Concerns about the effectiveness of critical incident stress debriefing in ameliorating stress reactions

  • Ashraf Kagee1

    Affiliated with

    Critical Care20026:88

    DOI: 10.1186/cc1459

    Published: 17 January 2002

    Hammond and Brooks's enthusiasm for critical incident stress debriefing (CISD) [1] causes them to ignore findings suggesting inert or iatrogenic effects of this procedure. So far the data on the effectiveness of debriefing are almost overwhelmingly negative, particularly at follow-up assessments. For example, Carlier et al. [2] found that among police officers who responded to a civilian plane crash, those who underwent debriefing exhibited significantly more disaster-related hyperarousal symptoms at an 18-month follow-up than those who did not receive the treatment. Mayou et al. [3] showed that subjects admitted to hospital after a road traffic accident who received CISD had a significantly worse outcome at 3 years in terms of general psychiatric symptoms, travel anxiety, and overall level of functioning. Bisson et al. [4] found that among a sample of burn trauma victims, 26% of the debriefing group had PTSD at 13-month follow-up, compared with 9% of the control group. Importantly, the Cochrane Review of 11 clinical trials found no evidence that debriefing reduced general psychological morbidity, depression, or anxiety, and recommended that compulsory debriefing of victims of trauma should cease [5].

    By Hammond and Brooks's own admission, most of the evidence supporting the use of CISD is anecdotal or can be found only in unpublished dissertations. Moreover, the limited published data suggesting a positive effect have often confused respondents' reports of satisfaction over their debriefing experience with objective measures of traumatic stress [6]. Such satisfaction reports most probably reflect respondents' gratitude for the attention of a debriefer rather than a decrease in psychological symptoms [3]. In addition to other flaws in the studies cited by Hammond and Brooks (such as having the investigator conduct the debriefing sessions), between-group treatment effects remained non-significant [7], no treatment effect size was reported [7,8], or no treatment was described [8].

    Although Hammond and Brooks's concern for disaster response workers is laudable, their enthusiasm for CISD as an unvalidated intervention is misplaced. Until data are produced that support the use of psychoprophylactic treatment, advocating it is inappropriate and misguided.

    Authors’ Affiliations

    (1)
    Department of Psychology, University of Stellenbosch

    References

    1. Hammond J, Brooks J: Helping the helpers: the role of critical incident stress management. Critical Care 2001, 5:315–317.PubMedView Article
    2. Carlier IVE, Lamberts RD, van Uchelen AJ, Gersons BPR: Disaster-related post-traumatic stress in police officers: a field study of the impact of debriefing. Stress Med 1998, 14:143–148.View Article
    3. Mayou RA, Ehlers A., Hobbs M: Psychological debriefing for road traffic accident victims. Br J Psychiat 2000, 176:589–593.View Article
    4. Bisson JI, Jenkins PL, Alexander J, Bannister C: Randomised controlled trial of psychological debriefing for victims of acute burn trauma. Br J Psychiat 1993, 171:78–81.View Article
    5. Rose S, Bisson J, Wessely S: Psychological debriefing for preventing post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001., 3:
    6. Burns C, Harm I: Emergency nurses' perceptions of critical incidents and stress debriefing. J Emerg Nursing 1993, 19:431–436.
    7. Chemtob CM, Tomas S, Law W, Cremniter D: Postdisaster psychosocial intervention: a field study of the impact of debriefing on psychological distress. Am J Psychiat 1997, 154:415–417.PubMed
    8. Alexander DA: Stress among police body handlers: a long-term follow-up. Br J Psychiat 1993, 163:806–808.View Article

    Copyright

    © BioMed Central Ltd 2002

    Advertisement