Hybrid Model of Crisis

Hybrid Model of Crisis

Erin Bagwell, Anilga Bandari, & Monica Lewis

BSHS/445

August 29, 2016

Samontra Carter

Hybrid Model of Crisis

Crisis intervention is no longer thought of as a step-by-step, linear process but instead is viewed as a problem-solving progression focused on providing support and safety in the means of regaining client autonomy. The reality is that crises are rarely handled in a sequential manner. There are simply too many aspects that hold the potential to change conditions and in turn the necessary solutions. This paper will discuss the hybrid model of crisis intervention by evaluating a specific situation, examining how each facet of the model in integrated, as well as listening techniques that human service professionals use.

Hybrid Model of Crisis Intervention

“The hybrid model of crisis intervention is the foundation for multiple strategies and is based on a series of tasks that are designed to operate as an integrated problem-solving process simple to implement, easy to use, and adaptable to just about any crisis” (James & Gilliland, 2013). First and foremost is the act of predisposing the client to be receptive to intervention. Many times an individual is not in the right state of mind to accept initial contact so the crisis worker must represent himself or herself as an immediate ally by conveying sincere empathy. It is imperative that the professional take this time to establish a psychological connection and clarify their intentions. Once they have successfully gained the ear of the client, the interventionist must then explore the problem in the means of describing the crisis from the client’s perspective. This involves, “attempting to identify the precipitating event across the affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of the crisis” (James & Gilliland, 2013). When an understanding has been made, the human services professional must provide support in three areas. Those three areas human service professionals must provide support for are psychological, logistical, and socially. In this aspect it is important to remain empathic to the situation, pull together a support system, and provide information as necessary to ensure that the client feels safe both physically and psychologically. Next is the alternatives must be examined regarding situational support, coping skills, as well as positive, productive thinking habits. While the interventionist may think of numerous alternatives, only the realistic and appropriate choices for the situation should be discussed with the client so that they are not overwhelmed with the options. To plan in the means of reestablishing control, the crisis worker must collaborate with the client so that they may begin to feel a sense of ownership. Mobilizing the individual is an important aspect of this crisis intervention model because it allows them the opportunity to feel in control of the short-term outcomes rather than dependent on the professional. From this, the interventionist must obtain the client’s commitment. This task is “clear, concise, and behaviorally specific is clear to the client what he or she is going to do and what the worker will do” (James & Gilliland, 2013). Lastly, the crisis worker must remain diligent in following up with the client. Regarding crisis intervention, follow-up is much more short-term, “keeping track of clients’ success in maintaining precise equilibrium, not whether they are maintaining long-term goals or changing deep-seated personality traits” (James & Gilliland, 2013).