Why Social Workers Document

Documentation in Social Work: Evolving Ethical and Risk-Management Standards

Frederic G. Reamer

Social workers'understanding of the relevance of documentation has evolved over time. During the profession's earliest years, social workers viewed documentation primarily as a mechanism to facilitate theory building, research, and teaching. This was followed by social

workers' development of detailed and sophisticated documentation standards for chnical and other direct practice settings. Most recently, social workers have begun to appreciate the

relevance of documentation for risk-management purposes, particularly as a tool to protect clients and to protect practitioners in the event of an ethics complaint or lawsuit. This article

updates the profession's literature on documentation by summarizing current ethical and legal standards. Implications for social work practice, supervision, management, and administration

are addressed.

KEY WORDS: case recording; documentation; ethics; records; risk management

Throughout social work's history, practitio- ners have recognized and appreciated the usefulness of recording their encounters

with chents (Aptekar, 1960; Frings, 1957; Kagle, 1984,1987,1991,1995a;Little, 1949;Timms, 1972; Urbanowski, 1974;Wilson, 1980). Case documen- tation not only supports the delivery of services to individuals, families, couples, and small groups, hut it increasingly has new apphcations in keeping with the changing environment in which social workers operate.Traditionally, documentation helped prac- titioners coordinate and evaluate service needs and delivery. More social workers, however, realize the significance of documentation as a liability shield and risk-management tool. This warrants a fresh look at documentation so that practitioners, super- visors, and agencies can apprise themselves of proper documentation techniques, related ethical standards, and the potential pitfalls social workers may face as they shift their practices.

During social work's earliest years, in the early 20th century, discussions about documentation fo- cused almost exclusively on theory building, re- search, and teaching (Eliot, 1928; Hamilton, 1936, 1946; Richmond, 1925; Sackheim, 1949; Sheffield, 1920; Sytz, 1949). By the 1920s and 1930s, social

work's literature emphasized the importance of record keeping when "personahty influences, psy- chological goals, and psychiatric casework were involved" (Pinkus, 1977, p. 1162). By 1940, profes- sional standards had evolved for three distinct types of case records: (1) chronological reports of ser- vices provided, (2) summary recordings of practi- tioners' relationships with chents, and (3) process recordings that provide moment-by-moment de- tails of clients' behavior and interactions between practitioners and clients (Burgess, 1928). Over time social workers refined their recording practices with respect to assessing clients' circumstances, statuses, and needs; documenting more subjective informa- tion about clients' circumstances (information pro- vided by the client, family, and significant others); recording objective information based on tests or other independent sources, the social worker's as- sessment, and plans; and completing standardized forms that summarize client information using short answers or checklists (Kagle, 1987,1995b).

Until fairly recently, discussions of case record- ing and documentation focused almost entirely on clinical relevance. That is, the field primarily saw documentation's function as a diagnostic, assess- ment, planning, and intervention instrument. In the

CCC Code: 0037-8046/05 $3.00 O200S Nationai Association of Social Workers 325

tnid-1990s, however, a burgeoning group of social workers began to recognize the relevance of docu- mentation for risk-management purposes.The shift was largely a result of growing awareness that case records were applicable in utilization review and managed care, as well as in defense against ethics complaints and lawsuits alleging unethical conduct and professional negligence (Houston-Vega, Nuehring,&Daguio,1997;Kagle, 1995b; Reamer, 2003). In addition, dramatic technological innova- tions—especially in the form of pervasive com- puterized records and the potential for problems concerning privacy and unauthorized access—fu- eled risk-management concerns. Together, these changes have resulted in a growing appreciation of how careful documentation and record keeping protect practitioners against allegations of ethical misconduct and professional negligence, guard cli- ents' privacy, and facilitate the delivery of high- quahty services.

In recent years, documentation-related standards have evolved to reflect these newer risk manage- ment functions. Most contemporary social work- ers, how êver, graduated before the current stan- dards were developed and incorporated into social work curricula. In fact, the last major publication on documentation written specifically for social workers appeared in 1995—well before the emer- gence of several key current standards (Kagle, 1995b). Since then there have been noteworthy expansions of ethical standards on social work documentation (Reamer, 1998, 2003) and scholarly literature on the broader subject of documentation (Berner, 1998; Luepker & Norton, 2002).

CONTEMPORARY FUNCTIONS OF DOCUMENTATION Discussions of social work documentation are no longer limited to clinicians who need to record their interactions with clients to facilitate the de- livery of services. The profession has come to rec- ognize the usefulness of documentation for risk management purposes in supervision, management, and administration. Documentation in social work—whether it concerns clinical, supervisory, management, or administrative duties—now serves six primary functions: (1) assessment and planning; (2) service delivery; (3) continuity and coordina- tion of services; (4) supervision; (5) service evalua- tion; and (6) accountability to clients, insurers, agen- cies, other providers, courts, and utilization review

bodies (Kagle, 1995b; Luepker & Norton, 2002; Reamer, 2003).

