In March, 2020 the spread of COVID-19 quickly turned into a global public health pandemic. With enclosed public spaces no longer safe to occupy, the majority of psychologists’ work shifted to virtual, from private homes and spaces with video conferencing, phone calls, emails, and text messaging becoming the main means of communication. In contrast to in-person work, remote work can lead to a lack of clearly defined boundaries (e.g., physical, temporal, role, etc.), which can have implications on work, family or personal life, health, and well-being (Cho, 2020). Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, psychologists have had to embrace flexibility in how they conduct their work, whether in the role of practitioner, supervisor, administrator, etc. With this increased flexibility comes the need to ensure that psychologists’ practice remains consistent with The American Psychological Association’s (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereafter referred to as the Ethics Code; APA, 2017). Despite the spread of COVID-19 slowing, a complete return to “normal” practice is unlikely and psychologists need to prepare for remote work continuing in some capacity long-term. As such, a shift in thinking about boundaries and related ethical principles is needed. 

The physical boundaries of a work location (e.g., within a building or office) serve to signal where one’s work tasks are to be fulfilled. Remote work is typically completed in the home, though if network connections are obtained elsewhere, one may choose alternative spaces. Location flexibility can allow for greater dissemination of services to previously hard-to-reach populations (Zukor, 2021); however, complications can arise if individuals are “remotely” transported (such as while in a video conference) into spaces other than agreed upon locations. Specific to conducting a remote therapy session, clinical psychologist Zukor (2021) remarked, "I have ‘reminded’ more than one student that I am unwilling to conduct a therapy session while they are in line at the dining hall or local coffee shop, even if they have no personal reservations about their (very public) setting (pp. 3-4)." Standard 4.01 of the Ethics Code (Maintaining Confidentiality) states, “Psychologists have a primary obligation and take reasonable precautions to protect confidential information obtained through or stored in any medium” (APA, 2017). Thus, regardless of a client’s willingness to attend therapy in a given setting, the responsibility lies on the psychologist to protect a client’s confidentiality. 

Physical boundaries also serve to protect the sharing of information. When communication occurs within a defined location, parties are aware of who is present and, thus, privy to the information being shared. Remote work has led to greater risk for psychologists and those with whom they work gaining and sharing personal information that would not have been shared or revealed otherwise. This information can be obtained or revealed through unwelcomed interruptions by third-parties, digital risks, and visual cues. Third-parties, such as roommates, family members, or even strangers in ear-shot of a call may interrupt sessions or meetings. Whether done knowingly or accidentally, this puts those present at greater risk for unintended disclosures or interference with session protocols and interventions (Zukor, 2021). The full nature of digital risks to privacy as well as the protection against those risks are complicated and may not always be fully understood by practitioners and clients. As Chenneville and Schwartz-Mette (2020) pointed out, “Psychologists should be aware that clients, themselves, may be able to record sessions without psychologists’ knowledge or consent” (p. 647). The Ethics Code provides guidelines on protecting client’s privacy and use of digital recordings (see Standard 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality, and Standard 4.03, Recording; APA, 2017); however, the code lacks guidance around protecting a clinician’s privacy across digital platforms. Visual cues present in the background of a video session or meeting (e.g., clutter, a political flag or poster) could result in unintended sharing of personal or private information. 

Temporal boundaries have also become more diffuse with this shift in practice. For some psychologists, “demands on [their] time have increased, not decreased, during the pandemic” due to employers being “less mindful about scheduling meetings back-to-back or requiring work attendance and participation far beyond the once-valued boundaries of 8am to 5pm, Monday through Friday. Emails arrive at all hours of the day and often require some sort of response or acknowledgement" (Zukor, 2021, p. 2). Blurred temporal boundaries allow for greater flexibility in scheduling (Allen et al., 2021); however, with this benefit also comes risks. With remote work, there is no clear indication of the work-day ending and the risk for work time “bleeding” into personal time and vice versa is increased (Zukor, 2021). This may impact student trainees, employees, and others in relationships in which a power differential exists. Standard 3.08 of the Ethics Code (Exploitative Relationships) states, “Psychologists do not exploit persons over whom they have supervisory, evaluative or other authority such as clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, and employees” (APA, 2017). Students and trainees especially may struggle to say “no” to off hours requests given the power differential and concerns of being evaluated negatively, despite Standard 7.06 of the Ethics Code (Assessing Student and Supervisee Experience) stating, “Psychologists evaluate students and supervisees on the basis of their actual performance on relevant and established program requirements” (APA, 2017). 

Role boundaries determine what roles we allot our attention and efforts towards at a given time. Boundary diffusion due to remote work may positively impact the development of skills in role negotiations (Cho, 2020); however, it also establishes opportunity for multitasking (e.g., cooking dinner while in a meeting) which can have negative implications on performance. Studies have found that multitasking negatively impairs productivity and performance (Buser & Peter, 2012; Singh, 2014). Standard 2.03 of the Ethics Code (Maintaining Competence) states, “Psychologists undertake ongoing efforts to develop and maintain their competence” (APA, 2017). Adequate care and attention should be provided to mitigate risk of role boundary diffusion on competence. Allen et al. (2021) argued that it is one’s preference for segmentation (rigid boundaries between roles) and integration (loose boundaries between roles) that impacts work-life outcomes. If there is a misalignment in integration/segmentation preference and degree to which those preferences are met, work and family outcomes will suffer. 

