discussion #10 business

Volume 35INumber 3IJuly 2OI3iPage$ 211-227

Text Messaging and Private Practice:
Ethical Challenges and Guidelines for
Developing Personal Best Practices

Michael E. Sude

The impact of technology on mental health practice is currently a concern in the counseling
literature, and several articles have discussed using different types of technology in practice.
In particular, many private practitioners use a cell phone for business. However, no article has
discussed ethical concerns and best practices for the use of short message service (SMS), better
known as text messaging (TM). Ethical issues that arise with TM relate to confidentiality,
documentation, counselor competence, appropriateness of use, and misinterpretation. There
are also such boundary issues to consider as multiple relationships, counselor availability, and
billing. This article addresses ethical concerns for mental health counselors who use TM in
private practice. It reviews the literature and discusses benefits, ethical concerns, and guide-
lines for office policies and personal best practices.

Teehnology is evolving rapidly (Haberstroh, Parr, Bradley, Morgan-
Fleming, & Gee, 2008) and ean help elinicians free up time and spaee
(MeMinn, Orton, & Woods, 2008). In partieular eounselors are using cell
phones to eonduet business (Baker & Bufka, 2011; McMinn et al., 2008)
because they provide options for communicating with clients at the clini-
cian’s convenience (McMinn et al., 2008).

Cell phones can be used to connect with clients for administrative tasks
like scheduling, cancelling, and rescheduling; to send appointment remind-
ers; and to communicate brief thoughts or questions between face-to-faee
(FTF) meetings. Smartphones may have the ability to connect to the Internet
and interact with others in a variety of ways, but almost all cell phones at least
have a text message option.

Individuals are increasingly communicating via short message service
(SMS), better known as texting or text messaging (TM; Boschen & Casey,
2008; Militello, Kelly, & Melnyk, 2012). TM is now used clinically to provide
support or interventions for certain conditions and populations (Merz, 2010).
Text messages can include pictures, videos, and text up to 160 characters

Michael £. Sude is affiliated with La Salle University and maintains a private practice in the suburbs
of Philadelphia. Correspondence about this article can be directed to Dr. Michael £. Sude. La Salle
University, Psychology Department, 1900 West OIney Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19141. Email: sudem@
lasalle.edu.

Journal of Mental Health Counseling 2 | |

(Coss & Ferns, 2010; Merz, 2010; Militello et al., 2012). Although TM usu-
ally occurs between cell phones, messages can also be sent ftom email and
web sites (Merz, 2010). For counselors in private practice, TM is a low-cost
and convenient tool.

All forms of technology have ethical implications that raise concerns
for counselors (Baker & Bufka, 2011; Baltimore, 2000; McMinn et al., 2008;
Van Allen & Roberts, 2011; Zur, 2010). As a result, every conversation about
using technology in practice must discuss ethics and ethical decision-making
(McMinn et al., 2008). Centore and Milacci (2008), who studied distance
counseling, reported that counselors experienced decreased ability to fulfill
their ethical duties for all types of distance counseling, which underscores
the need for training on the ethical issues in using technology in practice.
Studies addressing best practices for specific types of technology (Baker &
Bufka, 2011), including TM, are lacking.

This article explores TM benefits and ethical concerns for counselors
in private practice and offers guidelines for personal best practices. It reviews
the literature on use of technology in private practice and of TM for clinical
interventions. Spécifie clinical benefits and ethical concerns are outlined.
Although they are likely to use TM to communicate with clients, because
private practitioners are not likely to have received technology training,
they have the greatest need to manage ethical risks carefully. As Bradley,
Hendricks, Lock, Whiting, and Parr (2011) said about e-mail, my purpose is
not to decide for counselors whether or not they should use TM in private
practice but rather to raise awareness of ethical concerns to help them make
more informed decisions.

RESEARCH ON USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN PRACTICE

Private Practice
McMinn, Buchanan, Ellens, and Ryan (1999) conducted one ofthe

earliest studies on use of technology in private mental health practice (N =
429). Behaviors cited most often as unethical were compromising client con-
fidentiality by allowing others to access client information and conducting
any clinical services online or through email.

In another early study, Negretti and Wieling (2001) explored issues for
marriage and family therapists (N = 42) in terms of boundaries, being avail-
able to clients out of session, and engaging in ethical practice. Only 50% of
the clinicians then surveyed used email and only 36% cell phones, compared
to 40% who used pagers. None ofthe respondents who gave out their email
addresses reported charging for email interactions, and only 13% who used it
warned clients about confidentiality’ and privacy risks.