Assessment and Planning In clinical contexts, clear and comprehensive docu- mentation of all case-related facts and circumstances is essential. Careful and thoughtful information collection ensures that social workers have an ad- equate foundation for their clinical reasoning and intervention plans. In addition, the data provide a reliable source of measuring performance and out- comes. Incomplete records may lead to inadequate planning and intervention, critical judgment er- rors, and poor outcomes for clients.

Service Delivery Comprehensive records are necessary for compe- tent delivery of clinical, community-based, and agency-based services and interventions.Thorough documentation provides a solid foundation for prac- titioners' eflibrts to design and deliver high-quality services, whether they involve clinical intervention, efforts to organize community residents to address neighborhood problems, supervision, or agency administrators' management and evaluation of per- sonnel and programs.

Continuity and Coordination of Services Similarly, documentation facilitates professional and interdisciplinary collaboration and coordination of services. For example, social workers employed in hospital, school, and correctional settings often need to share their observations and coordinate services with professionals in other disciplines, such as doc- tors, nurses, counselors, teachers, and administra- tors. In clinical settings, documentation ensures that staff members have up-to-date details concerning clients' needs. Administrative records facilitate co- ordination among supervisors, managers, and ad- ministrators in programs and agencies.

Supervision Under the legal doctrines of vicarious liability and respondeat superior ("let the master respond"), su- pervisors, as well as administrators and agencies, can be held liable for the errors and omissions of their staff if there is evidence of flawed supervi- sion (Madden, 2003; Reamer, 2003, 2004).Thus, it behooves social work supervisors to carefully document the supervision they provide (NASW, 1994).

326 Social Work VOLUME 50, NUMBER 4 OCTOBER 2005

Service Evaluation In addition to facilitating clinical evaluation in in- dividual cases (so-called single-case or N = 1 de- signs), records also provide essential data for broader program evaluations (Fitzpatrick & Sanders, 2003; Patton, 2002; Royse,Thyer, Padgett, & Logan, 2000). Measured outcomes and program effectiveness are central to social work. At their core lie data and information recorded throughout the case man- agement process. Social workers must strive to con- tinually strengthen their record-keeping practices to maintain the integrity of their programs.

Accountability Client requests, insurance contracts, interagency collaboration, litigation, licensing board and ethics committee oversight, and utilization review bodies periodically require social workers to include fine- grained details about the services they provide, the meetings they attend, the supervision they offer, and the consultation they obtain. These new de- mands clearly illustrate the fit of documentation for accountability purposes.

EVOLUTION OF DOCUMENTATION STANDARDS When social work's pioneers began writing about case recording in the early 20th century, they could not have imagined the remarkable expansion of documentation functions and requirements that would emerge during the next century. Today's social workers are held to vastly different ethical and legal standards that have serious implications for clinical and community practice, supervision, management, and administration.

Ethical Standards Social work's earliest national ethics standards made no mention of documentation. Neither the first National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics, adopted in 1960, nor the revised Code of Ethics, adopted in 1979, included guidelines con- cerning documentation.The current Code of Ethics, adopted in 1996 (and revised in 1999), however, includes the first explicit documentation standards (Reamer, 1998).These ambitious additions to the Code reflect increased cognizance of the ethical implications of competent documentation during the mid-1990s.

The primary focus ofthe earliest standards cen- tered on social workers' ethical duty to document

the services they provide, clients' right to view their records, and social workers' duty to protect clients' records from unauthorized access or use (Reamer, 1998). The 1996 NASW Code of Ethics formally promulgated social workers' ethical duty to accu- rately document the services they provide and pro- tect private information contained in records, thus estabhshing national standards enforced by NASW committees on inquiry and by state licensing boards that choose to adopt NASW Code of Ethics guide- lines. Specifically, the measures state:

3.04 Client Records (a) Social workers should take reasonable steps to ensure that documentation in records is accurate and reflects the services provided. (b) Social workers should include sufficient and timely documentation in records to fa- cilitate the delivery of services and to ensure continuity of services provided to clients in the future. (c) Social workers' documentation should protect clients' privacy to the extent that is possible and appropriate and should include only information that is directly relevant to the delivery of services. (NASW, 1996, p. 20)

Two additional standards in the 1996 NASW Code ofEthia formally established clients' right to access their own records and social workers' duty to protect the confidentiality of other parties re- ferred to in the record. Specifically:

1.08 Access to Records (a) Social workers should provide clients with reasonable access to records concerning the clients. Social workers who are concerned that clients' access to their records could cause serious misunderstanding or harm to the cli- ent should provide assistance in interpreting the records and consultation with the client regarding the records. Social workers should limit clients' access to their records, or por- tions of their records, only in exceptional circumstances when there is compelling evi- dence that such access would cause serious harm to the client. Both clients' requests and the rationale for withholding some or all of the record should be documented in clients' files.

