This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between maintaining client confidentiality, fulfilling legal reporting obligations, and ensuring the ethical delivery of telepsychology services. The psychologist must navigate these competing demands while adhering to the specific legal and ethical frameworks governing substance use reporting and telepsychology in Sub-Saharan Africa, without referencing external jurisdictions. The need for accurate documentation is paramount, as it forms the basis for any reporting and serves as a record of treatment. The best approach involves a multi-faceted strategy that prioritizes informed consent, clear documentation, and adherence to reporting thresholds. This includes obtaining explicit, written consent from the youth client regarding telepsychology services and the conditions under which information might be reported. Documentation should meticulously record session content, the client’s substance use patterns, and the psychologist’s clinical assessment of risk. Crucially, the psychologist must be aware of and apply the specific legal reporting thresholds for substance use in the relevant Sub-Saharan African jurisdiction. If the client’s reported substance use meets these legal thresholds for mandatory reporting (e.g., posing an immediate danger to self or others, or involving specific substances or age groups as defined by local law), the psychologist must then follow the prescribed reporting procedures, which typically involve notifying designated authorities while maintaining client confidentiality as much as legally permissible. This approach ensures legal compliance, ethical practice, and client safety. An incorrect approach would be to assume that all instances of youth substance use require mandatory reporting without consulting the specific legal thresholds. This oversteps reporting requirements and violates client confidentiality unnecessarily. Another incorrect approach is to delay or omit documentation of substance use, which hinders accurate assessment, prevents timely reporting if required, and creates a liability risk. Furthermore, failing to obtain informed consent for telepsychology services, including outlining reporting protocols, is a significant ethical and legal breach, undermining the therapeutic alliance and client autonomy. Professionals should employ a decision-making process that begins with understanding the client’s presenting issues, including substance use. This is followed by a thorough review of the relevant legal and ethical guidelines pertaining to mandatory reporting and telepsychology in their specific Sub-Saharan African jurisdiction. Obtaining comprehensive informed consent is a prerequisite for initiating telepsychology. Documentation should be contemporaneous and detailed. When substance use is identified, the psychologist must critically assess it against the established legal reporting thresholds. If reporting is mandated, the psychologist must follow the prescribed procedures diligently, balancing legal obligations with ethical considerations of confidentiality and client welfare.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent vulnerability of youth substance use populations and the ethical imperative to protect their privacy and well-being. The psychologist must navigate the complex interplay between the need for effective treatment, the client’s right to confidentiality, and the potential risks associated with substance use. Careful judgment is required to balance these competing interests in a manner that upholds ethical standards and promotes the client’s best interests. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a direct, empathetic, and collaborative approach with the adolescent client. This entails initiating a conversation with the client about the observed changes in their behavior and expressed concerns, exploring their understanding of these changes, and collaboratively discussing potential underlying factors, including substance use. This approach respects the client’s autonomy, builds trust, and allows for a more accurate assessment of their needs and the development of an appropriate intervention plan. It aligns with ethical guidelines that prioritize client-centered care, informed consent, and the principle of beneficence, ensuring that interventions are tailored to the individual’s specific circumstances and developmental stage. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately reporting the suspected substance use to parents or guardians without first engaging the adolescent client. This breaches confidentiality without establishing a clear and present danger that necessitates such a disclosure. It undermines the therapeutic alliance, potentially leading to the client withdrawing from treatment and increasing their risk. Another incorrect approach is to dismiss the observed behaviors as typical adolescent rebellion without further investigation. This fails to acknowledge the potential severity of substance use and its impact on mental health, thereby neglecting the psychologist’s duty of care. It represents a failure to conduct a thorough assessment and could lead to delayed or inadequate intervention. A further incorrect approach is to focus solely on punitive measures or immediate cessation without exploring the underlying psychological factors contributing to the substance use. This overlooks the complex nature of addiction and the importance of addressing co-occurring mental health issues, potentially leading to relapse and long-term negative outcomes. