Malpractice Issues for the Private Practitioner

2017 ◽  
pp. 459-476
Author(s):  
David L. Shapiro ◽  
Jeffrey N. Younggren
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Professional Relationship ◽  
Malpractice Litigation ◽  
Risk Management Strategies ◽  
Comparative Negligence

This chapter provides an overview of major concerns for practicing mental health professionals regarding issues of negligence. It discusses the concept of a professional relationship, the standard of care that derives from that relationship, the deviations from standards of care, and damages directly due to the deviations. Frequent areas of malpractice litigation are reviewed with illustrative cases presented. Common defenses against malpractice are discussed, focusing on challenging whether all four elements of malpractice have been met, and whether or not there have been contributions to the unfortunate outcomes by the patient or client herself or himself (contributory or comparative negligence). The guidance in this chapter also reduces the likelihood of administrative legal actions like board complaints. Do you want to narrow it so much. Risk management strategies are presented to assist practitioners to minimize the risk of malpractice occurring.

The Assessment and Management of Stalking Perpetrated by Clients Against Their Counselors

2020 ◽  
pp. VV-D-18-00107
Author(s):  
Jennifer E. Storey ◽  
Stephen D. Hart
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Empirically Supported ◽  
Risk Management Strategies ◽  
Management Plans ◽  
Perpetrators And Victims

Mental health professionals are at heightened risk of stalking victimization, however minimal research has examined empirically supported risk factors for stalking and the efficacy of risk management strategies. Three hundred and six counselors were surveyed, and the present study focuses on the 7% (n = 23) who had been stalked by clients. Results describe the characteristics of stalking, perpetrators, and victims and the perceived efficacy of management strategies employed. Stalking behaviors tended to be of lower severity. Common perpetrator risk factors included relationship problems, anger, and obsession. Victim vulnerabilities were identified, where many victims engaged in behavior considered ineffective in response to stalking. Victims often encountered problems coping with victimization due to inadequate access to resources. Results indicate that risk management plans must be individualized and highlight ways that mental health professionals can and would like to be protected from stalking.

Legal and Ethical Risk Management with Behavioral Emergencies

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana Lockwood ◽  
Houri Parsi ◽  
Wendy Packman ◽  
Bruce Bongar
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Risk Management ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Treatment Providers ◽  
Behavioral Emergencies ◽  
Ethical Risk Management

Working with patients presenting with serious harm to themselves or others is an experience many mental health professionals will have during their careers. The possibility of working with this population might cause some apprehension for treatment providers because of the patient and professional risks involved. In this chapter we review the applicable legal theories of professional negligence and focus on the potential legal and professional ramifications that occur when mental health professionals do not rise to the applicable standard of care when working with suicidal or aggressive patients. Additionally, this chapter provides an outline of the legally imposed duties that treatment providers have to their patients so as to promote effective and ethical treatment of those presenting with the possibility of serious harm to themselves and others.

Why the professional-Client Ethic is Inadequate in Mental Health Care

2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wai-Ching Leung
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Psychiatric Care ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Work Load ◽  
Psychiatric Nurses ◽  
Professional Relationship ◽  
Care Community ◽  
The Public

Patients who are subject to compulsory care constitute a substantial proportion of the work-load of mental health professionals, particularly psychiatric nurses. This article examines the traditional ‘beneficence-autonomy’ approach to ethics in compulsory psychiatric care and evaluates it against the reality of daily practice. Risk to the public has always been an important but often unacknowledged consideration. Inequalities exist among ethnic and socio-economic groups and there is a lack of agreement on what constitutes mental disorder. Two major changes in compulsory psychiatric care - community orders and care for patients with untreatable severe personality disorders - further challenge the traditional ethical approach. There are also important human rights implications. The simple patient-health professional relationship no longer provides an adequate framework for mental health professionals on which to base their ethical decisions. The public and organizations may have different perspectives and their interests are becoming increasingly important. Mental health professionals, particularly psychiatric nurses, may face ethical dilemmas because of these different perspectives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document