REAMER / Documentation in SocialWork: Evolving Ethical and Risk-Management Standards 327

(b) When providing clients with access to their records, social workers should take steps to protect the confidentiality of other individuals identified or discussed in such records, (p. 12)

Finally, two more standards set forth practitio- ners' ethical duty to store records in a way that protects clients'confidentiality and makes the records available following the termination of services.

1.07 Privacy and Confidentiality (1) Social workers should protect the confi- dentiality of clients' written and electronic records and other sensitive information. So- cial workers should take reasonable steps to ensure that clients' records are stored in a secure location and that clients' records are not available to others who are not autho- rized to have access, (pp. 10—11)

3.04 Client Records (d) Social workers should store records fol- lowing the termination of services to ensure reasonable future access. Records should be maintained for the number of years required by state statutes or relevant contracts, (p. 20)

Risk-Management Standards In addition to spreading new ethics standards re- lated to documentation, social workers have also recently developed elaborate risk-management stan- dards designed to enharice the delivery of services to clients and protect practitioners in case they have to defend themselves against ethics complaints (filed with state licensing boards or NASW) or lawsuits that allege professional negligence (Barker & Branson, 2000; Madden, 2003).The following sec- tion provides a summary of these guidelines, based on extant literature, prominent court decisions, and my experience as chair of an NASW chapter com- mittee on inquiry and as an "expert witness" (Gifis, 1991) in many court cases throughout the United States in which social workers have been plaintiffs or defendants.

RISK-MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES Risk-management guidelines related to documen- tation and case recording can be placed into four conceptually distinct categories: (1) the content of documentation, (2) language and terminology, (3) credibility, and (4) access to records and documents.

Content of Documentation Too much content, too little content, or the wrong content can harm clients and expose practitioners to considerable risk of liability. The days when so- cial workers could proclaim, "I just don't keep de- tailed notes" are long gone. As Berner (1998), a lawyer and social worker, observed with respect to documentation in clinical settings:

Because the practice of clinical record-keeping is of such long standing, and because courts in particular understand that the reason for clini- cal documentation is, in fact, not for the conve- nience of attorneys and judges, but to further the goal of good patient care, "everyone" ex- pects that clinicians will keep records. "Every- one" means your patients, your professional society's ethics board, your professional discipline's licensing board, the newspapers, the general public, and perhaps most relevant for us ... the courts. Courts know what everyone else knows, and courts expect clinicians to keep records documenting their work. (pp. 60-61)

Or, as many attorneys assert,"If you didn't write it down, it didn't happen." To ensure appropriate content in documentation, social workers should consider several issues. A primary function of docu- mentation is to serve and protect all parties. The content, however, must tread a careful line, striking a balance between too much and too little infor- mation. In a crisis situation, social workers need to observe some precautions when recording case in- formation. In addition, practitioners must under- stand the double-edged sword of keeping personal notes during case management. Furthermore, there are specific guidelines for documenting services to families and couples, and the extent to which indi- vidual members may be privy to that information. Finally, although in some instances it may appear prudent to document stafEng issues and professional disagreements regarding service delivery, doing so may be akin to airing dirty laundry—and may make an agency ripe for Htigation.

Serve and Protect. Practitioners'firstrule ofthumb when documenting cases should be to include suf- ficient detail to facilitate the delivery of services and protect themselves in the event of an ethics com- plaint or lawsuit. In clinical settings, such details involve social histories, assessments, and treatment plans; informed consent procedures; contacts with

328 Social Work VOLUME 50, NUMBER 4 OCTOBER 2005

clients (type, date, and time); contacts with third parties; consultation with other professionals; deci- sions made and services provided; critical incidents; instructions, recoiTimendations, advice, and refer- rals to specialists; failed and cancelled appointments; previous or current psychological, psychiatric, and medical evaluations; information concerning fees, charges, and payments; termination of services; fmal assessment; and other relevant documents (Moline, Williams, & Austin, 1998; Reamer, 2001).

