Add To Cart

 

Section 11
Kentucky Administrative Regulations: 201 KAR 23:080
Dual Relationships

Question 11 | Test | Table of Contents

     Section 11. Dual Relationships. (1) A social worker shall not enter into a dual relationship with a client if the relationship might:
     (a) Impair the social worker's professional judgement;
     (b) Incur the risk of exploitation of the client; or
     (c) Otherwise violate a provision of this administrative regulation.
     (2) If a dual relationship cannot be avoided and if it does not impair the social worker's professional judgment, incur a risk of exploitation of the client, or otherwise violate a provision of this administrative refulation, the social worker shall take appropriate professional precautions to ensure that judgment is not impaired and exploitation does not occur.
     (3) A social worker shall not obtain or engage the service of a client if obtaining or engaging the service might:
     (a) Impair the social worker's professional judgment;
     (b) Incur the risk of exploitation of the client; or
     (c) Otherwise violate a provision of this administrative regulation.
     (4) A social worker shall not engage in sexual intimacy or contact with a client or former client.
     (5) A social worker shall not engage in a personal relationship or engage in sexual intimacy or contact with a member of a client's immediate family or an individual who is otherwise an intimate of the client.
     (6) A social worker shall not use his professional relationship with a client or a former client to further his personal interest or personal gain.
     (7) A social worker shall not enter into a professional-client relationship with a member of the social worker's immediate family, an intimate, or a personal friend unless this relationship does not pose a risk of harm ro the client or to a member of the client's immeduiate family.
     (8) A social worker shall be solely responsible for acting appropriately in regard to a relationship with a client or former client. A client or a former client's initiation of a personal, sexual, or business relationship shall not justify, excuse, or provide a defense for a violation of this section.

- Kentucky Legislature. Title 201, Chapter 23: 080 Board of Social Work. 2018 Kentucky Administrative Regulations. Section 10. Dual Relationships.

Commentary by Pamela Newsom, Kentucky LSW:
You never know when you might run into a client of yours, or even a co-worker, regardless of the size of the city that you reside in, you never know when you will run into one of your client's or a family member of your client. For example, maybe you have gone to a 12 Step meeting and there is a client of yours at the same meeting. You would then need to take the proper steps in order to ensure that a duel relationship does not take place. In this case, you could start going to a meeting on another day/time to ensure that you don't see that client anymore. However, you would still need to ensure with the client that their information will remain private and confidential and that you will not share that information with anyone else.

Regulation 201 KAR 23:080 states, "If a dual relationship cannot be avoided and if it does not impair the social worker's professional judgment, incur a risk of exploitation of the client, or otherwise violate a provision of this administrative refulation, the social worker shall take appropriate professional precautions to ensure that judgment is not impaired and exploitation does not occur."

Managing Dual Relationships
To manage boundary issues effectively, mental health professionals must develop a clear understanding of what distinguishes ethical and unethical dual relationships. A dual relationship is unethical when it has several characteristics (Corey & Herlihy, 1997; Epstein, 1994; NASW, 2000; Reamer, 1998a, 2001b), such as that the relationship is likely to

• interfere with the mental health professional's exercise of professional discretion
• interfere with the mental health professional's exercise of impartial judgment
• exploit clients, colleagues, or third parties to further the mental health professional's personal interests
• harm clients, colleagues, or third parties.

Mental health professionals must be especially careful to consider how cultural and ethnic norms are relevant to boundary issues (see NASW, 2000, Standard 1.05; see also Lee & Kurilla, 1997; Pinderhughes, 1994). For example, a mental health professional who conducts home visits may be reluctant to accept a family member's invitation to join the family for a meal, but may agree to have crackers and a nonalcoholic beverage so as not to violate the family's deep-seated ethnic norms related to offering food to guests. Similar issues may arise related to mental health professionals' attending family life cycle events. A pregnant community organizer may need to be very tactful when residents of a largely ethnic community invite the mental health professional to a neighborhood-sponsored shower held in her behalf. The mental health professional would need to think through the implications of attending the event and accepting gifts. As the NASW Code of Ethics (2000) states,

In instances when dual or multiple relationships are unavoidable, mental health professionals should take steps to protect clients and are responsible for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries. [italics added] (Standard 1.06[c])
To protect clients and minimize possible harm--and to minimize the possibility of ethics complaints and lawsuits that allege misconduct or professional negligence--mental health professionals should establish clear "risk management" criteria and procedures. A sound risk management protocol to deal with boundary issues should contain six major elements:

  1. Be alert to potential or actual conflicts of interest.
  2. Inform clients and colleagues about potential or actual conflicts of interest; explore reasonable remedies.
  3. Consult colleagues and supervisors, and relevant professional literature, regulations, policies, and ethical standards (codes of ethics) to identify pertinent boundary issues and constructive options.
  4. Design a plan of action that addresses the boundary issues and protects the parties involved to the greatest extent possible.
  5. Document all discussions, consultation, supervision, and other steps taken to address boundary issues.
  6. Develop a strategy to monitor implementation of action plan.

