A client with depression assigned a 1:1 staff for close observation related to self-harm was found to have harmed themselves and sustained an injury. The nurse did not document that the client was assessed every hour as prescribed. Which issue will the nursing staff and hospital potentially have to defend against?

Choice A reason: Violating a nurse’s boundaries, such as inappropriate behavior, does not legally mandate breaching confidentiality. Ethical responses involve setting boundaries or reporting within the care team, but confidentiality is protected unless harm to others is threatened, making this situation insufficient for a legal breach.

Choice B reason: Nurses are legally obligated to breach confidentiality when a client makes credible threats to harm an identifiable third party (Tarasoff duty). This protects potential victims by ensuring warnings or interventions occur, balancing patient confidentiality with public safety, as harm prevention takes precedence in mental health law.

Choice C reason: Client aggression does not automatically warrant breaching confidentiality unless it involves specific threats to identifiable individuals. Aggression is managed within the care setting, and confidentiality is maintained unless legal criteria, like imminent harm to others, are met, making this option incorrect.

Choice D reason: Disagreement with the nurse does not justify breaching confidentiality. Ethical care respects client autonomy, and confidentiality is protected unless legal exceptions, like threats or court orders, apply. Disagreement is managed through therapeutic communication, not by disclosing private information, making this an invalid reason for breach.

Choice A reason: This response reinforces professional boundaries while therapeutically redirecting the client to explore external social support, addressing potential dependency. It validates the client’s feelings without personalizing the relationship, promoting healthy coping and social integration, which are critical for mental health recovery and maintaining therapeutic integrity.

Choice B reason: Bluntly denying friendship dismisses the client’s feelings, potentially damaging trust and therapeutic rapport. This approach risks alienating the client, who may feel rejected, hindering open communication and progress in addressing underlying emotional needs, making it non-therapeutic in a mental health context.

Choice C reason: Suggesting other friends without exploration dismisses the client’s expressed feelings, potentially invalidating their emotional experience. The assumption about existing friends may not apply, and the response lacks therapeutic engagement, failing to address the client’s dependency or need for social connection, making it less effective.

Choice D reason: Affirming the client’s view of friendship blurs professional boundaries, fostering dependency and compromising therapeutic objectivity. While validating feelings is important, reinforcing a personal connection risks hindering the client’s ability to develop external support systems, making this response non-therapeutic for mental health progress.