Critical Issue Analysis

University of Phoenix Material Critical Issue Analysis After reading the selected critical issue, use the following questions to analyze the issue. Issue 3 – Is Psychological Debriefing a Harmful Intervention for Survivors of Trauma? 1. What are at least two facts presented by each side of the critical issue? Devilly & Cotton who represent the con side of the agreement present many different facts. Two that stand out is: that psychological debriefing “. . . more of a “moral maintenance” intervention qua gesture of employer support, rather than a clinical intervention influencing distress and clinical symptomatolgy. Halgin, 2009, p. 68. ) Devilliy & Cotton also point to the fact it is a company’s way to protect again unwanted litigation. By providing employees with psychological debriefing it keeps them from later having an employee suing the company for damages from the traumatic event. Mitchell points out that crisis intervention is a support system for those who have suffered trauma. Also note that for a fact that Critical Incident Stress Management “. . . program includes many tactics and techniques, but it is not limited to. . . Crisis assessment services and strategic planning programs Family support services Individual, peer-provided crisis intervention services. Pre-crisis education programs Large group crisis interventions The provision of food and fluids to work crews Rotation and resting of work crews Advice to command staff and supervisors Small group crisis interventions Follow up services and referral services Post-crisis education And many other services. (Halgin, 2009, p. 77). 2. What are at least two opinions presented by each side of the critical issue? Con: 1.
They claim that “During times of organizational upheaval and personal and interpersonal crisis, organization frequently access the services of psychologist to help mitigate the long-term consequences of these occurrences. ” Halgin, 2009, p. 61) 2. The claim that CISD and CISM may be one in the same; or may or may not have a definite procedure detailing it. . These seem to be just claims and there is no evidence supporting the claims. Pro: 1. That Mitchell claims CISM to be psychological debriefing, but then state “crisis intervention is a support service, not psychotherapy or a substitute for psychotherapy. (Halgin, 2009, p. 78). This claim to me states it is not psychological debriefing. 2. Mitchell’s opinion that “. . . negative outcome studies represent a hodgepodge of different types of intervention which do not equate the actual CISD but which loosely use the terminology “CISD””. (p. 81). This seems like a personal opinion in that it the CISD did not work due to the ones using it not following the proper protocol. I would like to see how these other programs that did not work which he calls hodgepodge to see if they did use it correctly or if he was maybe offended by it not working. 3.
What are some of the strengths associated with the Pro side of the issue? What are some of the weaknesses? Mitchell strengths would be that he seems to be the leader in the Critical Incident Stress Debriefing, as he first wrote about it in 1983. (Halgin, 2009, p. 78). Mitchell’s response to Davilly & Cotton is what their weakness was. They response to their statements, rather than spend the time to show how critical Incident stress debriefing or critical incident stress management works in practice. I think that would have been a better response to Davilly & Cotton, so layout how it works, show examples and give some test study data. . What are some of the strengths associated with the Con side of the issue? What are some of the weaknesses? I believe the strength of Davilly and & Cotton was that they took the time to define and try to show the differences between Critical Incident Stress Debriefing and Critical Incident Stress Management. As well as defining what psychology debriefing entails. Their weakness would be it was how to read, it did not flow easy for the readers and somewhat confusing. Also another weakness which was pointed out by Mitchell was that they did not seem to do much deep research for other papers written on the topic. 5.

How credible were the authors of each argument? Explain your answer. Davilly & Cotton when to detail on what psychological debriefing was and how there are many different forms of it with: Critical Incident Stress Debriefing and Critical Incident Stress Management. Also how these two really kind of play hand in hand and might be the same thing. Therefore it is hard to tell the difference between the two. They tried to break down how these two systems work and the outcomes of such programs. Mitchell was credible in from the first paragraph notes that “In 1983 I wrote the first article ever written on Critical Incident Stress Debriefing. . “ (Halgin, 2009, p. 78). Uses the programs during an event rather than after. 6. Based on the statements presented in this critical issue, which author do you agree with? Why? While both sides had concrete evidence supporting their claims; I think I would have to agree with Davilly & Cotton. But can see how both work so I do not think one is better than the other. They provided more studies and data in comparison to Mitchell who just mentioned them. I might be swayed the other way if I went and did my own research.
Also Mitchell noted that they call it “Crisis intervention is a support service, not psychotherapy or substitute for psychotherapy. ” (Halgin, 2009, p. 78) That sentence literally stuck with me while I read the rest of their response to Davilly and Cotton. With that statement to me it does not seem that are really using psychological debriefing. I feel that Mitchell is using a type of assessment to see who then needs to move forward with psychology debriefing. Also that critical incident stress management is a process which is used doing an ongoing traumatic event such as natural disaster.
Without doing my own research on the matter on the article he mentioned I cannot say he clearly defended themselves. With Mitchell’s claims on critical incident stress management provides help during an traumatic event could be helpful, but I would like to see more studies on how it has worked or hasn’t. Therefore I side with Davilly and Cotton more than Mitchell. While I do not feel psychological debriefing would work for everyone I am interested in the topic and feel more research is need to learn more about it. 7.
Which side of this critical issue does contemporary research support? Please provide specific examples in your response. In my personal opinion I would think that contemporary research would support Mitchell’s claim that psychological debriefing is indeed a good thing. I think this to be true because of the being on hand during the event to help those who are facing the experience firsthand and how it will relay to the aftermath and how and if treatment is provide for those victims and first responders after wards.