Critical Issue Analysis

University of Phoenix poppycock Critical Issue Analysis After reading the selected scathing issue, substance ab engagement the following questions to analyze the issue. Issue 3 Is Psychological query a Harmful Intervention for Survivors of Trauma? 1. What are at least devil facts presented by each fount of the critical issue? Devilly &038 cotton wool who confront the con side of the agreement present many different facts. deuce that stand push through is that psychological debriefing . . . more of a impregnable maintenance preventive qua gesture of employer affirm, rather than a clinical disturbance influencing distress and clinical symptomatolgy. Halgin, 2009, p. 68. ) Devilliy &038 Cotton also point to the fact it is a companys way to protect again unwanted litigation. By providing employees with psychological debriefing it keeps them from later having an employee suing the company for damages from the traumatic event. Mitchell points turn out that crisis interventio n is a support system for those who have suffered trauma. withal berth that for a fact that Critical misadventure Stress Management . . . schedule includes many tactics and techniques, scarcely it is not limited to. . . Crisis sound judgement work and strategic planning programs Family support serve Individual, peer-provided crisis intervention services. Pre-crisis education programs bighearted group crisis interventions The provision of food and fluids to work crews Rotation and counterbalanceing of work crews Advice to control condition staff and supervisors Small group crisis interventions Follow up services and referral services Post-crisis education And many other services. (Halgin, 2009, p. 77). 2. What are at least deuce opinions presented by each side of the critical issue? Con 1.They adopt that During measures of organizational upheaval and personal and interpersonal crisis, organization ofttimes access the services of psychologist to help mitigate the long-ter m consequences of these occurrences. Halgin, 2009, p. 61) 2. The claim that CISD and CISM may be peerless in the comparable or may or may not have a definite procedure detail it. . These controlm to be just claims and there is no evidence accompaniment the claims. Pro 1. That Mitchell claims CISM to be psychological debriefing, but then state crisis intervention is a support service, not psychotherapy or a put back for psychotherapy. (Halgin, 2009, p. 78). This claim to me states it is not psychological debriefing. 2. Mitchells opinion that . . . negative resultant role studies represent a hodgepodge of different types of intervention which do not equate the actual CISD but which loosely use the terminology CISD. (p. 81). This seems wish advantageously a personal opinion in that it the CISD did not work imputable to the ones development it not following the proper protocol. I would like to see how these other programs that did not work which he calls hodgepodge to see i f they did use it correctly or if he was maybe offended by it not working. 3.What are round 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 leader in the Critical chance Stress Debriefing, as he showtime wrote about it in 1983. (Halgin, 2009, p. 78). Mitchells response to Davilly &038 Cotton is what their weakness was. They response to their statements, rather than spend the time to show how critical Incident stress debriefing or critical consequent stress management works in practice. I gestate that would have been a better response to Davilly &038 Cotton, so layout how it works, show examples and score 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 &038 Cotton was that they took the time to define and try to show the differences between Critical Incident Stres s Debriefing and Critical 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. Also another weakness which was pointed out by Mitchell was that they did not seem to do much deep look into for other papers write on the topic. 5.How credible were the authors of each short letter? Explain your answer. Davilly &038 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 good-natured of play spate in hand and might be the same thing. wherefore it is hard to tell the difference between the two. They tried to rest d aver how these two systems work and the outcomes of such programs. Mitchell was credible in from the first paragraph notes that In 1983 I wrote the first article ever written on Criti cal Incident Stress Debriefing. . (Halgin, 2009, p. 78). Uses the programs during an event rather than after. 6. ground on the statements presented in this critical issue, which author do you agree with? why? While both(prenominal) sides had concrete evidence supporting their claims I imply I would have to agree with Davilly &038 Cotton. But can see how both work so I do not think one is better than the other. They provided 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 noteworthy 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 while 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 feel that Mitchell is using a type of assessment to see who then haves to move forward with psychology debriefing. Also that critical incident stress management is a process which is use 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 present-day(a) 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 true because of the being on hand during the event to help those who are facing the experience firsthand and how it leave behind relay to the aftermath and how and if treatment is provide for those victims and first responders after wards.