Blurred psychological or work-life boundaries can have negative implications on mental health and well-being, especially in the context of a global pandemic. Boundary diffusion impairs work-life balance, which can be defined as the optimal levelness between achievement in work and enjoyment in personal life (Kumar & Chakraborty, 2013). With greater work-life balance comes increased satisfaction, effectiveness, efficiency, and morale in the workplace as well as reduced stress in home and work domains (Kumar & Chakraborty, 2013). Pluut and Wonders (2020) found that reduced work-life balance is associated with deterioration in healthy lifestyle behaviors (e.g., reduced physical activity, sleep quality, relaxation, and healthy eating) and, as a result of compromised health behaviors, happiness suffers. The stress of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the racial trauma and political conflict throughout 2020 has increased the United States’ need for mental health providers (APA, 2020; Restauri & Sheridan, 2020). However, as Clay (2020) noted, “[Psychologists] have all of these concerns ourselves, and then we have to also provide support as our patients struggle with them, too” (p. 1). The negative mental health and professional outcomes associated with blurred work-life boundaries directly impacting psychologists have the potential to indirectly harm clients. Standard 3.04 of the Ethics Code (Avoiding Harm) states, “Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.” 

Lastly, property boundaries have been blurred as a result of the pandemic (Desai et al., 2020; Zukor, 2021). Typically, when going into a physical work location, a work space and necessary materials and devices are provided. However, with remote work the responsibility and expectation has fallen on individuals to extend the use of their personal property to work purposes. This may pose a disproportionate strain on low-income or disadvantaged individuals who may not have the capacity or resources available to shift in this way. Student trainees may be impacted as well when training clinics have to loosen policies that formerly limited students’ use of their personal devices (e.g., cell phones) for clinical work (Desai et al., 2020). 

With the inevitability of future public crises and continued remote work, professional psychology would benefit from adapting its practices. Given the changing way psychologists work, there may be room for expanding the Ethics Code to include avoiding risk and harm specifically pertaining to work-life boundaries. For instance, Standard 4 of the Ethics Code (Privacy and Confidentiality) addresses the importance of protecting clients’ and research participants’ privacy, but not that of psychologists and trainees in remote settings. Future research should evaluate the long-term implications of boundary diffusion (Allen et al., 2021). This research could inform preventative interventions and practices for maintaining optimal work-life balance (Allen et al., 2021). 

To close, here are several tips for psychologists navigating boundary diffusion associated with remote work: 

• When working with clients:
  • Discuss the impact of remote work on confidentiality with clients as part of the informed consent process (Chenneville & Schwartz-Mette, 2020). Include discussion of third-parties, digital risks, and visual cues.
  • Explicitly review expectations for location boundaries with clients and how difficulties with this will be addressed (Chenneville & Schwartz-Mette, 2020).
• When working with employees and trainees:
  • Limit expectations for work outside of the established work-day despite ease of contact outside of these hours (Desai et al., 2020).
  • Discuss boundary expectations as part of an onboarding or orientation process.
  • Be mindful of the power differential in relationships and consider the impact of working and communicating outside of temporal boundaries and limits (Desai et al., 2020).
  • Provide additional support resources for those struggling with remote challenges (Pluut & Wonders, 2020)).
  • Consider adjusting work expectations to be responsive to integration/ segmentation preferences (Allen et al., 2021).
  • Attend to employee and trainee work-life balance through establishing clear work shifts and containing communications, expectations for responses, and deadlines within those shifts (Kumar & Chakraborty, 2013)
  • Consider expanding the availability of loanable devices to reduce financial and resource burden for those who need them. 

References

Allen, T. D., Merlo, K., Lawrence, R. C., Slutsky, J., & Gray, C. E. (2021). Boundary management and work‐nonwork balance while working from home. Applied Psychology. https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apps.12300?casa_token=5oWtfMLo6zAAAAAA%3ARBuKk1MJblr88y3l_OuRNHvdUOOxIG0eaiYfltH8CXOsQ6y6LkMqDJigbgXHSRKdtsUH-DY0oUcgoQ

American Psychological Association. (2020, November 17). Psychologists report large increase in demand for anxiety, depression treatment [Press release]. http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2020/11/anxiety-depression-treatment

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

Buser, T., & Peter, N. (2012). Multitasking. Experimental Economics, 15(4), 641-655.

Chenneville, T., & Schwartz-Mette, R. (2020). Ethical considerations for psychologists in the time of COVID-19. American Psychologist, 75(5), 644.

Cho, E. (2020). Examining boundaries to understand the impact of COVID-19 on vocational behaviors. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7205716/

Clay, R. A. (2020, July). Self-care has never been more important. Monitor on Psychology, 51(5). http://www.apa.org/monitor/2020/07/self-care

Desai, A., Lankford, C., & Schwartz, J. (2020). With crisis comes opportunity: Building ethical competencies in light of COVID-19. Ethics & Behavior, 30(6), 401-413.

Kumar, H., & Chakraborty, S. K. (2013). Work Life Balance (WLB): A key to organizational efficacy. Aweshkar Research Journal, 15(1). http://www.welingkar.org/

Pluut, H., & Wonders, J. (2020). Not able to lead a healthy life when you need it the most: Dual role of lifestyle behaviors in the association of blurred work-life boundaries with well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7786197/

Restauri, N., & Sheridan, A. D. (2020). Burnout and posttraumatic stress disorder in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: Intersection, impact, and interventions. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 17(7), 921-926.

Singh, D. K. C. (2014). Does multitasking improve performance? Evidence from the emergency department. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 16(2), 168-183.