Financial services employees' experience of peer-led and clinician-led critical incident stress debriefing following armed robberies.
This study investigates financial services employees' experience of critical incident stress debriefing (CISD) and their views about peers and clinicians as facilitators. Semi-structured interview accounts of four participants who had experienced both peer-led and clinician-led CISD were analyzed using grounded theory. A core category, ambivalence, permeated each interview and divided into two poles: pathologizing and normalizing. The most frequently occurring sub-category was a dislike of professionalism. Participants preferred the peer debriefer who was perceived to have more personal involvement and with whom they felt more empowered and understood. The findings suggest that the status of the debriefer as 'peer' or 'clinician' may be a crucial variable in the effectiveness of CISD and should be considered when reviewing the outcome literature.
Simms-Ellis
R
R
School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. ianellis@dialstart.net
Madill
A
A
D000328:Adult; D001294:Attitude to Health; D019548:Crime Victims / Q000523:psychology*; D003419:Crisis Intervention / Q000379:methods*; D004739:England; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007398:Interpersonal Relations; D007406:Interview, Psychological; D008875:Middle Aged; D008960:Models, Psychological; D009786:Occupational Health Services; D010379:Peer Group; D011369:Professional-Patient Relations