Critical Incident Stress Management

Roger M. Solomon, Ph.D.

Robert Macy, Ph.D.
A critical incident can be conceptualized as an event which is outside the usual range of
experience and challenges ones ability to cope. These are events that have the potential
to overwhelm ones usual psychological defenses and coping mechanisms (Everly and
Mitchell, 1999). Often, these are situations that can overwhelm a persons sense of
vulnerability and control (Solomon, 1995). Critical incident stress management is a
crisis intervention framework for managing the emotional aftermath of critical incidents.
This chapter will outline a general framework for critical incident stress management that
is applicable to a wide variety of at risk populations. However, population specific
knowledge and experience is needed to appropriately apply the framework. For example,
just to mention a few variables, population specific knowledge is relevant for different:
Age groups (e.g. children, adolescents, and adults)
Occupational groups (e.g. for example, emergency service personnel may require
more specialized services than other occupational groups (Solomon, 1995)).
Cultural considerations (e.g. different cultures have different grieving rituals and
timing of rituals)
Further, for each impacted population, the intervention team should consider the
particular needs, requests, neighborhood-specific cultural identities, rituals and support
systems, as well as the ethnocultural and linguistic variabilities of these populations.
Critical incident stress management should be viewed as part of the general field of crisis
intervention. The goals of crisis intervention (Everly, 2000; Dunning, 2000) are:

Mitigate the impact of the event

Stabilization prevent symptoms/distress/impairment from getting worse
Promote recovery enhance resilience, group/ community cohesion, and other
naturally occurring healing, salutogenic factors
Re-establish functional capacity or
Seek further assessment and/or higher level of care

It is important to provide appropriate intervention according to the phase of emotional

recovery the survivor is experiencing. The following is a brief description of general
phases survivors of critical incidents may experience (Solomon, 1988). However, it is
important to realize that not everybody goes through these phases. Some people
experience the critical incident and simply cope, with little or no shock phase and
minimal emotional impact.
Phases of Recovery
I Incident occurs During moments of peak stress people experience different levels
of perceived vulnerability and lack of control, and consequently different levels of
peritraumatic dissociation. Peritraumatic dissociation, the dissociation experienced

during and shortly after the event, is correlated with post-traumatic stress disorder
(Marmar and Weiss, 1997) . It may be useful to assess the level of peritraumatic
dissociation a person experienced during the incident to help determine what kind of
emotional and psychological support is needed.
II Shock first 24-72 hours (or longer). After a critical incident, people may
experience a number of reactions. Emotions may be blunted and numbed due to
dissociation and denial. Other people may experience intense emotion. There can be
confusion, agitation, and oversensitivity.
During the initial hours and days following an incident, people need a sense of safety and
security. Initial priorities are helping people feel safe (or at least realize the danger is
over in the immediate present), orienting them to available resources, and conducting
triage to determine who may need immediate medical/psychological evaluation and
treatment. The goal of psychological intervention is stabilization - emotional
containment and providing constructive coping strategies to decrease arousal, increase
control, and to prevent distress or impairment from getting worse. Exposure to arousing
stimuli should be minimized. People whose functioning and ability to cope are impaired
should be referred for further assessment and treatment.
III Emotional Impact - At some point, the initial denial/dissociation/numbness starts to
wear off and the reality of what happened, and its emotional impact (e.g. awareness of
vulnerability/lack of control) may start to hit. There may be alternating phases of
intrusion and avoidance or hypervigilance and numbing (Horowitz, 1976, van der Kolk,
1987). The emotional impact affects different people at different times. For many, the
emotional impact hits within the first 72 hours (Mitchell and Everly 1996). Often, it is
longer. Following the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center attacks in New York City
the author observed the emotional impact starting to hit eye witnesses within the first two
days. However, the impact appeared to take longer to hit for people directly involved in
the attacks. The emotional impact was delayed for emergency service personnel who
were focused on their task, seemingly hitting several weeks to months following return to
usual duty. Typical reactions include (but are not limited to):
Heightened sense of danger/hypervigilance
Nightmares/flashbacks
Intrusive thoughts and images
Dissociative symptoms
Distress upon being reminded of the incident
Avoidance of thoughts, feelings, and reminders of the incident
Arousal symptoms (including difficulty sleeping, restlessness, difficulty
concentrating, irritability, poor concentration)
Extreme physical and emotional fatigue or exhaustion
Guilt about the incident or about surviving the incident
Desire to isolate self from friends or family
IV Coping As the emotional impact begins to hit, hopefully the survivor starts to face,
understand, work through, and come to grips with the emotional impact of the incident.
2

However, some people may resist dealing with the incident. Denial of emotional impact
or avoidance of dealing with the incident can impede constructive coping. Hence, for
some people there can be a gap between experiencing emotional impact (Impact phase)
and starting to cope constructively with it (Coping Phase).
It is important to assess when the emotional impact is hitting so interventions can be
timed appropriately. Interventions during the Impact and Coping phases are longer in
duration than interventions during the Shock phase, and go into more depth about the
impact of the event. Such interventions can be too intense during the Shock phase.
It is equally important to assess readiness for intervention. The emotional impact may be
hitting, but the survivor may be in denial, want to be left alone, or prefer to avoid dealing
with the incident. Usual CISM interventions can increase resistance, overwhelm
psychological defenses and be too intense for the person. Low key, individual strategies
to engage the person in a healing process are more appropriate.
The goal of interventions during the Impact and Coping phases is to promote positive
coping. Helping people understand and come to grips with what happened, and the
teaching adaptive coping strategies and self-care planning, are key interventions during
this time frame. People having prolonged difficulty coping should be referred for further
assessment and treatment.
V Resolution/integration The survivor reaches a state of acceptance and integration of
the experience. In the authors experience the following levels of awareness signify the
assimilation and accommodation of the incident into ones world view:
I am vulnerable (this is part of the human condition), but not helpless
I cannot always control what goes on around me, but I can control my response
to it
I survived, I am safe today, and have choices about how I approach the future.
However, the aftermath of the event is not necessarily over.
VI Learning to Live with it For some, experiencing a critical incident can be like
crossing a fence..and losing ones naivetwith no possibility of jumping back.
The survivors world view may have significantly changed, altering perceptions of self,
environment, and the world (Janoff-Bulman, 1992). It is not uncommon for people who
seemingly have integrated the specific incident to be experiencing later adaptation
problems because their world view has been altered. The survivor knows he/she is
vulnerable and has to learn to live with it. The memory of the incident may not be as
haunting as the disturbance in the sense of self and the persons relationship with his or
her surroundings (van der Kolk, 1996). Adjustment to this new world can take many
months (Everly, 1995). Consequently, appropriate follow-up intervention geared toward
facilitating adaptation needs to be available.