Social work supervisors should document the date, time, and content of supervision sessions, in- cluding specific recommendations, critical incidents, and consultations. Social work managers and ad- ministrators should document key discussions, con- sultations, and meetings that address ethical and legal issues. For example, they should note the steps taken to determine whether to disclose confidential in- formation without a client's consent to protect a third party from harm, address an employee's im- pairment or unethical conduct, or develop con- fiict-of-interest guidelines for agency personnel (Barsky & Gould,2002;Luepker & Norton, 2002). David Gould (1998), a veteran malpractice attor- ney who has defended several mental health prac- titioners wrote:

These types of cases, like almost all medical negligence cases, are won or lost by what is contained, or not contained, in the medical record. It has been my experience that mental health notes, particularly in the outpatient set- ting, are, more often than not, deficient. . . . Inadequate notes leave the clinician at the mercy of a plaintiff's attorney, especially when he is asked years later to recall an event that is poorly documented, if at all. (p. 345)

Strike a Balance. Documenting too much or too little can be perilous (Berner, 1998). For example, in clinical settings too little detail about a chent's sui- cidal ideation may compromise the quality of ser- vices provided by an on-call colleague who reviews incomplete or vague entries in the client's chart. Furthermore, social workers who do not include sufficient detail concerning the steps they took to address a client's crisis are likely to have difficulty defending their actions in the event of an ethics complaint or negligence lawsuit (Bergstresser, 1998).

Too much detail—a client's fantasies, for in- stance—could be used against the client if that

client's spouse subpoenas the record as part of a child custody dispute. Admittedly, distinguishing between too much and too little detail can be dif- ficult. It requires experience and reasoned deci- sion-making. Social workers should strive for a rea- sonable balance considering what information is clinically essential to properly assess clients' needs; plan, coordinate, deliver, supervise, and evaluate services; and be accountable to clients, insurers, agencies, other providers, courts, and utilization review bodies.

Avoid Overdocumentation in a Crisis. Social workers also need to strive for balance during cri- ses, avoiding the temptation to "over-document." Including excessive detail in a case record in the context of a crisis can serve as a "red flag" when records are reviewed during an ethics hearing or litigation (Bergstresser, 1998; Simon, 1998). A so- cial worker's claim that she or he handled the mat- ter in a manner that is consistent with prevailing standards in the profession may be challenged in the face of inordinate detail in the case record. Such detail may in fact suggest that the case was handled in an extraordinary or unusual way. As Berner (1998) asserted, it is far more important in a clinical crisis to "write smarter, not longer. . . . Writing smarter means being succinct" (p. 54).

Use Caution with Personal Notes. Clinical social workers, supervisors, managers, and administrators sometimes maintain separate personal notes to keep track of details that do not belong in an official agency record. Social workers sometimes assume— mistakenly—that such personal notes will always be treated as confidential and that adversarial par- ties cannot gain access to them, for example, in a malpractice lawsuit. In fact, in most court jurisdic- tions, lawyers can subpoena social workers' personal notes during legal proceedings (Polowy & Gorenberg, 1997) .Thus, social workers who main- tain personal notes assume some risk. Information in personal notes could be used against one's client. For example, information contained in the notes may become central during divorce, termination of parental rights, or child custody proceedings. Personal notes can also be used against the social work supervisor, manager, or administrator who documents potentially embarrassing details con- cerning inter-stafFrelationships. Social workers who maintain personal notes should word entries with- out an expectation of privacy and with the assump- tion that someday the notes may be reviewed by

REAMER / Documentation in SocialWork: Evolving Ethical and Risk-Management Standards 3Z9

third parties whose interests may be adversarial (Moline et al., 1998).

Be Cautious in Documentation of Services for Families and Couples. Clinical social workers who counsel families and couples are often in an unten- able position: If they maintain a single record for the family and couple, they risk exposing confi- dential information in the event the record is sub- poenaed. Maintaining separate records for all par- ties, on the other hand, is cumbersome and inconsistent with social workers'belief that the fam- ily or couple as a whole is the client. According to Barker and Branson (2000):

There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever choice this worker, or any worker, makes.The only virtue in having separate files— but it is a significant one—is in the event that members of the client-group have major dis- putes. When their disputes lead to legal action, one client or another may seek the worker's files. An individual may be able legally to have access to his or her own records, but what about when the information is intertwined with that of another person, especially another person who is now an opponent in a lawsuit? If the files are written separately, then every person can claim access only to their own files, and the worker's position is much less uncomfortable, (pp. 154-155)

