MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W791842642

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

2015· article· fr· W791842642 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jon Mills

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidentialityPrivilege (computing)PhonePsychologyBest practiceSession (web analytics)DiscretionConsistency (knowledge bases)LawPsychotherapistSociologyPolitical scienceBusinessComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[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). …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicCounseling Practices and SupervisionFrench-language works237,207