Salutogenic Approach
A guiding philosophy for interventions is a salutogenic approach that focuses on
promoting and maintaining health. Interventions should engage and support individual,
group, and organizational factors that promote recovery. (Dunning, 2000). A persons
coping ability and sense of well being is connected with a persons sense of coherence
(Antonovsky, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1993; Dunning, 1999) the extent the stress is
experienced as:
Comprehensible,
Manageable
Meaningful.
People need to comprehend the event what happened and how it happened.
Manageability refers to the person having constructive strategies to cope with the event,
the circumstances, and the consequences. Positive meaning refers to understanding the
impact of the event and its significance in ones life, and what can be done to integrate
the experience in a positive, self-enhancing way.
Interventions can also promote resilience and hardiness the capability to recover after
stress or adjust to dramatic changes (Higgins, 1994, Dunning, 1999). Kolbasa and
Maddi (1982) have discussed the concept of hardiness as composed of three
characteristics:
Commitment
Control
Challenge.
Commitment refers to the belief that you and your world are important and worthwhile
enough to fully engage in coping with the incident. Control refers to the belief that if you
are actively engaged in adaptive behaviors, you can positively influence much of what
happens in your daily life. Though one cannot control all circumstances, one can control
his/her response to it. Challenge refers to the belief that most everything that happens,
whether positive or negative, is an opportunity to enhance performance, leadership,
morale, conduct, and health. In other words, there is much to gain from actively coping
with a problem. Negative circumstances are challenges to deal with, not avoid. Hence,
interventions that promote resilience and hardiness promote the belief that an active
coping process can transform the stressfulness of a problem into something manageable
and growth promoting. The self is viewed as capable, hardy, and an active participant in
the world.
Interventions can take a salutogenic, resilience building approach that encourage an
active coping process and reinforce a persons sense of coherence, rather than focusing
on the inherent threat and terror of the incident. Interventions can help people
understand what happened, broaden and deepen their perspective, and make the incident
comprehensible. Control and manageability can be emphasized through teaching coping
skills and strategies to lower physiological arousal, increase positive social contacts,
encourage problem solving and formulation of adaptive self-care plans. Finding positive
meaning can be supported in a number of ways (Dunning, 1999). For example:
Gaining sufficient information to process the event and answer important questions

(e.g. information about the event, normal reactions to threat exposure, coping
strategies)
Learning from the event
Accepting a new definition and expectation about what the future might be
Focus on making the experience an event to be mastered, with ones support system
(both at work and at home) acting as validators and supporters of the process
Explore ways in which negative cognitions and meanings can be reexamined for their
positive strength or resolution
Commemoration to provide an opportunity to mourn, provide a ritualistic closure to
the event and for remembrance, and to place the event within the context of history
and the future.
Realizing that bad things happen but the people have the ability to cope and adapt to
changing circumstances

Indeed, trauma can lead to positive growth (Tedeschi, Park, and Calhoun, 1998). Trauma
can reinforce a persons ability to deal with adversity, clarify values and put life in
perspective. Many individuals experience a sense of competence and resilience as a
result of a critical incident (Shalev, 2000; Dyregrov and Solomon, 2000).
Organizational consultation
Providers of services need to work with the management of the organizations impacted to
coordinate delivery of services. What may be needed, when, for how many, are logistical
issues that continue to change over time. Ongoing coordination and cooperation is very
important for effective delivery of services, evaluation of services and mutual feedback
as to their effectiveness, and planning for future services. Mental health consultants can
help managers understand the needs of survivors, what interventions can be helpful, the
timing of these interventions, and how to support personnel effectively.
The organization also plays a large role in the recovery of personnel. Concerned
leadership that lets personnel know that they are important and cared about is crucial
(Solomon and Mastin, 1999). The organization can promote coherence (comprehension,
manageability, and positive meaning). Management can help with comprehension by
making facts available. Manageability of the incident can be helped by the organization
providing the resources needed to help personnel deal constructively with event. Positive
meaning can be facilitated through supportive communication. For example, positive
organizational messages for emergency service personnel after the September 11 attacks
were:
We were not at fault
It was bad, but we are supporting each other
If we were not there it would have been worse we made a difference
Multiple, and multifaceted interventions
To promote coherence, resilience and facilitate recovery there needs to be ongoing
involvement with the organization and organizational processes, not a one-intervention