Some social workers compromise by maintain- ing separate records for sensitive information that must be protected and joint files for more routine assessments and summaries of services provided. For example, a social worker who provides an indi- vidual counseling session to one member of a couple, as a supplement to counseling the couple, can cre- ate a separate file for that client in which private issues, such as a report of struggles with sexual ori- entation, family violence, or substance abuse, are recorded. In the couple's joint file, the social worker would record the fact that they sought marital coun- seling to address "relationship issues." Maintaining separate records in these circumstances may help the social worker protect each individual client in the event that a dispute arises—a child custody dis- pute or divorce, for example (Barsky & Gould, 2002; Moline et al., 1998; Reamer, 1998). In such cir- cumstances social workers should consult standards in the NASW Code of Ethics concerning conflicts

of interest that can arise when they "provide ser- vices to two or more people who have a relation- ship with each other" (Standard 1.06[d]). It is the social worker's duty to explain at the outset his or her role during the case and to anticipate and mini- mize potential confiicts of interest.

Do Not Air Agency Dirty Laundry. Details con- cerning understaffed programs or personal opin- ions about the competence of a colleague do not belong in a client's record. Documentation of per- sonnel and staffing problems should appear in ad- ministrative files. Including such detail in clients' records may expose agencies to considerable risk in the event of a negligence lawsuit (Simon, 1998).

Furthermore, line social workers, supervisors, managers, and administrators who become involved in disputes among staff members —a disagreement about an agency policy or administrative order, for example—should not include documentation about the dispute in clients' records. When there is reason to create a paper trail, relevant opinions, decisions, and actions can be documented in administrative memoranda or logs. Put simply, evidence of "joust- ing" among stafFshould not appear in clients' records (Berner, 1998; Simon).

Language and Terminology Wording in documentation is just as important as the substance of the content. Loose and casual lan- guage and terminology can be catastrophic to the social worker, the supervisor, and the agency. Social workers must choose their words carefully, taking care to be clear, to fully support conclusions drawn, to avoid defamatory language, and to write know- ing there is always an audience.

Gaining Clarity. Practitioners should use clear, specific, unambiguous, and precise wording. Lack of clarity, specificity, and precision provides consid- erable opportunity for adversarial parties to raise doubts about social workers' claims, observations, and interpretations. In addition, these shortcom- ings in a report may confuse colleagues who are depending on the notes to provide follow-up ser- vices to clients (Reamer, 2003; Simon, 1998). Con- versely, clear, specific, unambiguous, and precise wording enhances the delivery of services and strengthens social workers' ability to explain and defend prior decisions and actions.

In addition to using precise wording, social work- ers should avoid the use ofprofessional jargon, slang, or abbreviations that may be misunderstood. For

330 SocialWork VOLUME 50, NUMBER 4 OCTOBER 2005

example, the abbreviation "DD" could mean dual diagnosis or developmental disability. The abbre- viation "BPD" could mean bipolar disorder or bor- derhne personality disorder."SA" could mean sub- stance abuse or sexual assault. Such ambiguity could prove disastrous if the abbreviations are misinter- preted by a colleague or debated in an ethics hear- ing, licensing board inquiry, or litigation.

Drawing Conclusions. It is very risky to docu- ment conclusions with terms or phrases such as"the client v̂ âs confused" or "the unit social worker behaved aggressively toward the client" without including supporting details. Today s practitioner, therefore, needs to always include explanatory de- tails that support a conclusion or assertion. Sum- mary statements about the mental health status or behavior of a client, employee, or colleague should always be supported with sufficient details. Terms such as "hostile," "under the influence," or"incom- petent" should always be reinforced and followed by the phrase "as evidenced by .. ."with appropriate details included (Bergstresser, 1998; Berner, 1998).

Avoiding Defamatory Language. Practitioners should also take steps to avoid using language that might constitute libel or slander, the two forms of defamation of character (Moline et ah, 1998; Reamer, 1998). Libel (the written form of defama- tion) and slander (the oral form of defamation) occur when social workers write or say something about a chent, colleague, or third party that is not true, the social worker knew to be untrue or should have known was untrue, and harmed the individual who was the subject ofthe written or oral communica- tion. Examples include untrue statements alleging mental illness, substance abuse, incompetence, or inappropriate behavior.

Writing for an Audience. Social workers should expect documents and records to be reviewed by managed care authorities, utilization review per- sonnel, and third-party payers. Poorly worded and inadequate documentation may affect the likeli- hood that payment will be authorized for services to clients. Also, social workers should protect cli- ents' privacy when they share records with such outside parties (see NASW Code of Ethics, standard

Credibility When disputes arise concerning the appropriate- ness of social workers' actions—whether they con- ducted adequate assessments of clients, maintained

proper boundaries, terminated services appropri- ately, obtained needed consultation, or provided proper supervision, for example—case records and administrative files provide essential evidence.With- out thorough documentation, social workers may have difficulty defending their actions. Thorough- ness, however, is not sufficient. Even thorough docu- mentation needs to be credible, and the credibility of social workers' documentation can be enhanced or compromised in several ways.Time is ofthe es- sence when documenting cases, but practitioners must take care not to jump the gun and record events that are only anticipated. Likewise, elocu- tion in documentation must always be professional. Finally, when a mistake is made, a credible social worker will be forthright and honest.

