Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Caveat emptor, caveat venditor, and Critical Incident Stress Debriefing/Management (CISD/M)

2004; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 39; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/00050060410001660317

1742-9544

Grant J. Devilly, Peter B. Cotton,

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

Mitchell (2004 Mitchell, JT , 2004. A response to the Devilly and Cotton article, "Psychological Debriefing and the Workplace … , Australian Psychologist 39 (2004), pp. 24–28.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and Robinson (2004 Robinson, R , 2004. Counterbalancing misrepresentations of Critical Incident Stress Debriefing and Critical Incident Stress Management , Australian Psychologist 39 (2004), pp. 29–34.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) have expressed concerns regarding our recent article on debriefing (Devilly & Cotton, 2003 Devilly, GJ , and Cotton, P , 2003. Psychological debriefing and the workplace: Defining a concept, controversies and guidelines for intervention , Australian Psychologist 38 (2003), pp. 144–150.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). In this article we respond to their concerns, some scientific, some sociopolitical, and provide further substantiation regarding our conclusions. We conclude that CISD and CISM are indistinct approaches to trauma and should be treated as synonymous terms (CISD/M) until the necessary and sufficient elements of each are fully declared. Furthermore, based upon current evidence, we restipulate that CISD/M is an ineffective response to critical incidents for individuals, and that organisations need to revise their critical incident response policies to reflect the current weight of scientific evidence. There are currently no reliable studies demonstrating the efficacy of group debriefing.