approach. It is essential that there are multiple interventions over time that meet the
changing needs of the survivors and are appropriately tailored to the phase of recovery
the survivor is experiencing.
It is unfortunate that the majority of studies evaluating critical incident stress debriefing
(CISD, see below) as an effective treatment for the prevention of PTSD have focused
only on single session interventions conducted by either minimally trained or minimally
experienced debriefers (Lee, et al 1996; Bisson, et al 1997; Conlon, et al 1999; Mayou,
2000; Carlier, et al, 2000;, van Emmerik, et al.). There has been an erroneous
assumption that a single intervention, such as a CISD, can prevent PTSD from
developing (Shalev, 2000). A CISD was never intended to be psychological treatment
for either the prevention of PTSD or for symptom reduction of PTSD (Everly and
Mitchell, 1999, Mitchell and Everly and Mitchell, 2000). At the present time, there is no
evidence that CISD can prevent PTSD (Ruzek, 2001). Studies where the CISD format
was utilized for individuals and couples and/or the CISD format was loosely structured
have shown that symptoms worsened for some individuals. The problem with these
studies is that the CISD format developed and used extensively for group interventions
was used for individuals and couples, and therefore is not a valid and accurate test of the
CISD model.
Studies have shown that statistically significant positive effects have resulted from CISD.
CISD may assist with group cohesion and morale (Shalev, 2000). Debriefing,
emphasizing the narrative, resulted in a significant reduction in anxiety and increase in
self-efficacy with Israeli combat soldiers.(Shalev, 1998). CISD was shown to be effective
in reducing alcohol use after UN peace keeping missions (Deahl 2000). There is a
general sense that CISD is worthwhile and beneficial (Robinson and Mitchell, 1993).
Many of the CISD studies have methodological flaws, such as not defining the type of
debriefing intervention, the training of the CISD providers, the tools used to evaluate
effectiveness, and measuring effectiveness several months after the debriefing was
provided, a period of time in which the victims could have been exposed to additional
traumatic events (Dyregrov, 1998; Mitchell and Everly, 2000b). These methodological
shortcomings make it difficult to generalize from singular CISD investigations so as to
reach any definitive conclusion about the specific effectiveness of CISD interventions.
However, recent meta-analytic reviews (Everly, Boyle, and Lating, 1999; Every and
Boyle, 1999) have shown CISD can have a positive therapeutic effect when the
intervention model is clear, when the intervention leaders are appropriately trained, and
the assessment procedure for effectiveness is adequate (Dyregrov, 1998; Flannery, 1999;
Mitchell and Everly, 2000b).
A CISD can be likened to a funeral. After a death, a funeral is a ritual that provides
closure for many people. However, if one is particularly close to the deceased, the
funeral is only a beginning. Similarly, a CISD may provide closure for some of the
people involved in the incident. But if a person is particularly impacted by the event, the
CISD is only a beginning. To expect one intervention to be effective for dealing with a
significant incident is nave. CISD is part of critical incident stress management (CISM),

which is a continuum of care that carefully addresses the evolving needs of critical
incident survivors. People involved in a critical incident should be offered a menu of
appropriate intervention choices that is embedded within a larger framework that extends
over time (e.g. providing services starting from the immediate aftermath up to one year).
Research shows that that a multifaceted, multidimensional framework can have
therapeutic benefits (Everly, Flannery, and Eyler, 2002); Flannery, 1999; LeemanConley, 1990). The fact that some people experience worse symptoms after a debriefing
may not be a failure of this intervention (though inexperienced interveners, inappropriate
timing and loosely structured phases may have contributed to a negative outcome) as
much as it is a lack of appropriate follow-up.
Community Partnership
People can have a variety of psycho-social and medical needs following a critical
incident. It is important for the CISM team to work with community resources such as
local community leaders and groups; local psychological, clergy and medical providers;
social services; and local schools. The CISM team can establish partnerships, linkages
and referral protocols with community and medical services to facilitate efficient and
effective referrals
Critical Incident Stress Management
Table 1 lists the critical incident stress interventions according to timing and clinical
outcome. The following interventions are for normal people experiencing normal
reactions to the critical incident. These interventions are not treatment for trauma, nor a
substitution for appropriate treatment. These are interventions geared toward emotional
containment and stress management, not opening up emotions or behavioral change (as in
psychotherapy). Consequently, it is important that those conducting interventions have
appropriate training and significant experience in critical incident stress management so
as to provide appropriate structure and emotional containment and avoid the risk of overexposing participants (Dyregrov, 1997)..
Table 1 here
Interventions in the immediate aftermath: Stabilization (first 48 hours or longer)
Immediately following a critical incident, people need a sense of safety, security, and
caring. The transitional state after the event, when the person tries to validate, verify, and
understand their experience, is a critical period where traumatized people are suggestible
and prone to dissociate when cued (Yahuda and McFarlane, 1995). To provide nothing
often leaves victims feeling abandoned, uncared for, bitter about the lack of concern, and
potentially creates a secondary wound (Shalev, 2000). But it is important to respond
appropriately and not increase levels of stress and arousal, which can increase the toxic
effects of the critical incident (Shalev, 2000; Pitman, 1989). The following tasks are
important immediately following the incident.

Survival, safety and security needs are first priority. People first have to feel safe
from immediate danger for arousal to begin to lower and recovery to begin. The
setting for interventions should be carefully selected in order to allow survivors to
feel safe in their physical environment. If the physical environment and the
CISM team are perceived by the survivors as being safe and caring then
heightened threat detection, a normal response immediately following critical
incidents, will usually attenuate.

Structure to reinforce a sense of control and safety. After a critical incident,

survivors can be experiencing psychological chaos. Providing structure can help
provide a sense of control. Having a place to go where there is safety, structure,
and support, will facilitate emotional recovery and constructive coping.

Orientation - help survivors become oriented to immediate local services.

Organizations and communities often have protocols and services available
following a critical incident. Survivors are comforted by knowing what is
available, what to expect, and how to access available services.

Communication with family, friends, and linking into community. Establishment

of social ties and promoting factors that increase group cohesion is very important
after a critical incident. Isolation can be very pervasive and harmful after a
traumatic event (Shalev, 2000).Van der Kolk (2002) points out that people, like
all primates, are programmed to seek out others for the soothing and regulation
that they cannot provide for themselves.

Coping skills to lower arousal and deal constructively with the event. Recent
information suggests that reducing physiological arousal (e.g. heart rate, blood
pressure, vasoconstriction, adrenalcortisol production) shortly after exposure, may
be as important as clarifying and working through the impact of the event (Shalev,
2000).

