they are comfortable with the equipment and establishing rapport over video, it can be helpful for providers to practice telemental health delivery prior to delivering telemental health to patients. Some clinicians report a lack of communication between providers when utilizing telemental health. This can result in a disjointed continuum of care (Lauckner & Whitten, 2016). Because additional training and technical knowledge are needed, some clinicians are reluctant to provide telemental health services, which results in the lack of a specialized workforce (Lauckner & Whitten, 2016). That being said, positive attitudes toward providing telemental health appear to be increasing (Connolly et al., 2020), with increasing numbers of providers looking for full-time telework or hybrid opportunities. Licensure and Malpractice Licensure is a challenge when providing telemental health services to adults and children (Kramer & Luxton, 2016). Because states often require licensure in the area where the client resides, practitioners may find it burdensome to hold multiple licenses. Some states have proposed solutions, such as allowing interstate licensure agreements, but ongoing debate and bureaucratic issues hinder fast progress (Kramer & Luxton, 2016). Practitioners who disregard the licensure issues have been held legally liable for practicing without licenses. Practitioners should know the jurisdictional requirements and understand that the legal context of telemental health is continually changing. Licensure and complicated regulations across state lines can be burdensome to clinicians (Lambert et al., 2016; Swenson et al., 2016). In a 50-state survey conducted by Lerman and Quashie (2016), researchers highlighted numerous inconsistencies in telemental health regulations. Psychiatrists, as practicing physicians, must comply with all the obligations that apply to physicians practicing telehealth generally. Very few states exempt mental health services from these requirements, despite the fact that many psychiatrists never have physical contact with patients. Texas is one of the few states that explicitly separate mental health services from the requirements applicable to the provision of other telehealth services. Other findings of Lerman and Quashie (2016) include the following. ● In Delaware, an individual practicing “telepsychology” must conduct a risk–benefit analysis and document findings specific to issues, such as whether a patient’s presenting problems and apparent condition are consistent with the use of telepsychology to the patient’s benefit and whether the patient has sufficient knowledge and skills in the use of technology involved in rendering the service or can use a personal aid or assistive device to benefit from the service. ● Kansas requires psychologists and social workers providing telemental health services to obtain the telemental health–specific informed consent of the patient before services are provided. ● In Maryland, physicians (psychiatrists) are required to develop a procedure to prevent access to data by unauthorized persons through password protection, encryption, or other means and to develop a policy on how soon an individual can expect a response from the physician to questions or other requests included in the transmission. ● Montana psychologists may initially establish a “defined professional relationship” electronically so long as the means of communication involves a two-way, real-time, interactive platform providing for both audio and visual interaction.
Complicated, vague, inconsistent, and burdensome regulations can present many challenges to implementing an effective telemental health practice. Professional organizations are releasing more guidelines for telebehavioral health practices, but legislation, regulations, and reimbursement guidance does not necessarily offer parallel guidance. These issues can cause some clinicians to decide not to provide telemental health services, favoring instead services that are familiar and reimbursable. However, with the necessary utilization of telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of clinicians now have familiarity with the technology and guidelines that appear to be expanding the availability of telemental health services. ● To regulate marriage and family therapists, South Dakota relies on the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy’s Code of Ethics, which requires that therapists evaluate whether electronic therapy is appropriate for individuals and inform them of the potential risks and benefits associated with electronic therapy. ● Nevada allows advanced practice registered nurses (APRN) to practice by using equipment that transfers information concerning the medical condition of a patient electronically, over the telephone, or by fiber optics from inside or outside Nevada or the United States. Many practitioners have concerns about malpractice issues when providing services through videoconferencing. However, telemental health services are not clinical interventions; rather, they are a modality for the delivery of clinical services (Kramer & Luxton, 2016). Regardless of the modality, whether it is face to face or video technology, standards and guidelines of competent practice apply. Early cases of medical malpractice with telemental health involved prescriptions and failure to provide adequate assessments for the use of controlled substances (Kramer & Luxton, 2016). Many malpractice insurance companies have yet to offer guidelines about liability insurance (Kramer & Luxton, 2016). Practitioners may want to contact their insurance companies to ask about coverage for services provided through videoconferencing. With the increasing demand for telemental health services, it is likely that professional insurance companies may soon offer guidelines. Establishing a telemental health practice can be daunting, considering the details that must be addressed. The following case example illustrates how one agency established a telemental health service in a rural area in Maryland, addressed challenges, and expanded services over a five-year period (Crowe et al., 2016). Case Study: Arundel Lodge Arundel Lodge, Inc. is a nonprofit organization located in Edgewater, Maryland. The agency provides a variety of services for individuals who have behavioral health and substance abuse disorders. These services include residential services, case management, vocational training, day programs, and outpatient mental health services. The telemental health program was established in response to a severe lack of behavioral health services for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals living on the rural eastern shore of Maryland. Although the target population was deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, the steps taken to establish the telemental health program may be similar to those for other populations of interest:
Page 136
Book Code: SWFL1825
EliteLearning.com/Social-Work
Powered by FlippingBook