International Critical Incident Stress Foundation, Inc.
International Critical Incident Stress Foundation, Inc.
By: Dennis Potter, LMSW, FAAETS
Within the CISM interventions, we are constantly striving to make sure that we are aware of and using Best Practices within all of our services. Once we have become aware of new or different approaches, I want to make sure that we share them with you. So today I want to refine your understanding of the CMB as a Video approach in this Pandemic situation.
Does the organization for whom you are providing the intervention have Video capability? Can you use one of the platforms that allow multiple call-ins like Zoom or Go to Meeting etc? This would be an effective why of delivering you the CMB with great physical distancing while still seeing the participants. Since they are a work group already exposed to each other, perhaps you could tap into their system and they could watch from a TV/Computer screen. Protecting your team in this time is very important. If you are part of an internal team and are exposed as your colleagues are this may be less important, but at the same time maintaining physical distancing protocols might still be important.
Do you have any team members who can help make a podcast so you can deliver the message even if they cannot see you? This might be useful as well. This is definitely a time for innovation.
Historically, we have promoted the CMB as a group intervention model in which the participants were largely on the receiving end of an educational presentation designed to help them tap into their natural resiliency and recover from any after effects of a disruptive event. We would work with the organization’s leadership personnel to deliver the opening statements of fact around the event and have them introduce us as representing their CISM team. We would then launch into our psychoeducational talk covering issues that we might logically expect them to be experiencing.
Other than perhaps opening the end of the presentation to questions, it has largely been seen as a passive experience for employees and in fact, been promoted as being most appropriate for employees in the second or third “tier” of the event rather that people most impacted by the event. Today, there are few personnel who are not directly impacted.
This approach has worked pretty well but I have come to believe that we can substantially improve it and make it the primary group approach for all employees whether directly involved in the event, or further removed from it.
So how do we do that? Good question!
We do that by inserting some open ended questions, some of which we expect people to nod or raise their hands acknowledging that they have or are experiencing the reactions, and some that we might expect some of them might answer. Unlike a Defusing or CISD, we are not expecting them to self-disclose and further discuss the issue.
So how does this work? What is the structure that we should now be using?
We still want the involvement of an organizational leader to do the initial review of the current status of the organization, and introduce us as in our previous approach. But after the introduction when we begin to speak, we will be using a refinement of the original model and might go something like this:
So the changes may seem minor, but they have a very powerful effect on the participants. You will adapt this structure to meet the needs of the personnel, and the platform from which you are delivering it.
I have changed my trainings to reflect this approach, and have every expectation that you may find it helpful.
Copyright © 2025 International Critical Incident Stress Foundation, Inc
International Critical Incident Stress Foundation, Inc is a 501(c)3 Non Profit