The following interventions are appropriate for the immediate aftermath of a critical
incident.
Phase I Stabilization (first 24 hours - 48 hours)
A. Assessment of functioning/needs
B. Critical Incident Stress Orientation (Information/education sessions)
C. Demobilization
D. Defusing
E. Individual crisis intervention
F. Referral to community resources
A. Assessment of functioning/needs (triage) to determine what is needed. Rather than
CISM team members rushing on scene to find someone to support (as has happened too
often in the past), an assessment should be conducted to evaluate the impact of the event

and what is needed. Some people may be coping well and others may be in crisis and
need immediate referral for treatment.
B. Critical Incident Stress Orientation (CISO): A group psycho-educational intervention
to provide post-incident education in a safe environment. This intervention can be
helpful for small and large groups. Typically there is an introduction phase where people
can be given information on the event (what is known and not known). Next is a
teaching phase where covering normal stress reactions, coping strategies (e.g. to lower
arousal), and a description of available services and interventions. Getting together with
others in a secure, safe environment provides structure, reinforces group cohesion and
reduces isolation, and provides an opportunity for triage. Providing education on coping
can help to lower arousal, increase control
A CISO is appropriate when there are many people impacted, there is little information
about how people are impacted, when there are groups of people with varying circles of
risk (e.g. various levels of involvement and impact), or when there are time constraints.
CISOs are an excellent way to offer supportive services without exposing survivors to
potentially harmful incident narratives.
C. Demobilization (Mitchell and Everly, 1996): This is an intervention usually provided
to emergency service personnel after a large scale event, when there are too many people
involved to provide more personalized services. It is designed to be a quick
informational and rest session after the event. The demobilization serves as a transition
between being on scene and going home or returning to routine duty. It also serves a
secondary function as a screening opportunity to assure that individuals who may need
assistance are identified after the traumatic event. After being relieved from the scene of
the incident, units can report to a place where they receive a brief lecture (e.g. 10
minutes) on critical incident stress and coping, and have a few minutes (e.g. 20 minutes)
for food and rest.
D. Defusing (Mitchell and Everly, 1996): a group meeting or discussion about a critical
incident conducted within the first few hours following an event. Typically those who
share the same perspective are put in the same group, e.g. a work group, those at the
scene or who share a particular perspective. This reinforces the salutary benefits of
utilizing group cohesion and identification, and reducing isolation. Groups can be very
helpful in validating and normalizing experience.
A defusing is typically takes 20-45 minutes in length. The goals are to mitigate
the impact of the event, reduce symptoms promote the recovery process, and
assess need for further services. There are typically three phases. An Introduction
Phase begins the defusing where leaders are introduced and the purpose and goals
of the defusing process is described. Confidentiality (agreeing to respect each
others privacy and not discloses what is shared in the group) is emphasized.
Participants are also told that they do not have to speak. It is encouraged, but not
mandatory. Next is an Exploration Phase where participants are asked to describe
what just happened. The emphasis is on sharing experiences and reactions. This

enables a rapid ventilation, equalization of the information, and restoration of

cognitive processing of the event. A few clarifying questions are asked, but there
should be no deep probing of emotions or efforts to break down psychological
defenses. Lastly, there is a Teaching Phase where reactions are normalized and
stress reduction strategies are taught. The leaders stay available after the defusing.
Note that the process involves starting out cognitive with a description of ones
Involvement, then some exploration of reactions, and ending cognitive with
teaching. Hence, containment is emphasized.
Where getting together with other people who have experienced the same event can
be normalizing and validating, the psychological condition of those experiencing
severe reactions can be exacerbated by exposure to other peoples reactions.
Someone experiencing severe reactions should not be subjected to a group process
and steps should immediately be taken get the person to a calm setting where
appropriate medical and psychological assessment can be conducted.

E. Individual crisis intervention When a person is particularly upset an individual

session is warranted as exposure to other peoples stories can intensify that persons
reactions. Further, it is common that people are more comfortable discussing personal
issues privately than in a group.
F. Referral: If people are severely impacted, and not coping well, a referral for further
assessment and treatment is needed. Prime examples of conditions requiring referral
include:
Acute stress disorder (ASD)
Depression
Complicated bereavement reactions
Fear, anxiety, physiological arousal at a level that interferes with functioning
Anger control problems
Severe dissociative states
Functional disability
Substance abuse
Relationship disturbance
.

10

Interventions to facilitate coping and resource identification

As the emotional impact hits, interventions geared toward fostering adaptive coping are
needed. People need skills and strategies to deal with symptoms. An important of part of
recovery is the identification of available resources that can help promote recovery.
These resources include social network (friends and family), community services,
professional services, religious institutions, medical services, etc. The following
interventions may be appropriate:
Phase II Coping and resource identification (24 hours 12 weeks)
A. Assessment to determine appropriate interventions
B. Critical Incident Stress Debriefing
C. Individual intervention/stabilization
D. Family Services
E. Information/Education sessions
F. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR)/Cognitive-Behavioral
Therapy (CBT)
G. Referral to community resources

A. Assessment to determine what interventions are appropriate, and when, should be

conducted after a few days. Some issues to be decided include:
Magnitude of Impact: Survivors of critical incidents will sustain different
reactions to the event based on their physical and psychological proximity to
the event and to the decedents. Those who are closest physically to where the
event took place and those who are psychologically closest to the decedents
may experience the most acute arousal and longer periods of adjustment. The
magnitude of the impact may also be influenced by the type and frequency of
prior traumatic exposure, current coping skills and access to a trusted social
network and the presence or absence of current health risk behaviors.
Number of People Impacted: It is important to verify circles of risk or how
many survivors would be considered to be in the first circle (those impacted
the most intensely), how many would be considered to be in the second
circle (those impacted less intensely) and so on. Normally first circle
survivors would be offered CSID interventions separately form second circle
survivors.
How are people coping: CISD should never be used as a substitute for the
culturally appropriate mourning rituals used by the survivor community such
as wakes and funerals, or family and community meetings and memorial

