Critical Issue Analysis

1972 Words8 Pages
Critical Issue Analysis Abstract Critical incident stress debriefing (CISD), a specific from of psychological debriefing, has gained widespread acceptance and implementation in the few short years since it was first proposed (Mitchell, 1983). But this critical issue analysis explores the article of both sides in which one side states that the use of CISD could cause more harm than good to a person or the fact that the other side states that the authors Cotton and Devilly have misrepresented important information about the psychological debriefing and confused several aspect of the system of responding to human survivors (Halgin, 2009). Critical Issue Analysis 1. What are at least two facts presented by each side of the critical issue? Cotton and Devilly states that a psychological debriefing does not need to take effect whenever a traumatic stress situation occurs. Cotton and Devilly that in fact using the crisis intervention stress debriefing (CISD) and the crisis intervention stress management (CISM) could do more harm than good. Cotton and Devilly (2004), propose alternative approaches for responding to trauma survivors, which they consider more effective. But Mitchell states the fact that the authors Cotton and Devilly research was inaccurate that psychological debriefing and CISD are not the same and that psychological debriefing was more of an individual therapy and the CISD was more of group and dealt with traumatic stress following a disaster strike. The fact in which that CISD was to be issue to the person or group only after several weeks or months after the disaster and then only if the person wanted the crisis intervention. Both issues Cotton and Devilly which was about the Psychological Debriefing and the Workplace: Defining a Concept, Controversies and Guideline for Intervention and Mitchell issue on A Response to the Devilly and Cotton
Open Document