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes client welfare and ethical conduct. This involves a thorough assessment of the situation, considering the client’s developmental stage, the nature of the observed behaviors, and potential risks. Building a strong therapeutic relationship based on trust and open communication is paramount. When concerns arise, the initial step should always be to engage the client directly and collaboratively explore the issues. Disclosure of confidential information should only occur when there is a clear and imminent risk of harm to the client or others, and even then, it should be done in accordance with legal and ethical guidelines, ideally with the client’s informed consent or after careful consideration of the necessity and potential consequences.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the complex interplay of biopsychosocial factors in adolescent substance use, requiring a nuanced understanding of developmental psychology and psychopathology. The clinician must navigate the ethical imperative to provide effective care while respecting the autonomy and confidentiality of a minor, particularly when parental involvement is complicated. Careful judgment is required to balance these competing considerations. The best professional practice involves a comprehensive assessment that integrates biological, psychological, and social factors, while also considering the adolescent’s developmental stage and any co-occurring psychopathology. This approach aligns with the principles of evidence-based practice, which emphasizes understanding the multifaceted nature of substance use disorders. Ethically, this approach prioritizes the adolescent’s well-being by seeking to understand the root causes of their substance use, which may include underlying mental health conditions or developmental challenges. It also allows for tailored interventions that address the individual’s specific needs within their social context, respecting their developing autonomy while also engaging appropriate support systems. An approach that solely focuses on immediate cessation of substance use without exploring underlying psychological distress or developmental issues would be professionally unacceptable. This failure to consider the biopsychosocial model neglects the complex etiology of adolescent substance use and may lead to superficial interventions that do not address the core problems, potentially exacerbating psychopathology or hindering healthy development. Another professionally unacceptable approach would be to exclusively rely on parental directives without adequately assessing the adolescent’s perspective or developmental capacity to participate in decision-making. This disregards the adolescent’s evolving autonomy and the potential for their substance use to be a symptom of unmet needs or distress that parents may not fully perceive or understand. It also risks alienating the adolescent, making them less likely to engage in treatment. A third professionally unacceptable approach would be to attribute the substance use solely to a diagnosed psychopathology without considering the broader social and developmental context. While psychopathology is a critical component, a singular focus can lead to a reductionist understanding of the problem, overlooking environmental stressors, peer influences, or developmental transitions that contribute to substance use. This can result in treatment plans that are misaligned with the adolescent’s lived experience. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough biopsychosocial assessment, considering the adolescent’s developmental stage and any identified psychopathology. This assessment should inform a collaborative treatment plan developed with the adolescent, respecting their evolving autonomy, and involving parents or guardians appropriately based on the adolescent’s capacity and legal requirements. Continuous re-evaluation of the adolescent’s progress and needs is crucial, adapting the intervention as necessary.

This scenario presents a common professional challenge in youth substance use psychology: tailoring evidence-based psychotherapies to the complex needs of adolescents while adhering to ethical guidelines and best practices for integrated care. The challenge lies in balancing the efficacy of specific therapeutic modalities with the individual’s developmental stage, co-occurring mental health conditions, family dynamics, and the need for a holistic treatment plan. Careful judgment is required to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach and to ensure interventions are culturally sensitive and developmentally appropriate. The best professional practice involves a comprehensive assessment to inform an integrated treatment plan that prioritizes evidence-based psychotherapies tailored to the adolescent’s specific needs, including co-occurring disorders. This approach recognizes that substance use in youth is often symptomatic of underlying issues and requires a multi-faceted intervention. It aligns with ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence by ensuring interventions are maximally effective and minimize harm. Furthermore, it reflects best practice in adolescent mental health care, which emphasizes individualized, family-inclusive, and evidence-informed treatment. This approach is also consistent with the principles of integrated care, aiming to address all aspects of the adolescent’s well-being. An approach that focuses solely on a single evidence-based psychotherapy without a thorough assessment of co-occurring conditions or family involvement is professionally unacceptable. This failure to conduct a comprehensive assessment risks misdiagnosis or incomplete treatment, potentially leading to relapse or the exacerbation of untreated mental health issues. It neglects the ethical imperative to provide holistic care and may violate professional standards that advocate for integrated treatment planning for complex adolescent presentations. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to implement a treatment plan that relies on anecdotal evidence or therapies not supported by robust research for adolescent substance use. This disregards the core principle of using evidence-based practices, which are established through rigorous scientific inquiry. Such an approach risks employing ineffective or even harmful interventions, failing to meet the ethical obligation to provide competent care and potentially causing harm to the adolescent. Finally, an approach that prioritizes symptom management of substance use without addressing underlying psychological distress or developmental challenges is also professionally inadequate. This narrow focus fails to recognize the biopsychosocial nature of adolescent substance use. It neglects the ethical responsibility to treat the whole person and may lead to superficial improvements that do not address the root causes of the substance use, thus increasing the likelihood of long-term difficulties. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making framework that begins with a thorough, multi-dimensional assessment. This assessment should encompass the adolescent’s substance use patterns, mental health status (including co-occurring disorders), family environment, social support, and developmental stage. Following the assessment, professionals should consult current evidence-based guidelines and research to identify appropriate psychotherapeutic modalities. The treatment plan should then be collaboratively developed with the adolescent and their family, integrating various therapeutic approaches and support services as needed, with ongoing monitoring and adjustment based on the adolescent’s progress.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the fellow to balance the immediate need for intervention with the ethical and scientific imperative of using validated assessment tools. The pressure to provide a diagnosis and treatment plan quickly, especially in a resource-limited setting, can lead to shortcuts that compromise the quality and validity of the assessment. The fellow must navigate the complexities of selecting appropriate instruments for a specific cultural context and age group, ensuring that the chosen tools are not only psychometrically sound but also culturally relevant and ethically administered. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic approach to test selection that prioritizes psychometric properties and cultural appropriateness. This begins with a thorough review of existing, validated assessment tools that have demonstrated reliability and validity within similar cultural contexts and for the target age group. The fellow should then consider the specific presenting concerns and the theoretical framework guiding the assessment. If no existing tool is perfectly suitable, the next step would be to adapt or develop a new instrument, which requires rigorous piloting, validation, and adherence to ethical guidelines for test development. This approach ensures that the assessment is scientifically sound, ethically defensible, and provides the most accurate and useful information for diagnosis and treatment planning. This aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, ensuring that interventions are based on accurate information and do not cause harm due to misdiagnosis or inappropriate treatment. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately administering a widely recognized, but potentially culturally inappropriate, assessment tool without prior validation or adaptation. This fails to account for cultural nuances that can significantly impact test performance and interpretation, potentially leading to misdiagnosis and ineffective interventions. Ethically, this violates the principle of justice by not ensuring equitable assessment for all individuals, regardless of their cultural background. Another incorrect approach is to rely solely on clinical observation and unstructured interviews without the support of standardized, psychometrically sound instruments. While clinical judgment is crucial, it can be subjective and prone to bias. Without validated measures, the assessment may lack objectivity, reliability, and validity, making it difficult to establish a clear diagnosis or track progress effectively. This approach risks providing a superficial understanding of the youth’s psychological state. A third incorrect approach is to hastily adapt an existing assessment tool without proper validation procedures. While adaptation might seem practical, skipping rigorous piloting, reliability testing, and validity studies can result in a tool that is no longer psychometrically sound. This can lead to inaccurate results and undermine the credibility of the assessment process, potentially causing harm to the youth by leading to inappropriate treatment decisions. Professional Reasoning: Professionals faced with similar situations should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes ethical considerations and scientific rigor. This involves: 1) Clearly defining the assessment objectives and the specific psychological constructs to be measured. 2) Conducting a comprehensive literature review to identify existing, validated assessment tools relevant to the target population and context. 