11

services. Prior to conducting a CISD it is imperative that the CISM team get a
good sense of how the impacted community, family (s) and individuals are
coping with the impact of the event and what type of coping strategies they
may be employing. The goal of such an assessment is to identify adaptive
coping strategies and make sure CISD interventions are not going to interrupt
those while also identifying maladaptive coping strategies that the CISM team
might be able to change.
What do the survivors need-what have they requested: Although CISD can
provide extraordinary support and learning for groups impacted by a critical
incident, mandatory CISD, at least in civilian populations, may actually
increase arousal and avoidance symptoms (van Emmerik, 2002). The CISM
team must spend enough time in the impacted community to educate that
community about the CISM process and ascertain which survivors are
voluntarily ready for CISD interventions.
Verify incident specifics: Prior to conducting any of the CISM interventions it
will be important for the CISM team to gather information from appropriate
sources in order to verify what actually happened, including where it
happened, when it happened, what was the sequence of events, who were the
eyewitnesses, who may be at fault, the status of any investigations, what
issues are still unresolved, and what are the major incident rumors active in
the community.
B. Critical incident stress debriefing (CISD) (Mitchell and Everly, 1996): A
structured group discussion, conducted with homogeneous groups (e.g. groups that
share the same perspective on the incident), that is usually provided 1-14 days post
crisis. However, after mass disasters it may be used 3 weeks or more post incident.
The goals are to mitigate acute symptoms, assess need for follow-up, promote
recovery, and if possible, facilitate psychological closure. A major outcome is the
normalization and legitimization of thoughts, reactions, and symptoms through
hearing other people share their experience and education. Constructive coping is
also emphasized in the teaching phase.
CISD is a seven stage process. Similar to the defusing, the CISD starts at a cognitive
level, transitions into a brief discussion of emotional reactions, and transitions back to
a cognitive level with a teaching phase. This intent of this structure is to provide
structure and emotional containment.
Introduction Phase Debriefing team members are introduced and the debriefings
purpose and process are explained. (With some groups it is important to differentiate
between a CISD, where the purpose is to deal with the emotional effects of the
incident and a tactical or administrative debriefing, where the purpose is to go over
what happened in terms appropriateness of action and learning from it.) Ground rules
are explained and serve the purpose of providing safety and structure. Ground rules
usually include an agreement of confidentiality, talking only about one self and not

12

others, and although talking is encouraged it is voluntary (a person does not have to
talk and can gain a lot out of just listening), turning off pages and phones, and a
request to complete the process.
Fact Phase Each participants involvement is explained on a cognitive, factual level.
Thought Phase Each participant describe cognitive reactions (e.g. primary thoughts
when they realized what was happening) which serve to transition to emotional
reactions.
Reaction Phase The worst part of the event, and emotional reactions, are identified.
There is not probing of emotion and psychological defenses are respected.
Symptom Phase - Participants identify their personal symptoms of distress. Talking
about symptoms also transitions back to a cognitive level.
Teaching Phase Participants are educated about normal reactions and adaptive
coping strategies. This often is a short lecture but may include each participant
identifying personal resources that can provide support and aid in recovery, and
coming up with a self-care plan.
Re-Entry Phase Questions are answered, issues are clarified, summary statements
are made and closure is put on the process.
C. Individual intervention/stabilization - Survivors experiencing significant symptoms
may benefit may also benefit from individual sessions where issues can be dealt with in
more depth. A debriefing is oriented toward dealing with the incident, not dealing with
personal concerns. For survivors experiencing severe symptoms, individual sessions with
the goal of stabilization and referral to appropriate psychological/medical assessment and
treatment are more appropriate than a CISD.
D. Family services - It is important to have programs for family members. If someone is
experiencing significant levels of stress, it is brought home to the family. The family
may be ill equipped to deal with the survivor. Further, family members may have their
own stress reactions to the event which impinge on the family atmosphere and interfere
with recovery.
E Information/education sessions Education/information sessions have many
applications. For example:

Teach or reinforce coping skills

Provide new information about the event as it becomes available
A way to reach out to different impacted groups (e.g. family members, friends
of survivors, people indirectly impacted by the event

F. EMDR/CBT - For people experiencing significant symptoms psychotherapy is

13

indicated. Two therapeutic methods that have received empirical support are Eye
Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (Shapiro, 2001) and Cognitive Behavioral
Therapy (Foa, 1995; Bryant et al, 1999).
H. Referral services: Survivors may have a variety of psychosocial and medical
needs that cannot be met through CISM interventions, and can be referred to
appropriate community resources as needed.

Interventions to promote recovery and resolution (2 weeks-52 weeks)

Recovery Support (2 weeks 52 weeks)
A. Ongoing assessment of at risk populations
B. Ongoing evaluation of services and interventions
C. Follow-up on referrals made
D. Follow-up debriefings and meetings
E. Post Critical Incident Seminars
F. Referral to community resources
A. Ongoing assessment of at risk individuals: As described above, studies have
shown that symptoms can worsen after interventions. The incident can violate a
persons world view (Janoff-Bulman, 1992), creating difficulty adjusting to a
perceived new world. Where a person once felt secure and in control, post event the
person knows he or she is vulnerable, and negative events are beyond ones control.
For some people, adapting to this perceived new world, even if the triggering incident
has been resolved, can be difficult (Everly, 1995; Shapiro and Solomon, 1995).
Consequently, follow-up support and services may need to continually available.
Populations at risk for PTSD - The CISM model is appropriate for normal
populations. Assessment of populations at risk for PTSD should be an ongoing
process. Extensive epidemiological research on the correlations between type of
trauma, specific population samples and increased risk for the development of PTSD
indicate that certain traumatic incidents and certain population groups predispose
survivors to be at a significantly increased risk for the development of PTSD,
irrespective of prior trauma or current coping strategies and resources. Obviously the
CISM team must consider these carefully as they plan their continuum of care for the
impacted community. Some of the most notable non-military (excluding combat
veterans or military personnel) trauma exposures that may place particular survivors
at significantly increased risk include (period prevalence of PTSD is equal to or
greater than 200 per 1000):
A. Rape, for both females and males (Foa, et al, 1995)
B. Homelessness particularly homeless mothers (North, et al, 1994; Bassuk, et al,
1998)
C. Unexpected violent death of loved one, for both females and males (Breslau,
1998)

