Michigan Crisis
Response
Association, Inc.
MCRA is a voluntary association
and therefore we don’t have any
offices or staff. All people
involved with MCRA volunteer
their time. The best way to get in
touch is to email us at the email
address listed.
CISM - Critical
Incident Stress
Management
A PRIMER ON CRITICAL INCIDENT STRESS MANAGEMENT (CISM)
Written By George S. Everly, Jr., Ph.D., C.T.S. and Jeffrey T.
Mitchell, Ph.D., C.T.S.
The International Critical Incident Stress Foundation
As crises and disasters become epidemic, the need for effective
crisis response capabilities becomes obvious. Crisis intervention
programs are recommended and even mandated in a wide
variety of community and occupational settings (Everly and
Mitchell, 1997). Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM)
represents a powerful, yet cost- effective approach to crisis
response (Everly, Flannery, & Mitchell, in press; Flannery, 1998;
Everly & Mitchell, 1997) which unfortunately is often
misrepresented and misunderstood.
What is CISM? CISM is a comprehensive, integrative,
multicomponent crisis intervention system. CISM is considered
comprehensive because it consists of multiple crisis intervention
components, which functionally span the entire temporal
spectrum of a crisis. CISM interventions range from the pre-
crisis phase through the acute crisis phase, and into the post-
crisis phase. CISM is also considered comprehensive in that it
consists of interventions, which may be applied to individuals,
small functional groups, large groups, families, organizations,
and even communities. The seven (7) core components of CISM
are defined below.
1.
Pre-crisis preparation. This includes stress management
education, stress resistance, and crisis mitigation training
for both individuals and organizations.
2.
Disaster or large-scale incident, as well as, school and
community support programs including demobilizations,
informational briefings, "town meetings”, and staff
advisement.
3.
Defusing. This is a 3-phase, structured small group
discussion provided within hours of a crisis for purposes of
assessment, triaging, and acute symptom mitigation.
4.
Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) refers to the
"Mitchell model" (Mitchell and Everly, 1996) 7-phase,
structured group discussion, usually provided 1 to 10 days
post crisis, and designed to mitigate acute symptoms,
assess the need for follow-up, and if possible provide a
sense of post-crisis psychological closure.
5.
One-on-one crisis intervention/counseling or psychological
support throughout the full range of the crisis spectrum.
6.
Family crisis intervention, as well as, organizational
consultation.
7.
Follow-up and referral mechanisms for assessment and
treatment, if necessary.
PASS - Post Action Staff Support - Taking care of the
psychological and physical needs of the CISM team along with
the opportunity to learn from the event. - Click here to
download a description and guide for teams to provide self-care
after CISM events.
Michigan Crisis Response Association,
Inc. - 2026
[From: Everly, G. & Mitchell, 3. (1997) Critical Incident Stress
Management (CISM). A New Era and Standard of Care in Crisis
Intervention. Ellicott City, MD: Chevron Publishing.]
As one would never attempt to play a round of golf with only one
golf club, one would not attempt the complex task of intervention
within a crisis or disaster with only one crisis intervention
technology.
As crisis intervention, generically, and CISM, specifically, represent
a subspecialty within behavioral health, one should not attempt
application without adequate and specific training. CISM is not
psychotherapy, nor a substitute for psychotherapy. CISM is a
form of psychological "first aid”.
As noted earlier, CISM represents an integrated multicomponent
crisis intervention system. This systems approach underscores
the importance of using multiple interventions combined in such
a manner as to yield maximum impact to achieve the goal of
crisis stabilization and symptom mitigation. Although in evidence
since 1983 (Mitchell, 1983), this concept is commonly
misunderstood as evidenced by a recent article by Snelgrove
(1998) who argues that the CISD group intervention should not
be a stand alone intervention. This point has, frankly, never been
in contention. The CISD intervention has always been conceived
of as one component within a larger functional intervention
framework. Admittedly, some of the confusion surrounding this
point was engendered by virtue of the fact that in the earlier
expositions, the term CISD was used to denote the generic and
overarching umbrella program/ system, while the term "formal
CISD" was used to denote the specific 7-phase group discussion
process. The term CISM was later used to replace the generic
CISD and serve as the overarching umbrella program/ system, as
noted in Table 1 (see Everly and Mitchell, 1997).
The effectiveness of CISM programs has been empirically
validated through thoughtful qualitative analyses, as well as
through controlled investigations, and even meta-analyses
(Everly, Boyle, & Lating, in press; Flannery, 1998; Everly & Mitchell,
1997; Everly & Boyle, 1997; Mitchell & Everly, in press; Everly,
Flannery, & Mitchell, in press; Dyregrov, 1997), unfortunately, this
is a fact often overlooked (e.g. see Snelgrove, 1998).
Similarly, there is a misconception that evidence exists to suggest
that CISD/ CISM has proven harmful to its recipients (e.g. see
Snelgrove, 1998), this is a misrepresentation of the extant data.
There is no extant evidence to argue that the "Mitchell model"
CISD, or the CISM system, has proven harmful! The investigations
that are frequently cited to suggest such an adverse effect simply
did not use the CISD or CISM system as prescribed, a fact that is
too often ignored (e.g. see Snelgrove, 1998).
In sum, no one CISM intervention is designed to stand alone, not
even the widely used CISD. Efforts to implement and evaluate
CISM must be programmatic, not unidimensional (Mitchell &
Everly, in press). While the CISM approach to crisis intervention is
continuing to evolve, as should any worthwhile endeavor, current
investigations have clearly demonstrated its value as a tool to
reduce human suffering. Future research should focus upon
ways in which the CISM process can be made even more effective
to those in crisis.
While the roots of CISM can be found in the emergency services
professions dating back to the late 1970s, CISM is now becoming
a "standard of care" in many schools, communities, and
organizations well outside the field of emergency services (Everly
& Mitchell, 1997).
References
Dyregrov, A. (1997). The process of psychological debriefing.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 10, 589-604.
Everly, G.S., Boyle, S. & Lating, J. (in press). The effectiveness of
psychological debriefings in vicarious trauma: A meta-analysis.
Stress Medicine.
Everly, G.S. & Boyle, S. (1997, April). CISD: A meta-analysis. Paper
presented to the 4th World Congress on Stress, Trauma, and
Coping in the Emergency Services Professions. Baltimore, MD.
Everly, G.S. & Mitchell, J.T. (1997). Critical Incident Stress
Management (CISM): A New Era and Standard of Care in Crisis
Intervention. Ellicott City, MD: Chevron.
Everly, 0., Flannery, R., & Mitchell, J. (in press). CISM: A review of
literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal.
Flannery, R.B. (1998). The Assaulted Staff Action Program: Coping
with the psychological aftermath of violence. Ellicott City, MD:
Chevron Publishing. Mitchell,
J.T. (1983). When disaster strikes...The critical incident stress
debriefing. Journal of Emergency Medical Services, 13 (11), 49-52.
Mitchell, J. T. & Everly, G.S. (in press). CISM and CISD: Evolution,
effects and outcomes. In B. Raphael & J. Wilson (Eds.).
Psychological Debriefing.
Mitchell, J.T. & Everly, 0.5. (1996). Critical Incident Stress
Debriefing: An Operations Manual. Ellicott City, MD: Chevron.
Snelgrove, T. (1998). Debriefing under fire. Trauma Lines, 3 (2), 3,
11.