212

Text Messaging and Private Practice

Recently, McMinn, Bearse, Heyne, Smithberger, and Erb (2011) exam-
ined the responses of private psychologists (N = 296) to questions about the
ethical implications of technology use, including email, cell phones, and
TM. Respondents most often reported using cell phones to provide clinical
services and store client contact information, and scheduling appointments
through email. The biggest ethical concerns were providing clinical services
via TM and email.

Perceptions of Technology Use

Centore and Milacci (2008) surveyed clinicians about how they used
different fypes of distance counseling. Online, real time text-chat was
reported by 5.6% of participants and 28.1% reported using email; of all fypes
attitudes toward text-chat were most negative, among them perceptions of
decreased abilify for counselors to build rapport with clients and decreased
abilify to assess and treat clinical issues and deal with crises.

Two studies (Haberstroh, Duffy, Evans, Cee, & Trepal, 2007; Leibert,
Archer, Munson, & York, 2006) investigated client perceptions of technol-
ogy-mediated counseling. Leibert et al. (2006) found that email and instant
messaging (IM) were the most common fypes of communication reported,
and both studies reported convenience and privacy/comfort as benefits.
Participants in both reported that the lack of audio/visual cues impacted
interactions, but anonymify provided safefy for self-disclosure (Haberstroh et
al., 2007; Leibert et al., 2006).

TEXT MESSAGING AND OTHER TEXT-BASED COMMUNIGATION

Two reviews of TM in clinical practice (Militello et al., 2012; Wei,
Hollin, & Kachnowski, 2011) concluded that it may be a helpful adjunct to
FTE services; however, the limitations of the few studies make it impossible
to draw clear conclusions about its clinical effectiveness. Recent studies
were related to crisis intervention (Coss & Ferns, 2010) and eating dis s
(Bauer, Okon, Meermann, & Kordy, 2012; Shapiro etal., 2010). TM may also
help prevent relapse after termination (Aguilera & Munoz, 2011; Shapiro &
Bauer, 2010; Shapiro et al., 2010); initiate search for mental health services
(Coss & Ferns, 2010; Joyee & Weibelzahl, 2011); and help individuals pursue
outpatient services after inpatient treatment (Bauer et al., 2012).

Furber et al. (2011) studied TM between youth in treatment and thera-
pists and discovered that most of the interaction dealt with coordinating FTF
meetings. In a small pilot study, patients in a psychotherapy group reported
that TM helped with attendance (Aguilera & Munoz, 2011). In a much
larger pilot study in the United Kingdom (UK), sending clients text messages
several days before scheduled appointments improved attendance 25-28%. If

213

the rates for the clinics studied were extended to the entire UK, the annual
national savings would be close to US$250 million (Sims et al., 2012).

No other published research into individual counselors sending and
receiving text messages with clients could be found. In other words, all the
studies listed involve programmable software that manages sending text mes-
sages to certain populations or clientele at certain days and times. Gounselors
in private practice will likely not have the training or the software for that;
they will probably be sharing TM through their cell phones. More research is
therefore needed on the benefits and risks of TM interactions for counselors
in private practice.

Advantages of Text-Based Interactions
Electronic text-based interactions include TM, IM, and email, which

all have benefits for both clients and counselors. One advantage is flexi-
bility (Shapiro et al., 2010); text-based communication may be used both
synchronously (immediate response) and asynchronously (lag time between
responses; Suler, 2000). Also, the stigma of speaking with a counselor is less-
ened because ofthe anonymity of text-only interactions (Gentore & Milacci,
2008; Suler, 2000), which may lead clients both to be more candid (Suler,
2000) and to experience increased ownership of the counseling process
(Gentore & Milacci, 2008). The pace and process of writing in asynchronous
interactions can, like journaling, help clients process and express thoughts
and feelings (Gentore & Milacci, 2008; Haberstroh et al., 2007; Suler,
2000). Some clients may express themselves better in writing (Suler, 2000),
and text-based counseling helps clients feel less pressure about disclosing
(Haberstroh et al., 2007; Suler, 2000).

