EDITORIAL COMMENTS

This chapter by Lars Weisæth brings a very thoughtful appraisal of the significance of debriefing for different groups of personnel. The model presented is based on extensive traumatic stress research and experience and appraisal of the use of supportive and preventive interventions in disaster and trauma situations. It highlights the relation of debriefing to Briefing and suggests that formal debriefing should be provided only for those who have been ‘briefed’ to deal with an incident, disaster or violently traumatic experience. This approach focusses on the potential value of what is called group stress debriefing (GSD) for professional rescue and emergency response teams, who are trained and mobilized. It may also have some value for those who are ‘reservist’ teams. He emphasizes, however, that its key principles may be incorporated into the leadership role of the team leader and he or she may be specifically trained to implement the model in the team's functional response and standdown. There may, in fact, be negative consequences, with intrusion of health personnel between the team leader and team members, and it is suggested that these health personnel (trained debriefers) should be used only in high-risk situations: for instance death of significant numbers of team members, witnessing of people dying and being unable to save lives, and feelings of failure in the rescue operations. Other groups, for instance natural groups, random groups or victim groups may need an individualized approach and other methods of prevention or trauma intervention to be provided – not a formal and structured group process.