Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, Recordkeeping, and Maintaining Psychotherapy Case Notes in Professional Practice: The Need for Ethical and Policy Reform Confidentialité Des Communications Psychothérapeute-Patient, Tenue Des Dossiers et Des Notes De Cas De Psychothérapie Dans le Cadre De L'exercice Professionnel : Nécessité D'une Réforme Déontologique et Politique
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author, who is providing a critique of current note taking practices. Many if not most bodies that regulate professional counselling and psychology would not recommend the keeping of two sets of notes for clients.]In a recent article advocating for best standards of recordkeeping practices for psychologists in Canada, Taryn Bemister and Keith Dobson (2011) provided a broad overview of the ethical and legal parameters of recordkeeping facing contemporary psychologists and offered many viable recommendations. They promoted and advanced a professional space for important dialogue and debate, and their contributions may have tangible impacts on policy issues governing best standards of practice. They advised all practicing psychologists to thoroughly record every major transaction that occurs between the patient and clinician and include this in the patient's file. This recommendation includes everything from phone calls to e-mail correspondence, text messages, and, when appropriate, the intimate (and potentially graphic) details of disclosures and confessions made in the sanctity of the consulting room at the discretion of the clinician, especially if they find such material relevant. All of this, they professed, should be put in the official file.They also advocated that clients should be allowed (and even encouraged) to examine the psychologist's case notes, including current process notes in the session (see Bemister & Dobson, 2011, 2012), which they argue are a patient's legal and ethical right. I have challenged these recommendations because they place the client's privacy and confidentiality at risk, do not protect the patient from thirdparty exploitation, and unnecessarily compromise the therapeutic relationship (Miills, 2012). Instead, I urge the profession to adopt a different perspective with regards to recordkeeping that places the patient's best interests and the therapeutic framework above legal paranoia. Given that Bemister and Dobson's (2011, 2012) recommendations have real consequences for mental health professionals in private or independent practice, the fate of professional policy is at stake.Throughout this article, I will point out various ethical and legal conundrums I have experienced in private practice with regards to recordkeeping and offer a set of suggested guidelines for mental health practitioners united in a common goal of optimally helping their clients. Although therapists of all kinds and from different backgrounds may find this project of value, many of the orienting principles I address may apply to psychotherapists, counsellors, social workers, and psychologists who have a diverse breadth and scope of practice and thus offer multiple clinical services to the public. Therefore, many of the issues discussed here are aimed at the general mental health practitioner.CONFIDENTIALITY AND THE DISCLOSURE OF RECORDSThe concern over patient confidentiality, protecting the integrity of the therapeutic encounter, and professional autonomy in recordkeeping within ethical and legal contexts has been intensely discussed within psychoanalysis for more than a decade. We largely owe this debt of gratitude to two Canadians, psychologist and psychoanalyst Allannah Furlong and psychoanalyst Charles Levin, who have advocated for preserving the inviolability of confidential therapeutic relationships (Koggel, Furlong, & Levin, 2003; Levin, Furlong, & O'Neil, 2003), thereby stimulating noteworthy discussions on ethical and legal reform for therapeutic practitioners and patient rights (Des Rosiers, 2003). Various clinicians have been concerned with the invasion of patient and therapist privacy for some time, especially with regards to the betrayal of confidentiality (Bollas & Sundelson, 1995; Cordess, 2000; Garvey & Layton, 2004; Levin, 2003), and thus see an urgent need to institute an ethical practice model (Fisher, 2008). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».