Beyond the clinical benefits, cell phones are so common that they
attract little attention from others, so individuals can use them with little fear
of social stigma (Boschen, 2009; Gentore & Milacci, 2008). TM, in particu-
lar, is widely available (Militello et al., 2012) because it costs little (Aguilera
& Muñoz, 2011; Boschen, 2009; Boschen & Gasey, 2008; Shapiro et al.,
2010) and does not require a smartphone (Aguilera & Muñoz, 2011). TM is
also convenient (Goss & Ferns, 2010; Shapiro et al., 2010); is accessible at
any time (Boschen, 2009; Gentore & Milacci, 2008; Militello et al., 2012;
Shapiro et al., 2010); and offers privacy and anonymity (Goss & Ferns, 2010).
Individuals who are highly sensitive to others’ perceptions or reactions may
prefer a method of communicating that feels safer (Gentore & Milacci, 2008;
Haberstroh et al., 2008; Leibert et al., 2006).

For counselors, text-based interactions are easily documented (Suler,
2000). Haberstroh et al. (2008) reported among the clinical advantages the
ability to review the transcript ofthe interactions during the session to clarify

214

Text Messaging and Private Practice

previous wording, and the slower pace allowing more time to reflect on the
clinician’s own responses.

TM also offers the ability to have regular contact between sessions
(Aguilera & Muñoz, 2011) and to remind clients of skills learned ETE to
help prevent relapse between meetings (Boschen, 2009). Eor administrative
tasks like scheduling, cancelling, or rescheduling appointments and sending
billing or appointment reminders, TM can save private counselors time
beeause it can be read and responded to asynchronously (Boschen, 2009;
Sims e t a l , 2012).

Eor some elients TM can also serve as a transitional object or a tangible
way to remain connected to the counselor (Neimark, 2009). TM may help
elients through the times between therapy sessions, much like ealling a
eounselor’s voice mail and leaving messages that do not need to be returned
(Gutheil & Simon, 2005). Texts from counselors to clients also serve as
transitional objects, similar to the letter-writing common in narrative therapy
(Winek, 2010).

In family counseling, TM can help family members who struggle to
interact with eaeh other in real time. Asynchronous TM allows them to take
time to make meaning of messages received and to formulate responses that
can be edited before being sent. The counselor can be eopied on messages
between family members so that there is no eonfusion about the words eom-
munieated, and so that there is a monitor of the communication. Koocher
(2009) described using email with separated or divorced parents to commu-
nicate about visitation schedules and other parenting issues.

TM has also been cited as a particularly helpful adjunct for Gognitive-
Behavioral Therapy (GBT; Boschen, 2009; Boschen & Gasey, 2008; Shapiro
& Bauer, 2010). It can be used for self-monitoring (Boschen & Gasey, 2008;
Shapiro & Bauer, 2010) and to report on or complete homework (Boschen,
2009; Boschen & Gasey, 2008; Shapiro & Bauer, 2010). TM lessens the
possible shame of carrying around paper and pen and allows clients to
send counselors information and reeeive feedback more quickly (Shapiro
et al., 2010). TM time and date stamping helps keep the information being
exchanged more accurate than is possible with journals (Shapiro & Bauer,
2010). Messages can be sent at set times and can be helpful when ETE or
phone contact is not possible or appropriate. Asked by TM for information,
counselors can respond immediately, respond later, and store communica-
tions electronically (Boschen & Gasey, 2008). Einally, as distance counsel-
ing, TM is an option for clients who live in rural areas or cannot leave home
because of disability or illness (Gentore & Milacci, 2008).

215

Limitations of Text-Based Interactions
One limitation is the lack of a sense of therapeutic presence (McAdams

& Wyatt, 2010; Suler, 2000)—clients may have difficulty feeling connected
to counselors because there are no audio or visual cues (Centore & Milaeci,
2008; Haberstroh et al., 2007; Haberstroh et al., 2008; Siiler, 2000). They
may also feel less understood, less cared for, and less safe (Centore & Milaeci,
2008). Text-based interactions may also lack spontaneity (Suler, 2000), and
the slower pace eould limit disclosure (Haberstroh et al., 2007).

Another limitation can be the technology itself (Haberstroh et al.,
2007; Haberstroh et al., 2008). TM technology can fail, so that messages are
never sent or received (Shapiro & Bauer, 2010). Also, some clients may not
know how to use cell phones or be able to read messages because of limited
eyesight, and some may be unable to afford TM (Aguilera & Muñoz, 2011;
Shapiro & Bauer, 2010).

