Also, they know ahead of time what they’re getting (all that and more is in my disclosure statement, along with how to register a complaint with my boss, my state Board, and any other appropriate governing body – in my case, the NASW and other organizations to which I belong). So I support full disclosure so the client can make an informed decision before deciding to work with me.

You are correct – I do not support any kind of random checks on therapists, ever. I do support strong education in providing therapy, continual training in ethics/boundaries/documentation/malpractice issues/etc. I would also support a legal requirement that therapists have case supervision/consultation
throughout their careers, not just for a few years.

I would not sanction a Board developed assessment tool – there are too many inherent ethical and developmental difficulties to make a valuable, ethical, assessment tool possible, in my opinion.

One last thought – when I think of the risk I’m taking – seeing mentally ill, traumatized, victimized, neurotic, or psychotic clients in a closed room with no window in the door – I’m the one taking the much bigger risk.

I have enough basic trust and confidence in myself and my clients that if I’m who I say I am as a person and therapist, and if I provide full disclosure to the extent possible, the risk is not too high for me to want to contiue this wonderful work for as long as I can.

Melissa

“Is it appropriate to evaluate someone without their knowledge and knowing input?” Therapists would be out of a job if not. They draw conclusions, make evaluations and don’t always immediately share them or their thoughts with the patient.

A corporate mystery shopper doesn’t use the same checksheet for a visit to McDonalds as they would for a bank. I don’t see why the formula couldn’t be shaped to fit therapy as well. Would you be in favor if the state licensing board created and/or approved the framework for the checklist?

I would not feel free to go to the depths of alliance (requiring my commitment to a significant level and type of presence) necessary with a client if I knew he/she might be a mystery shopper. I engage sincerely, and expect my clients to do the same. My clients fill out paperwork, including a disclosure statement and contract for services. Isn’t it fraudulent to lie on such paperwork?
At what point in the fake therapy would the assessment be made, and what would be covered? Is it appropriate to evaluate someone without their knowledge and knowing input? What if the fake client really became engaged, and “therapy” started which I thought was real (so I innocently continued in that vein), but the “client” got hurt because he/she wasn’t really there for therapy?

Allowing mystery shoppers in the field of therapy would have a 2 part effect – supposedly on our future clients, but also on the therapist in terms of trusting that the client is who he says he is. I think raising that level of suspicion in the therapist can do nothing but cause damage.

Finally, if I think of all the therapy sessions being conducted each day, the amount of abuse is very small. Although none should be tolerated, I question whether or not “mystery shoppers” are an appropriate avenue for reducing such abuse. What may be considered appropriate in the corporate world is not necessarily appropriate in therapy.

There are at worst many hurdles to overcome in making mystery shoppers a viable part of the field of therapy. And at best, in my opinion, it would be impossible to overcome any of the hurdles. I believe it will ruin the field if such a thing is allowed.

I apologize – wrong response to a “shoppers” post.