14

D. Early pregnancy loss (particularly pregnant mothers in the first term) (Englehard,
et al, 2001)
E. Refugee status, for both youth and adults, (Ferrada-Noli, et al, 1998, Weine, et al,
1998, Koraric, et al, 2000)
F. Terrorist attacks, e.g. especially people needing primary medical care (TaubmanBen-Ari, et al, 2001)
G. Court involved youth removed from parental custody (Famularo, et al, 1989)
H. Sniper attacks on schools, for both youth and adults (Pynoos, et al, 1987)
I. Sexual abuse, for youth (McLeer, et al 1988, 1992)
J. Natural disasters, especially earthquakes and hurricanes (Norris, 1992); Goenjian,
1993; Howard, et al, 1999, Ackerman, et al, 1998)
K. Domestic violence, e.g. battered women (Kubany, et al, 1996)
L. Hotel and home fires, e.g. burn victims and parents of burned children (Rizzone,
et al, 1994; Powers, et al, 1994).
In order to make sure that CISM interventions do no harm and maximize the beneficial
aspects of CISD, trauma exposure type and impacted population type should be
considered carefully. Professional resources with expertise in psychological trauma
should be identified and utilized.
B. Ongoing evaluation of services and delivery systems Evaluating the effectiveness of
services and interventions goes hand in hand with ongoing evaluation of at risk
populations. Some ways to evaluate services are brief psychometric scales (e.g. Impact
of Event Scale; Weiss and Marmar, 1997), face to face or telephone follow-up sessions,
follow-up group sessions, and communication with appropriate work place personnel.
Evaluating delivery systems is also important. Have the various groups of survivors
identified during previous assessment received appropriate services? Are services easily
accessible or perceived as inconvenient? Are services being utilized or ignored? Are
announcements and descriptions of services available reaching the intended populations
and communicated in a clear fashion? Interventions and delivery systems can be
continually modified and fine-tuned based on feedback and ongoing evaluation.
C. Follow-up on referrals made Are people referred to community or medical resources
making contact? Are services being utilized and meeting the needs of those referred?
Following up with referral sources and with the people referred can evaluate the
effectiveness of referrals.
D. Follow-up debriefings and meetings - The impact and the meaning of the incident
change with time. Further debriefings and group meetings can help foster integration of
the incident, adjustment to a world now perceived as different, and enhance resilience to
strengthen an individual and groups ability to cope.
E. A group intervention that may be helpful is the Post-Critical Incident Seminar (PCIS).
The PCIS is a multi-day e.g. 3-4 days), multi-modal intervention utilized by a number of
organizations, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (McNally and Solomon, 1999),

15

for follow-up support. After several months have passed there is some psychological
distance from the event. To only spend a few hours talking about the incident can serve
to open things up emotionally, with insufficient time to examine and work through the
meaning and current impact of the event. The multi-day format allows the time to tell
ones story, interact with other people who have experienced a critical incident (which is
extremely helpful in validating and legitimizing reactions to the incident), receive
education on typical reactions and coping skills, and further work through the incident.
This format has been found to be effective in lowering trauma symptoms (Solomon and
Kaufman, in press). The addition of EMDR to this structure was found to lead to more
symptom reduction than having the workshop only (Solomon and Kaufman, in press).
The PCIS is typically provided within four to 18 months of a critical incident, with
participation voluntary. The PCIS participants may be people involved in the same
incident, or consist of people who experienced different critical incidents. The number of
participants can vary according to the needs of the group and resources available, but
typically is between 12 and 30.
F. Referrals to community and medical services need to be made on an ongoing basis.

Conclusion
CISM provides structured, multiple session, phase oriented assessment and treatment
interventions that are designed to augment normal recovery processes in normal
populations, having normal reactions to abnormal events, over a normal period of time.
CISM may be utilized quite effectively among a number of populations impacted by the
incident. However, specialized knowledge and experience of the population being
serviced is necessary to ensure appropriate, credible, and effective interventions. We
have emphasized the importance of taking a longitudinal approach and providing a
continuum of interventions to meet changing needs over time. One-time interventions
may be sufficient for some, but not for all. Research showing some people may develop
worse symptoms after a one-time intervention may be as much a failure of appropriate
follow-up as inappropriate timing, inexperienced interveners, and loosely structured
interventions. It is important to take a salutogenic approach and focus on promoting
healing factors that facilitate recovery. Providing safety, structure, facilitating group
cohesion, social support, facilitating a sense of coherence, and teaching skills and
strategies that promote recovery and resilience are important outcomes of CISM. The
CISM team also needs to pay close attention to giving choice to those impacted by the
event. Those impacted by the incident must be afforded an opportunity to play a central
role in the resolution and recovery from the incident. Finally, CISM is not provided in a
vacuum, but within the community context. The CISM team needs to be part of a
community wide network so services can be coordinated and support systems sources can
be identified and quickly utilized. The CISM team can best achieve results through
partnering with local community leaders and groups, local psychological, clergy and
medical professionals, social services, and local schools.

16

Table 1 Critical incident stress interventions according to timing and clinical outcome
I

Stabilization (first 24 hours - 48 hours)

A. Assessment of functioning/needs
B. Demobilization
C. Defusing
D. Individual crisis intervention
E. Information/education sessions
F. Referral to community resources
II Coping and resource identification (24 hours 12 weeks)
A. Assessment to determine appropriate interventions
B Critical Incident Stress Debriefing
C. Individual intervention/stabilization
D. Information/Education sessions
E. EMDR/CBT
F. Referral to community resources

III Recovery Support (2 weeks 52 weeks)

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

Ongoing evaluation of services and interventions

Ongoing assessment of at risk populations with incident management partners
Follow-up on referrals made
Follow-up debriefings/meetings
Post Critical Incident Seminars (retreat setting)
Referral to community resources