Documenting in a Timely Fashion. Few social workers relish the task of documentation, whether for clinical, supervisory, management, or adminis- trative purposes. Documentation takes time and often looms as an onerous task—a necessary evil associated with professional life. As a result, social workers sometimes procrastinate and put off docu- menting their decisions and actions. Delayed docu- mentation can compromise the credibility of so- cial workers' claims about what is reflected in the notes (Berner, 1998; Moline et al., 1998; Simon, 1998). Adversarial parties, especially opposing le- gal counsel, can use evidence of delayed documen- tation to challenge the credibility of social work- ers' testimony. According to Barsky and Gould (2002):

The timing of note taking can have great legal significance. Ideally, notes should be made con- temporaneously with the events being recorded (i.e., during a session with a client, immedi- ately following, or within 24 hours). Eviden- tiary rules assume that information recorded contemporaneously with the; events is more likely to be accurate.Behavioral science research supports the fact that notes contemporaneously taken are more accurate than i:hose recorded at a later time, even if it is later the same day. (p. 135)

Avoiding Prognostic Documentation. In an effort to save time and expedite documentation, social workers occasionally record notes in advance of an intervention or event. Sometimes, however, the planned interventions or events do not occur or

REAMER / Documentation in Social Work: Evolving Ethical and Risk-Management Standards 331

unfold differently than expected.The prematurely recorded notes would therefore not accurately re- flect what happened and thus \vould undermine the social w^orker's credibility (Barsky & Gould, 2002; Berner, 1998).

Striving for Professional Elocution. Social work- ers do not always pay close attention to the leg- ibility or grammatical correctness of their docu- mentation. Colleagues may haye difficulty understanding, or may misinterpret, illegible en- tries and may miss important cues that are essen- tial for proper intervention, supervision, manage- ment, or administration. It is imperative, therefore, that when recording case information, social work- ers print or write entries legibly and use proper grammar. Copies of social workers'documentation typically become tangible evidence and exhibits during ethics hearings, licensing board inquiries, and courtroom proceedings. Photocopies and over- head transparencies may be displayed to peer-re- view or regulatory bodies, lav/yers, expert witnesses, judges, and jurors. Illegible entries and a pattern of grammatical and spelling errors are a professional embarrassment to the practitioner and the agency represented. Such inattention to detail severely weakens credibility (Barsky & Gould, 2002; Moline etal., 1998; Simon, 1998).

Acknowledging Errors. To err is human, and ev- ery social worker is capable of inadvertently insert- ing incorrect facts into and omitting important facts from case documentation.Ethics committee mem- bers, licensing boards,lawyers,and judges recognize that any professional can make occasional errors.

To avoid undermining their credibility, social workers should never attempt to "cover up" or cam- ouflage their errors (Barsky & Gould, 2002; Reamer, 2003). Such efforts can backfire. For example, op- posing lawyers can access documents before social workers attempt to conceal the errors. Social work- ers who alter records in anticipation of legal pro- ceedings, or after legal proceedings have been ini- tiated, therefore, assume great risk and public humiliation if the inconsistencies are brought to light. As Barsky and Gould (2002) observed, "if a clinician is aware of an impending legal process or has been subpoenaed, doctoring or destroying docu- ments can result in such charges as contempt of court or obstruction of justice, malpractice suits, and professional disciplinary actions" (p. 145). In- stead, social workers should always acknowledge their errors, making clear that the new entry oc-

curred after the error was discovered. In chnical settings, practitioners should enter a new note that acknowledges and corrects the error or draw a thin line through the error and insert the correction, along with the social worker's initials, the date, and the word "error." Clyde Bergstresser (1998), a sea- soned malpractice attorney, emphasized:

Do not change or lose your records. Do not niake"additions"or"corrections"to clarify what you meant.You would be amazed at how many people cannot resist the temptation to make sure that in hindsight the records say what was meant. When you get caught, your credibility will be destroyed, and it is very likely you will be caught. Copies of "lost" records have a habit of cropping up when you least expect it. Docu- ment experts are now very sophisticated in their ability to determine from writing patterns whether an entry was made all in one sitting, even from a copy. (p. 342)

Access to Records and Documents Social workers generally assume that case records and documents will remain confidential. In reality, there is no such thing as a truly confidential case record. An extraordinarily wide array of laws, regu- lations, contracts, and court rules require or permit disclosure of otherwise confidential documents.

