大學諮商中心實務工作者面對危機個案處遇狀態之探究

Crisis Intervention in University Counseling Center: The Context and Practitioners’ Capacities of Delivering Crisis-oriented Services

陳若璋(Roda Chen) ； 王沂釗(Yi-Chan Wang)

《慈濟大學人文社會科學學刊》 18期 (2015/06) Pp. 1-33

https://doi.org/10.29650/TCUJHSS.201506_(18).0001

摘要

本研究旨在了解大學諮商中心之實務工作者接觸危機個案的實境，包含校園危機個案之類型、轉介原因、對各類型危機個案的評估能力與處遇流程中之重點、處理中遭遇之通報倫理困境及橫向聯繫情形。本研究使用量化研究的檢證設計，以自編「實務工作者對大學校園危機個案處理現況調查量表」調查171 名諮商中心任職之實務工作者，結果如下：(1)有98%的實務工作者曾處理過危機個案，且平均每位實務工作者兩年內處理12.12 件。(2)校園危機個案類型以精神疾病發病、（企圖）自殺自傷、經歷重大創傷、遭受性侵／騷擾、暴力傷害他人等類型為主。(3)實務工作者處理之危機個案以女性居多，惟男性個案之危機程度較高。(4)危機個案大多為導師與教官轉介而來。(5)實務工作者對精神疾病、性侵／性騷及暴力危機個案未能妥善使用評估工具。(6)工作者多以「傾聽」及「安撫個案情緒」為主要處遇，而未意識不同類型危機個案有不同的優先處理順序。(7)工作者在面臨危機個案可能遭遇性侵、有安全之虞時，多會通報；但當個案要求不通報，或在尊重個案自主性的考量下，會產生倫理兩難。(8)校內其他單位不了解諮商專業的保密限制，是工作者在處理橫向聯繫時認為面臨的最大困境。本研究並根據研究結果進行討論及提出建議。

關鍵字

校園危機 ； 危機個案處理 ； 標準作業流程

並列摘要

University campuses routinely engage in helping students deal with crisis situations, such as suicidal attempts, violent behavior and mental illness; however, in the past, there were not enough training and preparations for the practitioners to equip themselves for providing better services in these areas. The purpose of this study is to understand the nature, context and prevalence of crisis situations which counseling center practitioners had encountered in the past two years. This research will also explore practitioners’ perceptions about their problems as well as their difficulties in delivering crisis-oriented services. The data had collected from 171 practitioners who is working in university counseling center was filled-out questionnaires which constructed by researchers to understand how practitioners conceptualized the problems of crisis interventions and the difficulties of working with these populations. The results found: 1. Nearly 98% practitioners had encountered and dealt with crisis interventions; 2. Most frequent crisis situations they encountered were: psychiatric attacks, suicidal crisis, sexual assaults, and interpersonal violence; 3. The number of female cases were more than male cases, however, male cases were more serious than female cases; 4. Most practitioners were not familiar with formal assessment tools; 5. Most universities were lack to form an interdisciplinary team specializing in crisis oriented services; 6. Most universities did not developed a clear guideline of a standard operating procedures for crisis intervention. Based on the finding, suggestions for future application were presented.

並列關鍵字

campus crisis ； crisis intervention ； standard operating procedure

參考文獻

王珮玲(2009)。親密關係暴力危險評估：實務操作方法的探討。社會政策與社會工作學刊。13(1)，141-184。

王燦槐(2007)。台灣性侵害者受害者之創傷。台北:學富文化。

洪雅鳳、羅皓誠(2006)。自殺未遂學生的危機介入處策略。輔導季刊。42，13-24。

吳宗立(2004)。學校危機管理的理論與應用。初等教育學刊。18，51-76。

柯永河、張小鳳(1999)。健康性格習慣量表（HPH 1999）。台北:中國行為科學社。