Technology has transformed the way social workers connect with clients, but it has also introduced new challenges that affect mental health and professional wellbeing. After reviewing articles by Hilty et al., MacDonald, and Ratcliff, I gained a deeper understanding of how digital fatigue and burnout are connected, as well as the importance of setting boundaries and practicing self-care. 

Before reading these articles, I already recognized that technology mediated practice can be both a blessing and a burden. From personal experience during the pandemic, I noticed how extended video sessions led to “zoom fatigue”, eye strain, and a sense of disconnection. The constant screen time, lack of physical interaction, and blurred separation between work and home life often left me feeling drained. In my previous employment, I also observed my colleagues struggling to separate their personal and professional time since clients could easily reach out through digital platforms. They struggled to log off mentally at the end of the day. Technology could easily create work overload if boundaries weren’t carefully established.  

The area from Hilty et al.’s (2021) continuum that resonated most with me was engagement and emotional exhaustion. This stage highlights how social workers or professionals can start out energized and committed but slowly move toward burnout when emotional fatigues set in. I relate to this because it is easy to overextend yourself in in a profession you are passionate about, especially when helping others remotely feels endless. I saw this with my coworkers. To prevent moving from health to burnout, I would intentionally schedule breaks between client sessions, establish firm start and end times for my workday. In addition, I would set up a personal ritual (such as meditation or yoga) to separate work from personal time. Maintaining supervision or peer consultation would also help process difficult emotions before accumulating. 

 

 In the tech and office category, one issue that stands out is poor ergonomics and inadequate workspace. I have experienced this when working from home with

out proper lighting or furniture. I would address this by creating a designated workspace that promotes comfort and minimizes physical strain. For training, Hilty et al. (2021) emphasized the importance of ongoing education on digital tools. I would make it a priority to attend workshops and review tele-health guidelines to build competence and confidence. In clinical care, a challenge is the loss of nonverbal communication cues in virtual sessions. To mitigate this, I would rely on reflective listening and regularly check in with clients about how they feel understood. In human factors, isolation from coworkers can lead to fatigue. I would counter this by engaging in regular virtual team meetings and seeking mentorship opportunities to maintain connection and support. 

In MacDonald’s (2021) study, I related most to clinicians who described the difficulty of maintaining work life balance while working from home. Many participants mentioned that the home environment blurred professional boundaries, which created emotional strains. I identified with this because I’ve noticed how easily home distractions and professional responsibilities can blend together. However, I also appreciated how some clinicians valued the flexibility of remote work. Personally, I see myself engaging in technology mediated practice in the future, but likely through a hybrid model. This approach would allow me to maintain accessibility for client who benefit from virtual sessions while still preserving the relational depth of in-person meetings. 

Ratcliff (2020) defines burning out as a state of emotional, physical, and mental exhaustion caused by chronic exposure to stress and emotionally demanding situations. This definition felt accurate to my experiences and observations of others in helping professions. I appreciated how she connected burnout to specific symptoms such as irritability, fatigue, and reduced sense of accomplishment. Her discussion of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) was also helpful. It gave me a clearer sense of how burnout can be measured across three dimensions (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment). I haven’t taken the MBI but would like to in the future as a tool for self-awareness. Ratcliff’s reference to research on self-care and stress prevention motivated me to explore more empirical studies on burnout, particularly those related to digital fatigue and social work. 

Many of Ratcliff’s (2020) recommendations (such as mindfulness, exercise, healthy boundaries and professional supervisor) felt practical and achievable. I think these strategies can significantly reduce stress when applied consistently. However, I believed additional measures could also be beneficial, such as setting technology fee periods each day, engaging in creative hobbies unrelated to work, and developing agency level policies that support manageable caseloads. Burnout prevention should not only rely on individual responsibility but also include systemic support that value employe wellness. Overall, Ratcliff’s approach offered realistic tools that social workers can adapt to their lifestyles and work environments. 

 

References 

Hilty, D. M., Nesbitt, T. S., Kuenneth, C. A., Cruz, G. M., Hales, R. E., & Yellowless, P. M. (2021). Burnout and fatigue in technology mediated clinical care: implications for telesychiatry and telebehavioral health. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 6(3), 234-247https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-021-00222-8 

MacDonald, S. (2021). Clinician experiences and perceptions of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical Social Work Journal, 49(4), 398–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-021-00800-z 

Ratcliff, C. (2020). Self-care and burnout prevention for social workers: Understanding symptoms, measuring risk, and developing strategies. Social Work Today, 20(5), 16–19.