At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a clinical social worker began
serving clients remotely using video software, which generated novel privacy
and boundary issues. During counseling sessions, the social worker often saw
the interiors of clients’ homes and, on occasion, met clients’ children, spouses,
partners, and pets who entered the room where the client was located and were
on camera briefly. On two occasions, the social worker’s four-year-old child
wandered unannounced and uninvited into the social worker’s home office and
introduced herself to clients who appeared on the social worker’s computer
screen. (Reamer, 2023, p. 376) 

I have chosen this example because I started attending therapy in 2021 during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. I have never met my therapist in person, we have only communicated remotely through a telehealth app. I have had my sessions with her in a variety of places, sometimes in my house and she has met my pets. It is suggested that while video conferencing can potentially lead to boundary confusion there is also the possibility that this type of information sharing can positively add personalization to a professional relationship (Reamer, 2023, p.382). I have always felt comfortable sharing my space via video with my therapist. While I have made sure to have a private place to chat, I can understand how it would be quite easy for a spouse or child to interrupt a session accidentally. This is not ideal, but I don’t think in this example boundaries are being purposefully crossed. However it is the social worker’s responsibility to take steps to ensure things remain professional and the client feels comfortable. Having a discussion beforehand (possibly through e-mail) about where each person will be when accessing the video call and who else may be in the home could be helpful in establishing boundaries before engaging in remote sessions.

I think the boundary dynamic of unanticipated circumstances is interesting. It has always been possible and sometimes unavoidable that social workers encounter unanticipated dual relationships with clients and now digital technology has made that and an even greater potential (Reamer, 2023, p.383). I selected this dynamic because I believe this type of situation can often be a mistake. Mistakes can obviously still lead to harm being done but it is harder to prepare for every potential mistake that can happen. Freud & Krug (2002) suggest that when dual relationships were first mentioned in the NASW Code of Ethics it made things more confusing rather than offering clarity. This suggests it has always been difficult to clearly define boundaries between social worker and client and technology has of course added to the confusion. Unanticipated circumstances appear to be just that, something we can’t always anticipate and as Freud & Krug (2002) state, “categorizing incidental encounters or insignificant relationships as ‘dual relationships’ distracts us from legitimate ethical concerns.” They are arguing that dual relationships as defined by the Code are not as problematic as other violations. Since there will always be some ambiguity when it comes to dual relationships, and the concept of “boundary violations” is easier to define, that should be more of the focus (Freud & Krug, 2002, p. 485).  I don’t think we want to take away from positive client and social worker relationships by focusing in on accidental encounters. Instead we should redirect our concern to setting clear boundaries with clients especially now in the digital age. Freud & Krug (2002) really make a case for the “inevitable blurring of professional, social, and business distinctions.” Some blurring is bound to happen and is not always a cause for concern or may in fact have positive outcomes. I believe when it comes to using technology, the Code (NASW, 2021) pertains in the same ways it always has: relationships between clients and social workers should remain professional.

Creating a social media policy to discuss with all clients is a smart move for social workers. Setting those boundaries early and ensuring everyone is clear on the definitions should help mitigate harm. I agree with Reamer(2023) that social workers and clients cannot be “friends” on social media platforms. Further, I think this policy could cover more than just social media. You could include boundaries around video calls and e-mail and texts as well. I have always maintained that e-mails should be for scheduling appointments and potentially a follow up question or two but not used as a back and forth means of communication. However, I’m sure there are some social worker and client relationships where e-mail is a primary means of professional communication. These policies could and should differ client to client as long as professional boundaries are upheld.  I think this could be extremely effective because it allowed clients to have a say upfront about what they are comfortable with while allowing the social worker to set boundaries around personal social media use. These policies could also be put in writing and referred back to if an incident were to occur, adding a layer of protection for both parties.

References

Freud, S., & Krug, S. (2002). Beyond the code of ethics, part II: Dual relationships revisited. Families in Society, 83(5), 483-492. doi:https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.228

National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. NASW Press.

Reamer, Frederick. (2023). Social Work Boundaries in the Digital Age: Reflections of an Ethics Expert. Advances in Social Work Vol 2 No. 2: Summer/Fall 2023), 375-391.
doi:https//:doi.org/10. 18060/26358