…
One aspect of termination and referral that I have not previously written about
involves the issue of follow-through after a referral is made and communicated
to the patient. Referrals are usually made after the therapist or counselor
decides to terminate with the patient, which may occur for a variety of
reasons. Perhaps the practitioner has determined that the patient is not
sufficiently benefiting from the treatment and would be better served by
another practitioner – whether of the same licensure or otherwise. Therapists
or counselors may terminate because the patient is no longer able to pay the
previously agreed upon fee or because a conflict may have arisen requiring, in
the judgment of the practitioner, a termination. Additionally, a termination
may occur because the practitioner becomes ill or is otherwise
incapacitated. It is of course possible
that the patient or client will unilaterally terminate treatment for one or
more reasons.
Whatever
the reason for termination may be, the therapist or counselor is likely to be
under the ethical and/or legal duty to refer the patient or client elsewhere –
whether to an individual licensed practitioner, or to a governmental agency,
such as a county mental health facility, or to a nonprofit organization
providing counseling or psychotherapy services. Once the referral is given and
the termination occurs, there would seem to be nothing further for the
therapist or counselor to do. In fact, many practitioners believe that they owe
no further duty to the patient. Therapists and counselors should be sure to
carefully and fully document the entire termination process. Doing so could
prove critical.
Suppose
that the patient is severely depressed and that the referring professional is
concerned about self-harm to the patient. Assume further that a referral was
made to a psychiatrist because the therapist or counselor determined that the
patient was not sufficiently benefiting from the treatment and that the problem
was worsening. Would it be sufficient for the referring practitioner to have no
further contact with the patient after making the referral in the last session?
Might a court determine that the therapist in this case was under a duty to
make a reasonable attempt to follow-through with the patient (or the
psychiatrist) to see whether the new relationship has begun? Might a court
determine that the termination was not handled appropriately and that the
therapist or counselor has liability for the harm that came to the patient
after a botched termination and referral?
These
questions are not easy to answer, and much depends (as always!) on the
particular facts and circumstances, and the law in the state in which such a
situation occurs. The issues of termination and referral may be covered, to
some extent, in state statute or regulation. More likely, common law principles
involving the issues of “duty” and “negligence” will be applied to particular
cases. Generally, the duty of a therapist or counselor begins when a contract
for professional services is entered into – whether in writing or orally.
Likewise, I believe that the duty to the patient should end concurrently with
the termination of the therapeutic relationship. This of course assumes that
the termination is made in a clinically appropriate manner. It is my view that
a proper termination process requires the therapist or counselor to carefully
consider whether a referral is necessary or appropriate, and if so, how will
the actual referral be handled.
In
some cases, such as the one described above, it might be appropriate for the
therapist to call or otherwise contact the terminated patient, or ask the
patient to communicate with the therapist, for the purpose of assuring that the
patient is following through on needed treatment. In some cases, the therapist
or counselor may be compelled to take other action (e.g., arrange for an
involuntary commitment) when it is determined that the patient is not following
through with the referral. Perhaps the post-referral contact reveals something
to the practitioner that indicates a worsening of the patient’s mental or
emotional condition. Unless state law or regulation dictates or specifies when
the duty (to provide competent care) to the patient ends, the therapist or
counselor may not be able to avoid taking some form of action after a referral
is made.
I am not an advocate of the proposition that once
there is a therapist-patient relationship, there is always a relationship. Such
a belief would keep the therapist or counselor “on the hook,” or under a duty
to act under certain circumstances, forever. Not a good idea! Likewise, I don’t
subscribe to the notion, as some propose, that the therapist or counselor is
only relieved of a duty to the patient when the referral is “consummated” by
the patient. That too would keep the practitioner “on the hook” at the
discretion or pleasure of the patient and would place the practitioner in an
ambiguous situation. Also not a good idea, in my view! If state law or
regulation addresses this subject matter (to wit, when does the relationship
and the duty end) practitioners will be guided by any standards thereby
established.