First, mental health professionals should always be vigilant in their efforts to be alert to potential or actual conflicts of interest in their relationships with clients and colleagues. Mental health professionals should be cognizant of "red flags" that may signal a boundary problem. For example, clinical mental health professionals should be wary of situations in which they find themselves attracted to a particular client, going out of their way to extend the client's counseling sessions (facilitated by scheduling the favored client at the end of the day), treating the client as someone "special," disclosing confidential information about other clients, acting impulsively in relation to the client, allowing the client to accumulate a large unpaid bill, and disclosing very personal details to the client (Simon, 1999). Similarly, nonclinical mental health professionals (for example, administrators, researchers, community organizers) should be alert to comparable warning signs, such as granting extraordinary special favors to clients or colleagues and granting unprecedented exceptions to clients or colleagues who have not fulfilled contractual agreements.

Second, mental health professionals should inform clients and appropriate colleagues when they encounter boundary issues, including actual or potential conflicts of interest, and explore reasonable remedies. Third, mental health professionals should consult colleagues and supervisors; relevant professional literature, regulations, and policies; and ethical standards (relevant codes of ethics) to identify pertinent boundary issues and constructive options. Special care should be taken in high-risk circumstances. For example, clinical mental health professionals who attempt to make decisions about a possible friendship with a former client should consider prevailing ethical standards that take into consideration such factors as the amount of time that has passed since the termination of the professional-client relationship; the extent to which the former client is mentally competent and emotionally stable; the issues addressed in the professional-client relationship; the length of the professional-client relationship; the circumstances surrounding the termination of the professional-client relationship; the amount of influence the mental health professional has in the client's life; available, reasonable alternatives; and the extent to which there is foreseeable harm to the former client or others as a result of the new relationship (Ebert, 1997; Reamer, 1998a).

Fourth, mental health professionals should design a plan of action that addresses the boundary issues and protects clients, colleagues, and third parties to the greatest extent possible. In some circumstances, protecting a client's interests may require termination of the professional relationship with proper referral of the client. It is particularly useful for mental health professionals to imagine how a thoughtful panel of peers in the profession would perceive their course of action. Fifth, mental health professionals should document all discussions, consultations, supervision, and other steps taken to address boundary issues (for example, consultation with colleagues or supervisors about whether to accept a client's invitation to attend a life cycle event or terminate services to a client when conflict of interest issues arise). Finally, mental health professionals should develop a strategy to monitor the implementation of their action plan, for example, by periodically assessing with relevant parties (clients, colleagues, supervisors, and lawyers) whether the strategy minimized or eliminated the boundary problems.

To promote practitioners' actual implementation of this protocol, mental health professionals can sponsor staff training and continuing education workshops. In addition to presenting conceptual content related to boundary issues and dual relationships, such workshops can role-play realistic case scenarios to enhance mental health professionals' ability to protect clients, colleagues, and third parties, and to reduce risk.

There is no question that mental health professionals have developed a richer, more nuanced understanding of boundary issues in the profession. To further enhance this understanding, mental health professionals must examine dual relationships that are exploitive in nature and those that are more ambiguous. Practitioners' firm grasp of boundary issues involving their intimate relationships with clients and colleagues, responses to their own emotional and dependency needs, pursuits of personal benefits, altruistic gestures, and responses to unanticipated circumstances will increase their ability to protect clients, colleagues, and themselves. Most important, skillful management of boundary issues enhances mental health's ethical integrity, one of the key hallmarks of a profession.
- Reamer, Frederic. Boundary Issues in Social Work: Managing Dual Relationships. Social work. Jan 2003. Vol. 48; Issue 1.

Personal Reflection Exercise #3
The preceding section contained information about managing dual relationships. Write three case study examples regarding how you might use the content of this section in your practice.

Peer-Reviewed Journal Article References:
Borys, D. S., & Pope, K. S. (1989). Dual relationships between therapist and client: A national study of psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20(5), 283–293.

Enlow, P. T., McWhorter, L. G., Genuario, K., & Davis, A. (2019). Supervisor–supervisee interactions: The importance of the supervisory working alliance. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 13(3), 206–211. 

Gochyyev, P., & Skeem, J. L. (2019). Efficiently assessing firm, fair, and caring relationships: Short form of the Dual Role Relationship Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 31(3), 352–364.

Gottlieb, M. C. (1993). Avoiding exploitive dual relationships: A decision-making model. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 30(1), 41–48.

Haberstroh, J., Gather, J., & Trachsel, M. (2018). Informed consent, capacity assessment, and advance planning in treatment and research [Editorial]. GeroPsych: The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, 31(2), 55–56.

QUESTION 11
What are the six elements of a sound risk management protocol to deal with boundary issues? To select and enter your answer go to Test.

Test
Section 12
Table of Contents
Top