Professional Boundaries in Nontraditional Settings.

Summary Home-based services may be the only way for some patients toreceive services because of transportation limitations, mobilityissues, or cultural barriers to office-based treatment. In addition,for some clients, home-based services may be clinically indicated.For example, multisystemic therapy, which occurs largely in thenatural environment of the child, has been an effective treatmentthat can often be used in lieu of hospitalizations or institutionalplacements (Henggeler et al., 2002).Delivering services in nontraditional settings has the potential tobenefit clients. However, services in these settings can also lead tochallenges to helpful therapeutic boundaries. When working in thehomes or residences of clients, we recommend that psychologistsemphasize informed consent, especially about therapeuticboundaries.Whenever possible, the impact of boundary crossings on therapyand the therapeutic relationship should be considered ahead oftime. Effective psychologists balance social amenities that maystrengthen the therapeutic relationship with the need to focus ontreatment goals (Andersen et al., 2001; Knapp & Slattery, 2001).Preparing to handle possible boundary crossings can lead to suc-cessful decision making under difficult situations.Supervisors can minimize problems by training and monitoringsupervisees who work in the residences or homes of clients.Training should emphasize the general rule that some boundariesshould be kept firm, especially when workers feel threatened or

[1]  J. M. Slattery Counseling Diverse Clients-Bringing Context into Therapy , 2004 .

[2]  J. M. Slattery,et al.  In-home family therapy and wraparound services for working with seriously at-risk children and adolescents. , 2003 .

[3]  B. Brewer,et al.  Sport psychology service delivery: staying ethical while keeping loose. , 2001, Professional psychology, research and practice.

[4]  T. Gutheil,et al.  Misuses and misunderstandings of boundary theory in clinical and regulatory settings. , 1998, The American journal of psychiatry.

[5]  W. K. Hahn Gifts in psychotherapy: An intersubjective approach to patient gifts. , 1998 .

[6]  J. Sommers-Flanagan,et al.  Exploring the edges: boundaries and breaks. , 1998, Ethics & behavior.

[7]  T. Skovholt,et al.  Dual-relationship dilemmas of rural and small-community psychologists. , 1997 .

[8]  Martin H. Williams,et al.  Boundary violations: Do some contended standards of care fail to encompass commonplace procedures of humanistic, behavioral, and eclectic psychotherapies? , 1997 .

[9]  J. VanDenBerg,et al.  Individualized services and supports through the wraparound process: Philosophy and procedures , 1996 .

[10]  B. Farber,et al.  The maintenance of boundaries in psychotherapeutic practice. , 1996 .

[11]  M. Fitzpatrick,et al.  Patient-therapist boundary issues: an integrative review of theory and research. , 1995, Professional psychology, research and practice.

[12]  D. Borys Maintaining therapeutic boundaries: the motive is therapeutic effectiveness, not defensive practice. , 1994, Ethics & behavior.

[13]  K. Pope,et al.  Sexual Feelings in Psychotherapy: Explorations for Therapists and Therapists-In-Training , 1993 .

[14]  T. Gutheil,et al.  The concept of boundaries in clinical practice: theoretical and risk-management dimensions. , 1993, The American journal of psychiatry.