Table 3

Table summarising results of studies on debriefing in emergency ambulance personnel

StudyMethodsParticipantsResponse rateTiming of measureComments
Robinson and Mitchell 1993Evaluation questionnaire288 emergency, welfare and hospital workers60%Evaluation of debriefings in Dec 1987–Aug 1989Biased tool used to evaluate impact—no negative values included. Average impact of events at time was moderate to considerable. Both groups (emergency service personnel and welfare/hospital workers) showed a significant lowering of impact at the time of the post evaluation debriefing.
Hutt 1996QuestionnaireTwo comparison groups: 34 emergency workers who had been debriefed, 19 who had not been debriefed100%All measures collected in one data collection phaseNo significant differences between the groups, mean scores very similar.
Jenkins 1996Semi-structured interview, incident, social support, Symptom Checklist 90-R, psychosomatic distressn=36 (EMTs, paramedics and fire fighters)87% (Phase 1)T1=8th–10th day after incident from 3 successive 24 hour shifts. T2=one month follow up from 29th–31st day after incident.Very small sample. Strongest recovery effects from anxiety and depression were seen in CISD participation group. CISD non-participants were significantly more likely to be married.