramedics and emergency medical technicians (EMTs), reporting critical incident stress. Outcomes were measured at one week (Stanford Acute Stress Reaction Questionnaire (SASRQ), the Life Impact Score (LIS), and Schedule of Recent Events (SRE)), and at three months and six months following the intervention (Impact of Events (IE), Coping Mechanisms, LIS, and SRE).

Fifty calls were received during the 26-month study period (<1 per 10,000 BCAS response calls): 23 were by third parties, but the involved EMT did not call;nine were placed by crew unwilling to participate in the study; 18 subjects enrolled, but six completed no forms. No correlation was found between severity of the incident and scores on the SASRQ, IE, or LIS, or between any of these scores. There was no consistent pattern in the stress scores over time.

Requests for critical incident stress intervention were uncommon. The need for intervention may not be as great as generally is assumed. Further randomized trials, ideally multicenter studies, are indicated.