Furthermore, social workers need to be cogni- zant of security risks associated with the widespread use of computers to store confidential records and documents. Thus, social workers should be very familiar with the various circumstances under which records and documents may be disclosed. Practi- tioners need to know how to respond to subpoe- nas, be familiar with applicable state and federal laws and regulations, and secure documentation for future access.

Acquire Legal Know-How. Perhaps the most fre- quent trigger for the disclosure of documents is the subpoena. A subpoena duces tecum requires a party who is in control of relevant documents to bring them to a deposition or court hearing. Social work- ers should not confuse subpoenas to appear with documents with an order to disclose the docu- ments' contents. Subpoenas and court orders are entirely different phenomena. In fact, the NASW Code of Ethics (1996) obligates social workers to take steps to protect the confidentiality of relevant documents during legal proceedings:

irk VOLUME 50, NUMBER 4 OCTOBER 2005332. Social Woi

Social workers should protect the confidential- ity of clients during legal proceedings to the extent permitted by law. When a court of law or other legally authorized body orders social workers to disclose confidential or privileged information without a chent's consent and such disclosure could cause harm to the chent, social workers should request that the court with- draw the order or limit the order as narrowly as possible or maintain the records under seal, unavailable for public inspection. (Standard 1.07U])

Social workers should not release any confiden- tial information contained in documents unless they are sure they are authorized to do so—based on client consent or in response to a court order, for example (Polowy & Gorenberg, 1997).

Know Relevant Statutes and Regulations.There are many federal and state statutes and regulations that govern the handling of confidential documents (Dickson, 1998). For example, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA (PL. 104-91), and its regulations address the protection of personal health-related informa- tion. Clinical social workers should be especially familiar with explicit HIPAA provisions that are unique to psychotherapy notes. The regulations define these specifically as notes recorded in any medium by a health care provider who is a mental health professional documenting or analyzing the contents of conversation during a private counsel- ing session or a group, joint, or family counsehng session, and that are separated from the rest of the individual's medical record.

Other key federal regulations govern the han- dling of confidential documents related to alcohol and substance abuse treatment (42 C.F.R. Part 2, Confidentiality of Alcohol and DrugAbuse Patient Records) and school records (34 C.FR. Part 99, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA). States also have specific laws and regula- tions governing the release of confidential docu- ments contained in health, mental health, school, and child welfare records (Dickson, 1998).

Secure Records. Social workers should store records (clinical, personnel, supervisory, and admin- istrative) in secure locations to prevent unautho- rized access (Barsky & Gould, 2002).When using electronic media,practitioners should exercise cau- tion to ensure that this information cannot be ac-

cessed by unauthorized parties (see NASW Code of Et/ji'a,standards 1.07[l],[m]).Social workers should consult relevant federal and state statutes, regula- tions, codes of ethics, and contracts (for example, insurance company and managed care contracts) to determine the length of time that documents should be retained. If and when records are destroyed or disposed of, care must be taken so that the disposal still protects chent confidentiality (Barsky & Gould, 2002; NASW, 1996).

CONCLUSION Social workers' understanding of the relevance of documentation has dramatically evolved. Once a simple theory building, research, and teaching tool, documentation has transformed over time to in- corporate detailed and sophisticated standards for clinical and other direct practice settings. As social workers navigate a new landscape of practice, en- hanced service delivery requirements, and fast-paced technological innovation, documentation for risk- management purposes has risen in importance.

To comply with current ethical and legal stan- dards and to protect clients and themselves, social workers should conduct thorough assessments of their documentation policies and procedures. In- dependent and private practitioners, who do not need administrative approval, are in a position to modify their own documentation policies and pro- cedures to comply with prevailing standards. Social workers who are employed by agencies may have less authority to make needed changes; they can share their concerns about documentation pohcies and procedures with administrators and advocate for change.

REFERENCES Aptekar, H. (1960). Recording for the purposes of

supervision. Child Welfare, 39, 16—21. Barker, R., & Branson, D. (2000). Forensic social work: Legal

aspects of professional practice (2nd ed.). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

Barsky, A., & Gould, J. (2002). Clinicians in court: A guide to subpoenas, depositions, testifying, and everything else you need to know. New York: Guilford Press.