The main limitations of TM interactions are the ethical concerns they
raise and the lack of regulations and ethical guidelines for best practices.
Wliat follows addresses the guidelines that do exist and then explores specific
issues that are important for counselors to consider if they choose to use TM
in private practice. The last section suggests best practices for each of the
ethical concerns raised.

Ethical and Regulatory Guidelines
Technology evolves so quickly that state regulatory boards and profes-

sional organizations may never be able to provide guidance for using specific
types in practice (McAdams & Wyatt, 2010; McMinn etal., 2008; Nicholson,
2011; Van Allen & Roberts, 2011). However, some state boards and pro-
fessional organizations do provide general guidance for doing so (Baker &
Bufka, 2011; McAdams & Wyatt, 2010).

Bradley etal. (2011) noted that the American Mental Health Counselors
Association (AMHCA) Code of Ethics (2010) is current on providing guid-
ance for the use of technology. The seetion dedicated to technology-assisted
counseling provides guidelines for preserving confidentiality when transmit-
ting and storing information electronically. The AMHCA has also published
a white paper (2012) as a companion to the Code of Ethics (2010) that makes
recommendations for technology-assisted counseling. The white paper
recommends, for instance, that counselors be “technologically savvy in the
modality of communication being used,” plan for crises and use with at-risk
clients, and encrypt all text-based communication.

The American Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics (2005)
also has guidelines for counselors using technology in practice. It addresses
confidentiality, encryption, counselor competence, appropriateness for treat-

216

Text Messaging and Private Practice

ment, emergency protocols, expectations of responses, and billing policies
(Bradley et al., 2011; Trepal, Heberstroh, Duffey, & Evans, 2007).

Furthermore, as of mid- to late-2008, 14 state boards had issued reg-
ulations for technology-assisted counseling, and 20 more were drafting or
discussing such regulations (McAdams & Wyatt, 2010). Ten states have pro-
hibited technology use, and many boards have supported it conditioned on
special circumstances (McAdams & Wyatt, 2010).

ETHICAL CONCERNS FOR PRIVATE COUNSELORS

Although counselors can currently use several types of technology
in practice, many have little understanding of the associated ethical risks
(McAdams & Wyatt, 2010). For eounselors using TM as an adjunct to FTF
services, ethical concerns include confldentialify, documentation, counselor
competence, appropriateness of use, and misinterpretation. Boundary issues
to consider include multiple relationships, counselor availability, and billing.

Confidentiality
The primary ethieal concern for counselors who use TM is informa-

tion security (Bosehen & Casey, 2008; Merz, 2010) because ofthe risk of
violating client eonfidentialify (Bradley et al., 2011; Furber et a l , 2011; Zur,
2010). Among TM identifleation problems are not knowing whether a elient
is alone when receiving a text, whether the client is actually the one texting,
and whether someone else has access to the client phone and saved conver-
sations (Suler, 2000). Like email (Barnett & Scheetz, 2003), text messages
are more like postcards than private letters and, like voice mail, clients may
assume that only counselors can access them (McMinn et al., 1999). Also
like email (Cutheil & Simon, 2005; Van Allen & Roberts, 2011), they can
accidently be sent to the wrong person.

Portable electronics and the information stored on them can be easily
lost or stolen (Van Allen & Roberts, 2011; Zur & Barnett, 2008), and even the
digital contact list on a counselor’s cell phone can compromise eonfidential-
ify. Finally, keeping information confidential is not completely in the control
ofthe phone owner (Van Allen & Roberts, 2011). For example, counselors
need to consider the risk to confldentialify if TM is intercepted by hackers
(Merz, 2010).

Documentation
Besides protecting the information exchanged, counselors need to

know how to securely document and store text messages. McMinn et al.
(2008) questioned what constitutes secure password protection or encryption
for electronic records storage and transfer, and what can be done to ensure

217

that confidential information cannot be retrieved when electronic devices
are disposed of. As clinical contacts (Zur, 2010), like e-mail (Bradley &
Hendricks, 2009; Gutheil & Simon, 2005; Zur, 2008, 2010), text messages
can be subpoenaed as part ofa client’s file. Providers also must be prepared
for technology “death” and have secure backup services and a protocol for
disposing of dead technology (McMinn et al., 1999).

