Management of Acute Distress through a Comprehensive Model of Crisis Intervention for Mass Disasters and Terrorism

Summary

Swanson and Carbon (1989), writing for the American Psychiatric Association Task Force Report on Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders state, “Crisis intervention is a proven approach to helping in the pain of an emotional crisis” (p. 2520). While there is a compelling logic to support the notion of early psychological intervention subsequent to a critical incident and empirical evidence to support the utilization of a multifaceted crisis intervention system, continued empirical validation and clinical refinement are worthy pursuits for the future. Clearly, crisis intervention technologies are best directed toward acute situational adversity, well circumscribed stressors, and acute, adult-onset traumatic reactions (Dyregrov, 1997, 1998, 1999; Everly & Mitchell, 1999; Richards, 1999). Crisis intervention is neither a form of therapy per se nor a substitute for treatment. Crisis intervention is designed to complement more traditional psychotherapeutic services. This is readily apparent if we understand that one of the expressed goals of the crisis intervention, as defined in this chapter, is to assess the need for continued care and to facilitate access to a higher level of care, if required or desired. To do nothing other than identify care seems a worthwhile goal in and of itself, and justification for studying and implementing this form of acute stress management.

Portions of this chapter have been published in the International Journal of Emergency Mental Health. Used with permission.