Bergstresser, C. (1998). The perspective of the plaintiff's attorney. In L. Lifson & R. Simon (Eds.), Tlie mental health practitioner and the taw: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 329-343). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Berner, M. (1998). Write smarter, not longer. In L. Lifson & R. Simon (Eds.), Tlie mental health practitioner and the law:A comprehensive handbook (pp. 54—71). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burgess, E. (1928).Wbat social case records sbould contain to be useful for sociological interpretation. Social Forces, 6, 524-532.

REAMER / Documentation in Social Work: Evolving Ethical and Risk-Management Standards 333

Dickson, D. T. (1998). Confidentiality and privacy in social work. NewYork: Free Press.

Eliot,T. (1928). Objectivity and subjectivity in the case record. Social Forces, 6, 539-544.

Fitzpatrick.J., & Sanders, J. (2003). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Frings,J. (1957). Experimental systems of recording. Social Casework, 38,55-63.

Gifis, S. (1991). Law dictionary (3rd ed.). Hauppauge, NY: Barron's Educational Services.

Gould, D. (1998). Listen to your lawyer. In L. Lifson & R. Simon (Eds.), The mental health practitioner and the law:A comprehensive handbook (pp. 344—356). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hamilton, G. (1936). Social case recording. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Hamilton, G. (1946). Principles of social case recording. New York: Columbia University Press.

Houston-Vega, M., Nuehring, E., & Daguio, B. (1997). Prudent practice: A guide for managing malpractice risk. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Kagle, J. (1984). Restoring the clinical record. Social Work, 29, 46-50.

Kagle, J. (1987). Recording in direct practice. In A. Minahan (Ed.-in-Chief), Encyclopedia of social work (18th ed.,Vol. 2, pp. 463-467). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.

Kagle,J. (1991). Social work records. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth. Kagle,J. (1995a). Recording. In R. Edwards (Ed.-in-

Chief), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed.,Vol. 3, pp. 2027-2033).Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Kagle,J. (1995b). Social work records (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL:Waveland Press.

Little, R. (1949). Diagnostic recording. Social Casework, 30(1), 15-19.

Luepker, E., & Norton, L. (2002). Record keeping in psychotherapy and counseling: Protecting confidentiality and the professional relationship. NewYork: Brunner- Routledge.

Madden, R. (2003). Essential law for social workers. New York: Columbia University Press.

Mohne, M.,Williams, G., & Austin, K. (1998). Document- ing psychotherapy: Essentials for mental health profession- als. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

National Association of Social Workers. (1960). NASW code of e//iia.Washington, DC:Author.

National Association of Social Workers. (1979). NASW code of ethics. Silver Spring, MD: Author.

National Association of Social Workers. (1994). Cuidelines for clinical social work JMpervisioH. Washington, DC: Author.

National Association of Social Workers. (1996). NASW code of e(/iics.Washington, DC:Author.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pinkus, H. (1977). Recording in social work. In J.Turner (Ed.-in-Chief), Encyclopedia of social work (17th ed.. Vol. 2, pp. 1161-1168).Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.

Polowy, C , & Gorenberg, C. (1997). Client confidentiality and privileged communications: Office of general counsel law notes. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.

Reamer, F. (1998). Ethical standards in social work:A review of the NASW code of ethics.Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Reamer, F (2001). The social work ethics audit:A risk- management (oo/. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Reamer, F (2003). Social work malpractice and liability: Strategies for prevention (2nd ed.). NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Reamer, F (2004). Ethical decisions and risk manage- ment. In M.Austin & K. Hopkins (Eds.), Supervision as collaboration in the human services (pp. 97—109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Richmond, M. (1925).Why case records? Eamily, 6, 214- 216.

Royse, D.,Thyer, B., Padgett, D., & Logan,T. (2000). Program evaluation:An introduction (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Sackheim, G. (1949). Suggestions on recording tech- niques. Social Casework, 30(1), 20—25.

Sheffield, A. (1920). The social case history: Its construction and content. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.

Simon, R. (1998). Litigation hot spots in clinical practice. In L. Lifson & R. Simon (Eds.), Tlie mental health practitioner and the law: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 117-139). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sytz, F. (1949).Teaching recording. Social Casework, 30(10), 399-405.

Timms, N. (1972). Recording in social work. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Urbanowski, M. (1974). Recording to measure effective- ness. Social Casework, 55, 546—553.

Wilson, S. (1980). Recording: Cuidelines for social workers. NewYork: Free Press.

Frederic G. Reamer, PhD, is professor, Rhode Island

College School of Social Work, 600 Mt. Pleasant Avenue,

Providence, R.I 02908; email [email protected].

Original manuscript received December 1, 2003 Final revision received July 13, 2004 Accepted November 9, 2004

334 SocialWork VOLUME 50, NUMBER 4 OCTOBER 2005