The counselor must give precedence to the client’s rights to privacy and
confidentiality over any personal convenience (Nicholson, 2011), and how to
do this for TM is not clear. For example, email should be printed and placed
with notes, but it is more like a transcript than a session summary (Gutheil
& Simon, 2005). TM is a transcript of interaction as well, but may have less
information because of the character limits.

Counselor Competence, Appropriateness, and Misinterpretation
Beyond confidentiality, there are ethical concerns related to counselor

competence, the appropriateness of using TM, and misinterpretation of
interactions. Gounselors are rarely prepared or trained to use technology
properly within professional relationships (Neimark, 2009; Van Allen &
Roberts, 2011). For instance, as Haberstroh et al. (2008) noted for online
counseling, TM leaves open the possibility of interacting with several clients
at the same time, which can lead to distractions and mistakes.

Once counselors are trained to use TM, they will need to decide
what types of interactions to use it for. TM can be a quick way to contact
counselors in crisis situations, any day or time, but Haberstroh et al. (2008)
reported on situations when text-based interactions may not be appropriate,
and self-harm was one. There are also practical barriers to the use of TM in
emergencies. Gounselors may not receive messages immediately or be able to
reach clients in crisis (Shapiro & Bauer, 2010), and neither party may know
whether messages were received. In short, counselors must determine when
and how it is appropriate to use TM with clients.

There is also a higher chance of misinterpretation, misunderstandings,
and confusion in text-based communication, especially with culture-specific
language and a lack of audio or visual cues (Baltimore, 2000; Barnett &
Scheetz, 2003; Koocher, 2009). Glient difficulties with expressing themselves
in writing (Suler, 2000) may be magnified in TM because it is so hard to
explain something lengthy or complex in a limited space (Shapiro & Bauer,
2010). Moreover, the lack of audio or visual cues may limit ability to make
meaning of interactions, so counselors must be able to tolerate ambiguity
(Trepal et al., 2007) and check out assumptions.

218

Text Messaging and Private Practice

Boundary Concerns

One possibility for misinterpretation is the counseling relationship
being interpreted differently. Counselors must be careful to avoid treating
electronic communication with clients as off the record or casual. The possi-
bility that casual or informal interactions might lead to boundary confusion
for clients has been explored for email (Bradley et al., 2011; Cutheil &
Simon, 2005), and the risk is higher with TM because it is less common in
professional relationships. Counselors may also reeeive inappropriate mes-
sages from clients by mistake, or because TM is disinhibiting (Suler, 2000).

Furthermore, interactions through TM can be time-consuming, and
there is less time for actual exchange than in the same amount of FTF time
(Trepal et a l , 2007). This is a consideration for billing: Should TM be billed
per text? per minute? or how? (Zur, 2008).

Cutheil and Simon (2005) raised concerns about billing for email inter-
actions with clients. If email contact is not billed, clients could interpret it as
social interaction. Failure to bill for clinical emails could also lead to issues
of countertransferenee if counselors come to feel resentful. Furthermore,
counselors who fail to bill for email contact could be unknowingly collud-
ing with clients to extend sessions. For example, many emails, ranging from
long stories to seemingly easy questions expressed in one sentence, can take
a great deal of time to read and respond to (Cutheil & Simon, 2005; Zur,
2008). This can fit for TM as well, because one limitation of asynchronous
communication is boundary confusion around appointments (Suler, 2000).
Time spent communicating with clients through asynchronous communica-
tion must be established by counselors (Bradley & Hendricks, 2009; Bradley
et a l , 2011; Negretti & Wieling, 2001; Shapiro & Bauer, 2010; Zur, 2008) in
to model self-care and boundaries. Counselors will need to determine
personal best practices based on how they feel about being available outside
of session.

CUIDELINES FOR PERSONAL BEST PRACTICES

Van Allen and Roberts (2011) stated that newer generations of mental
health professionals, who have grown up with modern technology, often
are naive about its privacy, security, and professional implications. In other
words, familiarity with technology does not mean that counselors know how
to avoid professional problems. Clinicians tend to use new forms of tech-
nology in practice before fully understanding the risks. They do not need to
become experts but should understand the technology they are using, weigh
risks as well as benefits, and make decisions in terms of upholding ethical
codes and regulations—the ethical responsibility always lies with the pro-
fessional (McAdams & Wyatt, 2010; Nicholson, 2011; Van Allen & Roberts,

219

2011). The following section addresses specific issues already raised, but first
addressed are general recommendations for private counselors who use TM.

