Share This Link

Calling security is inappropriate for a voluntary client unless there is immediate danger. The client has not demonstrated aggression or elopement risk.

Telling the client they cannot leave disregards their legal rights. Voluntary clients retain the right to request discharge, pending evaluation.

Asking for a release of liability is not a standard or legally valid procedure in psychiatric discharge. It does not replace the required clinical assessment.

Telling the client to speak to their lawyer is dismissive. It shifts the focus away from therapeutic engagement and implies the nurse has no role in explaining the commitment, which undermines trust.

Simply stating the client cannot leave lacks empathy. It reinforces confinement, potentially escalating resistance and mistrust.

Postponing reassessment without addressing the client’s concern ignores their current distress. It delays important communication and misses an opportunity to validate and clarify.

Voluntary clients retain the right to refuse treatment unless deemed incompetent. They can withdraw consent and request discharge, subject to safety evaluation.

Involuntary clients retain legal rights, including access to legal counsel, appeal, and humane treatment. They are not stripped of all rights.

Judicial review is not required for voluntary commitment unless the client requests discharge and is considered unsafe. Routine voluntary admission does not involve a judge.

Calling security implies the client is being forcibly restrained. For voluntary clients, this violates rights unless there is clear, documented risk requiring emergency intervention or legal hold.

A physician's order is not necessary for a voluntary client to leave. Restricting discharge without cause constitutes unlawful detainment unless there is an emergent safety issue.

Initiating a 72-hour hold without justification or legal review breaches protocol. Emergency holds require documentation of danger, legal criteria, and often psychiatric assessment—none of which is assumed simply by expressed frustration.

Vital signs alone do not reflect emotional or behavioral readiness. A stable pulse and blood pressure may occur even during agitation or manipulative behavior. Physiological parameters must be interpreted alongside behavioral cues.

Sitting at the doorway and requesting a drink may indicate reduced agitation, but it does not confirm emotional control or insight. The behavior could be manipulative or superficial without deeper behavioral change.

Historical statements about past seclusion experiences do not reflect current readiness. Each episode must be assessed independently. Prior improvement does not guarantee present stability or safety.

Continuing education enhances knowledge but does not directly protect client rights. It supports competence but lacks immediate impact on client protections.

Advising peers about documentation errors improves record accuracy but does not address broader rights protections. It’s a quality control measure, not a rights safeguard.

Witnessing informed consent verifies the process but does not ensure the content or understanding. It’s a procedural role, not a proactive protection of rights.