First Do No Harm – A Proposal For Crisis Intervention in Schools
Research in neuroscience over the past two decades has led to new knowledge about how seizures affect the brain and body. In response to this new study, I propose an alternative approach to crisis intervention in schools. This approach involves the oldest and wisest part of our brain, the brain stem, through the language of sensations for two reasons: first, because the heart of experiencing a seizure is processed by the brain stem, and secondly, because its language is more primitive. it’s a feeling.
After the attack, brain stem activity should be more balanced with the rest of the trinitarian brain – the limbic middle brain and the neocortex. When the three parts of the brain are aligned with each other, and the nervous system is thus restored in balance by the soft discharge process (later), the likelihood of problematic reactions later on is much lower (Levine, 1997). Self-regulation has been restored. Students regain their physiological ability to overcome frightening situations without being weakened by them. Thus, the nervous system can enter into and out of stress naturally, getting rid of constant, sometimes increasing stress.
The first psychophysiological assistance is intended to provide immediate assistance after a crisis event. It does not require waiting time for other approaches until seventy-two hours. Students should not be “ready to talk about the event” because there is no need to discuss what happened. Students do not need to get out of shock or experience a greater calming action – a determining factor in further interventions – because these feelings and sensations are treated and resolved with the help of the first psychophysiological help. Other approaches require shock resolution and numbness before implementation. However, some people do not have shock and numbness for hours, days or even weeks after an attack. Without first psychophysiological help, these natural responses to trauma can last for weeks, months, or even years.
Although first psychophysiological care is a unique response to seizures, it includes elements of other programs that are useful and confirmed empirically. For example, from a study based on the Jeffrey Mitchell model, we learned that rapid intervention leads to less and less serious symptoms (Campfield and Hill, 2001). We also found that summing up reduces stress levels by increasing to 300 minutes and in combination with postgroup psycho-education (Chemtob, Thomas, Law and Cremniter, 1997) or integrated individual-supported stress management system (Richards, 2001). ).
Based on development approaches, it is helpful to understand the age and stage of development of the students we serve, knowing that regressive conditions will also occur. It is a challenge to meet students where they are. When teens exhibit behavior that is more typical of preschoolers, we need to step in and reassure them like a preschooler. From solution-oriented approaches, it is helpful to highlight the strengths and abilities of students, what works and how they can cope with stress.
Stephen Brock’s approach emphasizes the need to take into account the various stages of the crisis and to intervene accordingly at each stage. Its GCI model is generally cost-effective and productive because of the number of students that can be served at the same time. Relatively healthy students with available resources and few serious injuries with or without history may well be suitable for this particular group-wide approach.
Each of these valuable contributions to crisis response has been incorporated into the development of a model for first psychophysiological care. In addition, a recent study has informed us that the best approach to crisis intervention and injury resolution is one that understands and interferes with physiology. In the International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, for example, in a study on the use of mental health services after 9/11, the authors stated that physiological reactions during the event and psychological perception of physiological responses were important factors in determining subsequent psychopathology.
Stages of first psychophysiological care
Although useful and empirically confirmed data from other approaches to crisis intervention have been included, much of the model presented here is the result of dr. Peter Levin’s work. Over the past three decades, Dr. Levin has traveled the world in response to global crises, studying and caring for children and adults who have experienced life-changing events.
The first psychophysiological care consists of four stages: evaluation, intervention (small group, large group, individual), psycho-education and subsequent observation.
Evaluation required
This first stage is priceless. The school crisis response team meets as a group, explaining their roles and deciding who will do what. The team gathers as many facts as possible about what happened during the event. Knowing the scale of the crisis, the team can decide how to act first. If the size of the event were relatively small and the entire class or large group of students did not participate or influence it, group-wide modeling would not be necessary or useful. Group crisis interventions are intended for homogeneous groups (Brock and Jimerson, 2002; Mitchell and Everly, 1996a) are students who are all exposed to the event roughly to the same degree and who after the event have a manageable level of difficulty.
The homogeneity of the group is a complex criterion for traumatology. Most students will have their own individual reactions based on their own past traumatic experiences, their proximity to the event and/or the victim, and the resources available to them before, during and after the event. The crisis intervention team may find small groups and individual support more appropriate unless a large number of affected students need the intervention of a large group.