Welcome to the Nexus of Ethics, Psychology, Morality, Philosophy and Health Care

Welcome to the nexus of ethics, psychology, morality, technology, health care, and philosophy
Showing posts with label Social Work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Work. Show all posts

Thursday, August 26, 2021

Social Workers’ Perceptions of Their Peers’ Unprofessional Behavior

Gricus, M., & Wysiekierski, L. (2021).
Journal of Social Work. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/14680173211012576

Abstract
Summary
This article explores social workers’ perceptions of their colleagues’ professional mistakes, and the influences of those opinions. Vignettes in a factorial survey helped to determine whether certain variables related to the social worker or the situation influenced the perception of others’ professional errors and ethical violations. The changed variables included personal characteristics of the offending social worker such as perceived race, gender, and sexual orientation of the social worker, and characteristics of the situation, such as the length of time involved in unprofessional behavior.

Findings
Licensed social workers in six U.S. states (n = 5596) read vignettes based on real cases brought before licensing boards (n = 22,127) and assigned levels of seriousness and importance to discipline. The vignettes rated most highly involved perceived harm to a client or other vulnerable individual. Those on the lower end of seriousness and importance to discipline were those violations against the profession of social work. Analysis of changed variables indicated respondents’ ratings were influenced by several situational factors, but not by personal characteristics of the social worker involved in the vignette.

Applications
Our findings provide some insight into the decision-making factors important to social workers. The results may be helpful to licensing boards considering the contextual factors of unprofessional behavior and whether to discipline certain actions.

From the article:

The availability heuristic proposes that people make judgments based only on the information available at the time (Croskerry, 2002; Shah & Oppenheimer, 2008). The representativeness heuristic allows people to judge whether an example belongs to a given category (Bowes et al., 2020). In clinical settings, this heuristic can play out in diagnosing similar, but not identical, clinical presentations with the same diagnosis. The representativeness heuristic can also cause people to make judgments based on race and gender stereotypes (Bowes et al., 2020). Bisking et al. (2003) (as cited in Salvador, 2019) found that when individuals are involved in enacting sanctions on someone perceived to have engaged in misconduct, their decisions are influenced by characteristics of the offender such as gender. The anchoring and adjustment heuristic, also known as focalism or priming, reveals that people form judgments largely based on the first piece of information they receive and weigh it against all other information (Bowes et al., 2020). Focalism can help to explain why misinformation can be difficult to disprove.

Saturday, October 17, 2020

New Texas rule lets social workers turn away clients who are LGBTQ or have a disability

Edgar Walters
Texas Tribune
Originally posted 14 Oct 2020

Texas social workers are criticizing a state regulatory board’s decision this week to remove protections for LGBTQ clients and clients with disabilities who seek social work services.

The Texas State Board of Social Work Examiners voted unanimously Monday to change a section of its code of conduct that establishes when a social worker may refuse to serve someone. The code will no longer prohibit social workers from turning away clients on the basis of disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

Gov. Greg Abbott’s office recommended the change, board members said, because the code’s nondiscrimination protections went beyond protections laid out in the state law that governs how and when the state may discipline social workers.

“It’s not surprising that a board would align its rules with statutes passed by the Legislature,” said Abbott spokesperson Renae Eze. A state law passed last year gave the governor’s office more control over rules governing state-licensed professions.

The nondiscrimination policy change drew immediate criticism from a professional association. Will Francis, executive director of the Texas chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, called it “incredibly disheartening.”

He also criticized board members for removing the nondiscrimination protections without input from the social workers they license and oversee.


Note: All psychotherapy services are founded on the principle of beneficence: the desire to help others and do right by them.  This decision from the Texas State Board of Social Work Examiners is terrifyingly unethical.  The unanimous decision demonstrates the highest levels of incompetence and bigotry.

Thursday, August 17, 2017

New Technology Standards Guide Social Work Practice and Education

Susan A. Knight
Social Work Today
Vol. 17 No. 4 P. 10

Today's technological landscape is vastly different from what it was just 10 to 15 years ago. Smartphones have replaced home landlines. Texting has become an accepted form of communication, both personally and professionally. Across sectors—health and human services, education, government, and business—employees conduct all manner of work on tablets and other portable devices. Along with "liking" posts on Facebook, people are tracking hashtags on Twitter, sending messages via Snapchat, and pinning pictures to Pinterest.

To top it all off, it seems that there's always a fresh controversy emerging because someone shared something questionable on a social media platform for the general public to see and critique.

Like every other field, social work practice is dealing with issues, challenges, and risks that were previously nonexistent. The NASW and Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) Standards for Technology and Social Work Practice, dating back to 2005, was in desperate need of a rework in order to address all the changes and complexities within the technological environment that social workers are forced to contend with.

The newly released updated standards are the result of a collaborative effort between four major social work organizations: NASW, ASWB, the Clinical Social Work Association (CSWA), and the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). "The intercollaboration in the development of the technology standards provides one consensus product and resource for social workers to refer to," says Mirean Coleman, MSW, LICSW, CT, clinical manager of NASW.

The article is here.

Friday, July 25, 2014

A new tactic to halt child abuse in Maryland

Focus now on helping low-risk families instead of punishing

By Yvonne Wenger
The Baltimore Sun
Originally posted July 5, 2014

Baltimore is changing the way it handles cases of alleged child abuse and neglect — part of a broad social-services strategy that has been touted by Maryland officials but abandoned in some other states.

The new approach, which is designed to lessen the adversarial relationship between families and caseworkers, puts cases on different tracks depending on whether they are deemed high or low risk. The tiered response, used in 23 states, is regarded as a best practice by many child advocates.

The entire story is here.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Pragmatism and Clinical Practices

By Dirk Felleman
Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics
Spring 2005

Abstract

The increasing preference for technological therapies in health care is perceived by many as a serious threat to the future of socially based therapies. While this concern is not without merit there is another more hopeful possibility to be found in recent adaptations in the ethical evolution of medical practices. In particular the inclusion of pragmatism into clinical ethics holds the possibility of a mutually beneficial relationship between clinical social workers and medical professionals.

Introduction

Unlike other mental health professions, like medicine and clinical psychology, which gain their professional authority through their expert status as masters of scientifically based techniques of diagnosis and treatment, social work does not produce its own tools and so is not a ‘true’ profession in the classic sense. Social work has attempted to bolster its self-image by investing in academic ventures creating journals and doctoral programs but the standard in academia is still one of scientific knowledge and this leaves social work to imitate sociology and or psychology raising legitimate institutional questions of the value of such duplication. Likewise in the realm of professional practice, which is now almost exclusively run by corporate health conglomerates, the scientific techniques of medicine and psychology can be measured in terms of outcome equations, relating to statistical norms, which easily translate into the bookkeeping practices of the business sector, leaving social workers to serve these professions or find a new source of professional identity. This essay will offer social work an alternative vision for the future by calling on the resources of pragmatism, not to try and mimic or co-opt the applied sciences by creating an alternative and or inclusive foundation, but more like a work of art which allows one to appreciate a familiar scene in a new way.

The entire article is here.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Supervising the Countertransference Reactions of Case Managers

Supervising the Counter Transference of Case Managers

This chapter is found in the public domain.