The basic decision private counselors must make is whether or not to
use separate cell phones for their business and personal hves. For counsel-
ors in full-time private practice, a separate business phone may make sense
because of the volume of contacts. Part-time counselors may choose to use
their personal cell phone to conduct business, designate their voice mails
“confidential,” and provide emergency contacts for clients in crisis. However,
it is recommended that counselors not use personal cell phones for clinical
practice in to protect the data exchanged, the therapist’s privacy, and
clinical boundaries (Shapiro & Bauer, 2010).

After securing a separate business cell phone, counselors should find
out what technology-assisted services are covered by their hability insurance
before using the phone as an adjunct to FTF practice (Baker & Bufka, 2011;
Bradley & Hendrieks, 2009; Bradley et al., 2011). This is vital. Counselors
working in agencies often have guidelines for how they can and cannot inter-
act with clients, but private counselors decide for themselves.

If covered by liability insurance, the third step is for counselors to write
up consent policies addressing technology-assisted services (Baker & Bufka,
2011; Barnett & Scheetz, 2003; Bradley & Hendrieks, 2009; Bradley et al.,
2011; Merz, 2010; Negretti & Wieling, 2001; Trepal etal., 2007; Van Allen
& Roberts, 2011; Zur, 2008, 2010; Zur & Barnett, 2008). Signed client
informed consent is one ofthe clearest ways to manage risk and limit liabil-
ity, and it allows clients to make informed choices about clinical services.
The policies should be reviewed in a conversation at the start of services
and periodically thereafter (Barnett & Scheetz, 2003; Bradley & Hendrieks,
2009; Bradley et al., 2011; Merz, 2010; Trepal et al., 2007; Zur, 2008; Zur &
Barnett, 2008). Each counselor must decide what the policies should cover.

Most state boards agree that the policies should inform clients of what
can be expected in terms of technology-assisted services (McAdams & Wyatt,
2010). Policies should address confidentiality (Baltimore, 2000; Barnett &
Scheetz, 2003; McAdams & Wyatt, 2010; Trepal et al., 2007; Zur, 2008,
2010); security measures to protect electronic information (Zur, 2010; Zur &
Barnett, 2008); how to handle emergencies (Bradley et al., 2011; McAdams
& Wyatt, 2010; Zur, 2008); what is appropriate to send to a counselor
electronically (Baltimore, 2000; Bradley & Hendrieks, 2009; Zur, 2008);
appropriate times and ways to contact the therapist out of session (Negretti &
Wieling, 2001); the times and frequencies when the therapist will communi-
cate out of session (Bradley & Hendrieks, 2009; Bradley et al., 2011; Negretti
& Wieling, 2001; Zur, 2008); and fees or billing policies for non-FTF contact
(Bradley et al., 2011; Negretti & Wieling, 2001; Zur, 2008). The following

220

Text Messaging and Private Practice

subsections explore guidelines for drafting personal best practices for these
specific ethical issues.

Confidentiality
As with email (Bradley et a l , 2011), counselors must inform clients that

third parties may be able to access electronic interactions. Private counselors
can do several things to help protect the information transmitted and stored
on cell phones. Zur and Barnett (2008) provided practical recommendations
for protecting portable electronic devices, sueh as removing unnecessary files
when traveling, never leaving deviees unattended, and never letting anyone
borrow them.

The SIM card in cell phones stores text messages, so password security
for cell phones is also recommended. Furthermore, eounselors should send
and read text messages in private; eell phones should have spyware and
antivirus software to help ensure privaey (Merz, 2010); and settings should
be adjusted so that messages do not appear when the phone is locked. On
some cell phones counselors and elients can also set an option to send
“read receipts” that will help both parties know whether text messages were
received.

The use of a secure server and software that manages the texting is rec-
ommended (Shapiro & Bauer, 2010), and any digitally stored information
on portable devices should be without identifiable confidential information
(Nieholson, 2011). Although it would be more convenient for counselors to
store contacts by full names, it is recommended that they use only initials.
Furthermore, passwords for files are insufficient; counselors should learn
to code or enerypt confidential data stored on portable electronic devices
(Boschen & Casey, 2008; Nicholson, 2011) and transmitted electronically
(Trepal et a l , 2007).

Counselors can encrypt messages using technology from cellular serviee
providers or using third parties (Merz, 2010). …