3) Critically evaluating the psychometric properties (reliability, validity) and cultural appropriateness of potential instruments. 4) If necessary, planning for the adaptation or development of new instruments, ensuring adherence to established guidelines for test construction and validation. 5) Prioritizing the well-being and rights of the individual being assessed throughout the entire process.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a nuanced understanding of the fellowship’s purpose and eligibility criteria, particularly when faced with a candidate who may possess valuable experience but does not strictly meet all formal requirements. The challenge lies in balancing the need to uphold the integrity and intended scope of the fellowship with the potential to nurture promising talent who could significantly contribute to youth substance use psychology in Sub-Saharan Africa. Careful judgment is required to avoid both arbitrary exclusion and the dilution of the fellowship’s objectives. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a thorough review of the candidate’s application against the stated purpose and eligibility criteria of the Comprehensive Sub-Saharan Africa Youth Substance Use Psychology Fellowship. This approach prioritizes understanding the fellowship’s overarching goals – to advance expertise in youth substance use psychology within the region – and then assessing how the candidate’s experience, even if unconventional, aligns with these goals. If the candidate demonstrates a strong potential to contribute to the fellowship’s mission through their existing work and a clear commitment to the field, despite not having a formal psychology degree, a case can be made for their eligibility, potentially through a supplementary review process or by considering equivalent experience as outlined in the fellowship’s guidelines or spirit. This aligns with the ethical principle of promoting professional development and addressing regional needs, while still respecting the established framework of the fellowship. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to automatically reject the candidate solely because they do not possess a formal psychology degree, without considering the fellowship’s purpose or the candidate’s relevant experience. This fails to acknowledge that the fellowship aims to build capacity in a specific area, and individuals with practical, impactful experience might be highly valuable, even if their academic path differs. This rigid adherence to a single criterion can stifle innovation and overlook individuals who could significantly benefit from and contribute to the fellowship. Another incorrect approach would be to bypass the established eligibility criteria entirely and admit the candidate without proper justification or consideration of the fellowship’s objectives. This undermines the fairness and integrity of the selection process and could lead to admitting individuals who are not well-suited for the program, potentially impacting the quality of the fellowship and its outcomes. It also sets a precedent that could lead to future challenges in maintaining consistent selection standards. A further incorrect approach would be to assume that any experience related to youth or substance use automatically qualifies the candidate, regardless of the depth of psychological understanding or the specific focus on youth substance use psychology. This dilutes the specialized nature of the fellowship and fails to ensure that admitted fellows possess the targeted knowledge and skills the program intends to cultivate. Professional Reasoning: Professionals faced with such situations should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a clear understanding of the program’s mission and objectives. This should be followed by a comprehensive evaluation of the candidate’s application, considering all provided evidence of experience, skills, and potential contribution. If there is a perceived mismatch between formal requirements and demonstrated potential, the next step is to consult the fellowship’s governing documents for any provisions regarding equivalent experience or discretionary review. If such provisions exist, a structured process for evaluating these should be initiated. If not, a recommendation for a formal review or clarification of eligibility criteria might be necessary, always prioritizing the fellowship’s core purpose and the equitable assessment of candidates.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves balancing the need to maintain program integrity and standards with the ethical considerations of supporting a candidate who may be struggling. The fellowship’s blueprint, scoring, and retake policies are designed to ensure a high standard of competence for future youth substance use psychologists. However, rigid adherence without considering individual circumstances can lead to unintended negative consequences for promising candidates. The fellowship must navigate these policies fairly while also demonstrating compassion and a commitment to professional development. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough review of the candidate’s performance against the established blueprint and scoring criteria, coupled with an individualized assessment of their potential for improvement. This approach acknowledges the existence of retake policies but emphasizes a nuanced evaluation. It requires understanding the specific areas of weakness identified in the candidate’s performance, exploring the reasons behind these weaknesses (e.g., test anxiety, external stressors, learning style mismatch), and determining if targeted support or a structured retake plan can realistically address these issues. This aligns with ethical principles of fairness, beneficence (acting in the best interest of the candidate’s development), and non-maleficence (avoiding unnecessary harm by prematurely disqualifying them). It also upholds the integrity of the fellowship by ensuring that any retake is based on a clear pathway to meeting the required standards. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately denying a retake based solely on the initial score falling below the passing threshold, without any further investigation or consideration of the candidate’s circumstances or potential for growth. This fails to acknowledge that retake policies often exist to provide a second chance for candidates who demonstrate potential but may have had an off day or require specific remediation. It can be seen as overly punitive and lacking in professional judgment, potentially violating principles of fairness and beneficence. Another incorrect approach is to grant an immediate, unconditional retake without any assessment of the reasons for the initial failure or a plan for improvement. While seemingly compassionate, this undermines the rigor of the fellowship’s evaluation process and the importance of the blueprint and scoring. It risks setting a precedent where standards are not consistently applied, potentially compromising the quality of future fellows and failing to adequately prepare the candidate for the demands of the profession. This approach neglects the responsibility to ensure competence and may not be in the long-term best interest of the candidate or the field. A further incorrect approach is to offer a retake but impose overly burdensome or unrelated remediation requirements that do not directly address the identified weaknesses in the candidate’s performance according to the blueprint. This can be perceived as arbitrary and unfair, creating unnecessary obstacles for the candidate and deviating from the intended purpose of the retake policy, which is to provide a structured opportunity to demonstrate mastery of the required competencies. Professional Reasoning: Professionals faced with such situations should employ a structured decision-making process. First, they must clearly understand the fellowship’s established policies regarding blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake procedures. Second, they should objectively assess the candidate’s performance against these established criteria, identifying specific areas of deficiency. Third, they should engage in a dialogue with the candidate to understand the contributing factors to their performance. Fourth, based on this comprehensive understanding, they should determine the most appropriate course of action, which may involve offering a structured retake with targeted remediation, or, if the deficiencies are fundamental and unresolvable within the policy framework, a decision to not offer a retake. This process prioritizes fairness, integrity, and the professional development of candidates.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexity of assessing substance use in adolescents, particularly when there are indicators of potential risk to self or others. The clinician must balance the need for comprehensive information gathering with the ethical imperative of client confidentiality and the developmental stage of the adolescent. Careful judgment is required to ensure the assessment is both clinically sound and ethically responsible, adhering to the principles of youth mental health services and child protection frameworks relevant to Sub-Saharan Africa. The most appropriate approach involves a multi-faceted strategy that prioritizes building rapport and gathering information collaboratively while remaining vigilant for risk indicators. This includes employing open-ended questions, active listening, and non-judgmental communication to encourage honest disclosure. Simultaneously, the clinician must be aware of and prepared to act upon any disclosed information that suggests a risk of harm to the adolescent or others, following established protocols for reporting and intervention. This approach aligns with ethical guidelines that emphasize the best interests of the child, the importance of therapeutic alliance, and the duty to protect vulnerable individuals. An approach that immediately focuses on interrogation and direct confrontation regarding substance use, without first establishing a trusting relationship, is likely to alienate the adolescent and hinder accurate assessment. This can lead to defensiveness, denial, and a failure to disclose crucial information, thereby compromising the formulation of an accurate risk assessment. Ethically, this method fails to respect the developmental needs of adolescents for trust and safety in therapeutic relationships. Another inappropriate approach would be to solely rely on information provided by a third party, such as a parent or guardian, without attempting direct engagement with the adolescent. While parental input is valuable, an assessment that bypasses the adolescent’s own voice and perspective is incomplete and potentially invalid. This neglects the principle of adolescent assent and autonomy where appropriate, and can lead to misinterpretations of the adolescent’s situation and needs. Finally, an approach that ignores potential risk indicators or fails to have a clear plan for responding to them would be professionally negligent. Substance use in adolescents can be associated with significant risks, and a failure to assess and address these risks, even if uncomfortable, violates the duty of care and ethical obligations to protect the young person. