Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurse Practitioner Exam

What is a potential consequence of the 'duty to warn' established by Tarasoff v. Regents?

1. Elimination of patient confidentiality

2. Mandatory reporting of all patient issues

3. Breach of confidentiality when patients pose a risk

4. Unlimited disclosure of patient information

The correct answer is: Breach of confidentiality when patients pose a risk

The concept of 'duty to warn,' as established by the case of Tarasoff v. Regents, highlights the obligation of mental health professionals to breach patient confidentiality when there is a clear and imminent risk of harm to an identifiable third party. This legal precedent recognizes that while confidentiality is a cornerstone of therapeutic relationships, there are circumstances where the need to protect potential victims from harm outweighs the privacy rights of the patient. In this context, when a patient poses a risk to someone else's safety, mental health practitioners have a duty to disclose relevant information to the appropriate parties, which may include law enforcement or the potential victim. This is a legal and ethical obligation that aims to prevent harm, reflecting a balance between the ethical principle of confidentiality and the duty to protect. The distinction here is crucial because it underscores the limited and specific nature of the breach—it's not a blanket approach that compromises all aspects of confidentiality, but rather a focused response aimed at preventing imminent harm to others. The other options do not accurately capture the nuanced nature of this obligation; they imply broader or more invasive actions that do not align with the established legal framework surrounding the duty to warn.