17

References
Ackerman, P., Newton, J., McPherson, B., Jones, J., & Dykman, R. (1998). Prevalence
of post traumatic stress disorder and other psychiatric diagnoses in three groups of
abused children (sexual, physical, and both). Child Abuse and Neglect 22 (8), pg.
759-774.
Antonovsky, A. (1987), Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress
and stay well. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1987
Antonovsky, A. (1990), Pathways leading to successful coping and health. In
Rosenbaum, M. (Ed.) Learned Resourcefulness: On coping skills, self-control, and
adaptive behavior. New York, Spring, 1990
Antonovsky, A. (1991) The structural sources of salutogenic strengths. In Cooper, C. and
Payne R. (Eds.) Personality and stress: Individual differences in the stress process.
London: John Wiley
Antonovsky, A. (1993) The implications of salutogenesis: An outsiders view. In
Turnbull, A., Patterson, J., Behr, S. Murphy, D., et al (Eds.) Cognitive coping,
families and disability. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes
Bassuk, E., Buckner, J., Perlott, J., & Bassuk, S. (1998). Prevalence of mental health and
substance use disorders among homeless and low-income housed mothers.
American Journal of Psychiatry 155, pg. 1561-1564.
Bisson, J. I., Jenkins, PI, Alexander, J., Bannister, C. (1997) Randomized controlled
trial of psychological debriefing for victims of acute burn trauma. British Journal
of Psychiatry 171-78-81.
Breslau, N. (1998). Epidemiology of trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder. In
Yehuda, R. (ed.). Psychological Trauma, 1st ed., pp. 1-29. Washington: American
Psychiatric Press.
Bryant, R.A., Sackville, T., Dang, S.T., Moulds, M., and Guthrie, R . (1999). Treating
Acute stress disorder: an evaluation of cognitive behavioral therapy and supportive
Counseling techniques. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 1780-1786.
Carlier IVE, Voerman AE, and Gersons BPR (2000); The influence of occupational
debriefing on post-traumatic stress symptomatology in traumatized police officers.
British Journal of Medical Psychology, 171, 78-81.
Conlon, L., Fahy, TJ, Conroy, R. (1998). PTSD in ambulant RTA victims: a randomized
controlled trial of debriefing. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 46, 37-44.

18

Deahl, M., Srinivascin, M., Jones, N., Thomas, J., et al. (2000) Preventing psychological
trauma in soldiers: the role of operational stress training and psychological
debriefing. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 73, 7785.
Dunning, C. (1999) Postintervention strategies to reduce police trauma: a paradigm shift.
In Violanti J.M. and Paton, D. (Eds.) Police Trauma. Sringfield, IL: Charles Thomas
Dyregrov, A. (1997). The process in critical incident stress debriefings. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 10, 589-605.
Dyregrov, A. (1998). Psychological debriefing An effective method? Traumatology,
4:2, Article 1. http://www.fsu.edu/^trauma/
Dyregrov, A., and Solomon, R.M.(2000) Mental mobilization processes in critical
incident stress situations. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health,
Vol.2 (2), pp. 73-82
Engelhard, I., van den Hout, M., & Arntz, A. (2001). Posttraumatic stress disorder after
pregnancy loss. General Hospital Psychiatry 23 (2), pg. 62-66.
Every, G.S., (1995) A neurocognitive strategic therapy for the treatment of post-traumatic
stress. In Every, G.S (Ed.) Innovations in disaster and trauma psychology, volume 1.
Ellicott City, MD: Chevron Press
Everly, G.S. (2000) Five principles of crisis intervention: reducing the risk of premature
crisis intervention. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, Vol.2 (4),
pp. 1-4.
Everly, G.S, Flannery, R.B., and Eyler, V.A. (2002) Critical incident stress management
(CISM): a statistical review of the literature. Psychiatric Quarterly, 73, 3, pp.171182.
Everly, G.S., Boyle,S., Lating, H. (1999) Effectiveness of psychological debriefing with
vicarious trauma: A meta-analysis. Stress Medicine, 15, 229-233.
Everly, G.S., Boyle, S. (1999) Critical incident stress debriefing: A meta-analysis.
International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 1, 165-168.
Everly, G.S. and Mitchell J.T. (2000). The debriefing controversy and crisis
intervention: a review of lexical and substantive issues. Journal of Emergency
Mental Health, 2 (4) 211-225.
Everly, G.S. and Mitchell J.T. (1999) Critical Incident Stress Management: a new era
and Standard of care in crisis intervention (2nd edition). Ellicott City, MD:
Chevron Press

19

Famularo, R., Kinscherff, R., & Fenton, T. (1989). Post-traumatic stress disorder among
maltreated children presenting to a juvenile court. American Journal of Forensic
Psychology 10 (3), pg. 33-39.
Ferrada-Noli, M., Asberg, M., Ormstad, K., Lundin, T., & Sundbom, E. (1998). Suicidal
behavior after severe trauma. Part I: PTSD diagnoses, psychiatric comorbidity,
and assessments of suicidal behavior. Journal of Traumatic Stress 11 (1), pg. 103112.
Flannery, R.B. (1999). Psychological trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder.
International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 2, 135-140.
Foa, E.B., Hearst-Ikeda, D., and Perry, K.J. (1995) Evaluation of a brief cognitivebehavioral program for the prevention of chronic PTSD in recent assault victims.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 948-955.
Goenjian, A. (1993). A mental health relief program in Armenia after the 1988
Earthquake: Implementation and clinical observations. British Journal of Psychiatry
163, pg. 230-9.
Higgins, G.O. (1994). Resilient adults: overcoming a cruel past. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
Horowitz, M.S. (1976). Stress Response Syndromes. New York : Jason Aronson.
Howard, M., & Hodes, M. (2000). Psychopathology, adversity, and service utilization of
young refugees. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry 39 (3), pg. 368-77.
Howard, W., Loberiza, F., Pfohl, B., Thorne, P., Magpantay, R., & Woolson, R. (1999).
Initial results, reliability, and validity
of a mental health survey of Mount Pinatubo
disaster victims. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 187 (11), pg. 661-72.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered Assumptions: Toward a new psychology of
trauma. New York : The Free Press.
Kolbasa, S. Maddi, S., Cahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: A prospective study.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, pp 168-177.
Kozaric-Kovacic, D., Ljubin, T., & Grappe, M. (2000). Comorbidity of posttraumatic
stress disorder and alcohol dependence in displaced persons. Croatian Medical
Journal 41 (2), pg. 173-8
Kubany, E., McKenzie, W., Owens, J., Leisen, M., Kaplan, A., & Pavich, E. (1996).
PTSD among women survivors of domestic violence in Hawaii. Hawaii Medical
Journal 55 (9), pg. 64-5.

