Crisis intervention dq 1 week 2 student reply rebeca garrido
The following post is from another student that i have to reply adding some extra information.
less than 10 % similarity.
I am a firm believer that face to face intervention and teachings, especially scenarios under heavy stress, should be in person. The intervention is more personal and the feel and or intensity of the situation is better understood. Aside from that, I feel that in a crisis, tension levels are high. When you have an intervention taking place in person you get a glimpse of what they may feel like without the crisis actually taking place, therefore if you ever do find yourself in that circumstance, things tend to slow down and the focus on the individual becomes magnified and treatment can begin, hopefully. The individual would be more able to function and may retain a little better from the intervention’s exposure to the scenario. In-person it may be a little easier to convince the person from actually acting on their threat.
One of the main reasons I choose face-to-face intervention is because once you are placed in the crisis scenario, there will be things occurring that are familiar and you will act on it more effectively and efficiently. When someone is experiencing a crisis, for the most part, they want to be heard and are screaming out for help. Over the phone is not as personal as face-to-face. In my opinion.
James, R. K., & Gilliland, B. E. (2017). Crisis intervention strategies (8th ed.).(Bookshelf online)