A field study of critical incident stress debriefing versus critical incident stress management

Abstract

Abstract This prospective field trial compared two post-trauma support systems following armed robberies - Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) as a stand alone group intervention and integrated Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) - delivered to two groups of raided employees. Morbidity was measured using two measures of post-traumatic stress and a general health measure. Morbidity in both groups was equivalent at day 3 and one month post-raid. The CISM group had significantly less posttrauma morbidity at follow-up (3-12 months post raid) compared to CISD alone supplying evidence for the superior efficacy of postdisaster interventions when these are delivered in an integrated CISM format. Calls to cease 'debriefing' are premature and integrated CISM systems should now be the subject of randomised controlled studies.