for professional counselling. Although many co-opted the debriefing process for use with other groups, the primary focus in the field of CISM was to support staff members of organizations or members of communities which have experienced a traumatic event. The debriefing process (defined by the International Critical Incident Stress Foundation [ICISF]) had seven steps: introduction of intervenor and establishment of guidelines and invites participants to introduce themselves (while attendance at a debriefing may be mandatory, participation is not); details of the event given from individual perspectives; emotional responses given subjectively; personal reaction and actions; followed again by a discussion of symptoms exhibited since the event; instruction phase where the team discusses the symptoms and assures participants that any symptoms (if they have any at all) are a normal reaction to an abnormal event and "generally" these symptoms will diminish with time and self-care; following a brief period of shared informal discussion (generally over a beverage and treat) resumption of duty where individuals are returned to their normal tasks. The intervenor is always watching for individuals who are not coping well and additional assistance is offered at the conclusion of the process. There is peer-reviewed evidence that CISM-like recounting of the "details of the event given from individual perspectives" can cause psychological harm through re-telling/re-exposure to the traumatic event with additional details, and the potential creation of consequential false memories. Through this step it is possible for a CISM counselor to re-traumatize and potentially provide a basis for ASD or PTSD that may not have otherwise occurred. Studies have shown that debriefing increases the rate of PTSD one year after an event. This discussion of "details of the event given from individual perspectives" is the single most controversial and potentially dangerous aspect of CISM and should not be undertaken by anyone but a licensed medical professional. Due to the real potential for harm, this should not be attempted by non-licensed "counselors" who have attended a commercial CISM course. Follow-up The important final step is follow-up. This was generally done within the week following the debriefing by team members as a check-in. Research The overwhelming preponderance of peer reviewed, published research found that CISM was ineffective and/or harmful. Several meta-analyses in the medical literature either found no preventative benefit of CISM, very low quality evidence of benefit, or negative impact for those debriefed. Research evidence linking debriefing to harm had been identified