Psychologists’ use of and views on group psychological debriefing:A preliminary study

Abstract

This study aimed to establish how practitioner psychologists use debriefing for trauma-exposed staff. Findings suggest that practices employed were guided by trauma-informed principles and in line with the recently published ‘Association of Clinical Psychologists UK’ guidance. Moreover, participants believed the practice to be effective. Healthcare professionals are routinely exposed to potentially traumatic events. Psychological Group Debriefing is an early post-trauma intervention that was designed for occupational groups to help them process these events. The National Institute for Clinical Health Excellence recommended against the use of debriefing to prevent Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for primary victims of trauma. However, there has been a lack of further empirical investigation regarding its utility for occupational staff. The aims of this study were to establish what psychologists working with healthcare staff consider to be best practice and whether this aligns with the recently published ‘Association of Clinical Psychologists UK’ guidance. Additionally, their beliefs on the effectiveness of the intervention were investigated. A cross-sectional mixed methods design was employed. Fifty-three ‘Health and Care Professions Council’-registered psychologists took part in an online survey about their use of and views on the practice. Qualitative data were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Quantitative data were integrated to complement the content analysis. Three main themes were identified: (1) how best to support staff, relating to procedures that are aimed at supporting natural recovery as well as the general importance of offering support (2) unsafe practices, which are marked by not adhering to trauma-informed principles, and (3) ‘I’m mindful there is no strong evidence base yet’, relating to the recognition of the lack of a strong evidence base that stands in contrast to the overwhelmingly positive clinical experience. Findings suggest that psychologists’ accounts are consistent and in line with the ACP guidance, suggesting consensus among experts