Critical Issue Analysis

University of Phoenix Material detailed Issue Analysis later reading the selected over vital issue, use the following questions to analyze the issue. Issue 3 Is Psychological Debriefing a Harmful Intervention for Survivors of Trauma? 1. What ar at least two facts payed by each status of the critical issue? Devilly & Cotton who represent the con grimace of the agreement present many disparate facts. Two that stand out is that psychological debrief . . . more(prenominal) of a moral maintenance intervention qua gesture of employer assert, alternatively than a clinical intervention influencing di deform and clinical symptomatolgy. Halgin, 2009, p. 68. ) Devilliy & Cotton excessively point to the fact it is a orders musical mode to defend again unwanted litigation. By providing employees with psychological debrief 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 f rame for those who have suffered trauma. to a fault note that for a fact that Critical accompanying attempt Management . . . program includes many tactics and techniques, save it is not limited to. . . Crisis assessment serve and strategic planning programs Family support services Individual, peer- fork overd crisis intervention services. Pre-crisis education programs Large group crisis interventions The provision of food and fluids to arrive at crews Rotation and resting of work crews Advice to command staff and supervisors Small group crisis interventions hound up services and referral services Post-crisis education And many other services. (Halgin, 2009, p. 77). 2. What atomic number 18 at least two opinions presented by each side of the critical issue? Con 1.They claim that During times of organizational upheaval and private and interpersonal crisis, organization frequently access the services of psychologist to help decline the long-term consequences of these occurrenc es. Halgin, 2009, p. 61) 2. The claim that CISD and CISM may be one in the identical or may or may not have a definite procedure detailing it. . These depend to be just claims and on that point is no register supporting the claims. Pro 1. That Mitchell claims CISM to be psychological debrief, but then state crisis intervention is a support service, not psychotherapeutics or a substitute for psychotherapy. (Halgin, 2009, p. 78). This claim to me states it is not psychological query. 2. Mitchells opinion that . . . negative outcome studies represent a hodgepodge of different types of intervention which do not equate the actual CISD but which broadly speaking use the terminology CISD. (p. 81). This seems like a personal opinion in that it the CISD did not work due to the ones exploitation it not following the prim 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 peradventure of fended by it not working. 3.What atomic number 18 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 loss leader in the Critical nonessential Stress Debriefing, as he graduation exercise wrote about it in 1983. (Halgin, 2009, p. 78). Mitchells repartee to Davilly & Cotton is what their weakness was. They reaction to their statements, rather than spend the time to delegate how critical Incident stress debriefing or critical incident stress oversight workings in practice. I pretend 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 leavings between Critical Incident Stress Debriefing and Cri tical 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. besides 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 causes 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 impart 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 firstly 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. only can see how both work so I do not think one is better than the other. They tind 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 succession 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 smell that Mitchell is using a type of assessment to see who then needs to run short 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 Mitchells 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 hasnt. 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 Mitchells claim that psychological debriefing is indeed a good thing. I think this to be consecutive 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.