20

Lee, C., Slade, P., and Lygo, V. (1996). The influence of psychological debriefing on
emotional adaptation in women following early miscarriage: a preliminary study.
British Journal of Medical Psychology 69, 47-58.
Leeman-Conley, M. (1990). After a violent robbery Criminology Australia, AprilMay, 4-6
McLeer, S., Deblinger, E., Atkins, M., Foa, E., & Ralphe, D. (1988). Post-traumatic
stress disorder in sexually abused children. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 27 (5), pg. 650-654.
McLeer, S., Deblinger, E., Henry, D., & Orvaschel, H. (1992). Sexually abused children
at high risk for post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of the American Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 31 (5), pg. 875-9.
McNally, V.J. and Solomon, R.M. (1999), The FBIs critical
incident stress management program stress management program. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, February, pp 20-26.
Marmar, C. R. and Weiss, and Metzler, T.L. (1997) The peritraumatic dissociative
experiences questionnaire. In Wilson, J. P. and Keane, T.M. (Eds.), Assessing
psychological trauma and PTSD: A practitioners handbook. New York: Guilford
Press
Mayou, RA. (1987) A british view of liaison psychiatry. General Hospital Psychiatry, 9,
18-24.
Mitchell, J.T. and Everly, G.S. 1996) Critical Incident Stress Debriefing: An Operations
Manual, 2nd edition. Ellicott City, MD: Chevron Press
Mitchell J.T. and Everly GS. (2000) Critical incident stress management and critical
incident stress debriefings: evolutions, effects and outcomes. In (Raphael, B. and
Wilson, J.P. (Eds). Psychological Debriefing: Theory, Practice and
Evidence. pp.77-90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
North, C., Smith, E., & Spitznagel, E. (1994). Posttraumatic stress disorder in survivors
of a mass shooting. American Journal of Psychiatry 151 (1), pg. 82-8.
Norris, F. (1992). Epidemiology of trauma: frequency and impact of different potentially
traumatic events on different demographic groups. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology 60, (3), pg. 409-418.
Pitman, R. K. (1989) Post-traumatic stress disorder, hormones, and memory. Biological
Psychiatry, 26, 221-223.

21

Powers, P., Cruse, C., Daniels, S., & Stevens, B. (1994). Posttraumatic stress disorder in
patients with burns. Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation 15 (2), pg. 147-53.
Pynoos, R., Frederick, C., Nader, K., Arroyo, W., Steinberg, A., Nunez, F., & Fairbanks,
L. (1987). Life threat and posttraumatic stress in school age children. Archives of
General Psychiatry 44, pg. 1057-1063.
Rizzone, L., Stoddard, E., Murphy, J., & Kruger, L. (1994). Posttraumatic stress disorder
in mothers of children and adolescents with burns. Journal of Burn Care and
Rehabilitation 15 (2), pg. 158-63.
Ruzek. J. (2001) Early intervention to prevent PTSD and other trauma related problems.
PTSD Research Quarterly, 12, 4
Robinson, R.C. and Mitchell, J.T. (1993). Evaluation of psychological debriefings.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6 (3), 367-382.
Shalev, A.Y. (2000) Stress management and debriefing: historical concepts and present
Patterns. In (Raphael, B. and Wilson, J.P. eds.) Psychological Debriefing: Theory,
Practice and Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 17-31
Shalev, A.Y. (1998), Peri, T., and Rogel-Fuchs, Y. (1998). Historical group debriefing
after combat exposure. Military Medicine, 163, 494-498.
Shapiro, F. (2001) Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. New York: Guilford
Press
Shapiro, F. and Solomon, R.M. (1995). Eye movement desensitization and
reprocessing: Neurocognitive information processing. In G. Everly
and J. Mitchell (Eds.) Critical incident stress management. Chevron Publishing:
Ellicott City, M.D.
Solomon, R.M. (1988). Post-shooting trauma, Police Chief, October, pp. 40-44.
Solomon, R.M. (1995). Critical incident stress debriefing in law enforcement. In G.
Everly and J. Mitchell (Eds.) Critical Incident stress Management. Ellicott City,
MD: Chevron Press
Solomon, R.M., (1998), Utilization of EMDR in crisis intervention, Crisis Intervention,
Vol. 4, pp. 239-246.
Solomon, R.M. and Mastin, P. (1999). The emotional aftermath of the Waco Raid: Five
years revisited. In Police trauma, Charles Thomas, Springfield, IL., pp. 113-123.
Solomon, R.M. and Kaufman T. (in press). Peer support workshop for treatment
of traumatic stress of railroad personnel. Journal of Brief Therapy. New York
City, Springer Publishing Company.

22

Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., Rabinowitz, J., Feldman, D., & Vaturi, R. (2001). Posttraumatic
stress disorder in primary-care settings: prevalence and physicians' detection.
Psychological Medicine 31 (3), pg. 555-560
Tedeschi, R., Park, C. and Calhoun, L. (1998). Posttraumatic growth: positive growth
in the aftermath of crisis. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
van der Kolk, B. (2002) Beyond the talking cure: Somatic experience and subcortical
imprints in the treatment of trauma. In Shapiro, F . (Ed) EMDR As an Integrative
Psychotherapy Approach pp. 57-84
Van der Kolk, B. (1987). Psychological trauma. Washington DC: American Psychiatric
Press.
van der Kolk, B. McFarlane, A. Weisaeth L. (1996). Traumatic Stress. New York:
Guilford Press.
Van Emmerick, A. Kamphuis, J., Hulsbossch, A., and Emmelkamp, P. (2002), Single
Session debriefing after psychological trauma: a meta-analysis. The Lancet, 360,
766-771.
Weine, S., Voljvoda, D., Becker, D., McGlashan, T., Hodzic, E., Laub, D., Hyman, L.,
Sawyer, M., & Lazrove, S. (1998). PTSD symptoms in bosnian refugees 1 year
after resettlement in the United States. American Journal of Psychiatry 155 (4), pg.
562-4.
Weiss, D and Marmar,C. (1995). The impact of event scale-revised. In Wilson, J. P.
and Keane, T.M. (Eds.), Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD: A
practitioners handbook. New York: Guilford Press
Yahuda, R. and McFarlane, A.C. (1995). Conflict between current knowledge about
post-traumatic stress disorder and its original conceptual basis. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 152, 1705-13.

23