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with establishing a safe and trusting therapeutic environment. This involves using age-appropriate communication techniques and demonstrating empathy. The next step is to conduct a comprehensive assessment, gathering information from multiple sources where appropriate, but always prioritizing direct engagement with the adolescent. Throughout this process, continuous assessment for risk factors (self-harm, harm to others, exploitation) is paramount. If risk indicators are identified, the professional must follow established protocols for intervention, which may include involving parents/guardians, referral to specialized services, or reporting to child protection authorities, always in accordance with legal and ethical mandates.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a candidate to balance the need for thorough preparation with the practical constraints of time and available resources, all while adhering to the ethical and professional standards expected of a fellowship candidate. Misjudging the timeline or the effectiveness of preparation resources can lead to suboptimal performance, potentially impacting the candidate’s future career and the reputation of the fellowship program. The pressure to succeed can also lead to shortcuts or reliance on less effective methods, necessitating careful judgment. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a structured, phased preparation strategy that begins well in advance of the examination date, incorporating a diverse range of high-quality, fellowship-aligned resources. This includes systematically reviewing core psychological principles relevant to youth substance use, engaging with specific case studies and research pertinent to Sub-Saharan Africa, and practicing with mock examination questions that simulate the fellowship’s format and difficulty. This method ensures comprehensive coverage, allows for iterative learning and reinforcement, and builds confidence through simulated testing, directly aligning with the fellowship’s stated goal of assessing deep understanding and practical application. Adherence to recommended timelines, such as allocating at least three to six months for dedicated study, is crucial for mastering the breadth and depth of the material without undue stress. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on last-minute cramming, often just weeks before the exam, is a significant failure. This approach is unlikely to facilitate deep learning or retention of complex psychological concepts and their application to diverse youth populations in Sub-Saharan Africa. It bypasses the opportunity for critical reflection and integration of knowledge, which is essential for a fellowship-level assessment. Furthermore, using a narrow range of resources, such as only general textbooks without specific regional context or fellowship-tailored materials, limits the candidate’s exposure to the nuanced issues relevant to the fellowship’s scope. This can lead to a superficial understanding and an inability to address context-specific challenges. Another problematic approach is neglecting practice examinations or mock assessments. Without simulating the exam environment and question types, candidates cannot accurately gauge their readiness, identify knowledge gaps, or develop effective time management strategies for the actual examination. This oversight can result in poor performance due to unfamiliarity with the testing format rather than a lack of knowledge. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach fellowship preparation with a strategic mindset, akin to project management. This involves defining clear learning objectives, identifying and vetting appropriate resources, creating a realistic study schedule that incorporates buffer time, and regularly assessing progress through self-testing and feedback. Prioritizing understanding and application over rote memorization, and seeking out resources that offer regional specificity and practical relevance, are key to success. A proactive, structured, and resource-rich approach fosters confidence and ensures that the candidate is well-equipped to demonstrate their competence.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common challenge in consultation-liaison psychology within multidisciplinary teams, particularly in youth substance use settings. The core difficulty lies in balancing the need for comprehensive information gathering to inform effective treatment with the ethical and legal obligations of confidentiality, especially when dealing with minors and potentially sensitive family dynamics. The psychologist must navigate differing perspectives and priorities within the team, ensuring that their input is both clinically sound and ethically defensible, while also respecting the roles and expertise of other professionals. The urgency of the situation, implied by the need for immediate intervention, adds further pressure to the decision-making process. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves the psychologist initiating a direct, private conversation with the parents/guardians to explain the team’s concerns and the necessity of obtaining their consent for sharing specific, relevant information with the multidisciplinary team. This approach prioritizes informed consent, a cornerstone of ethical practice, particularly when dealing with minors. By engaging directly with the parents, the psychologist can clarify the scope of information required, explain how it will be used to benefit the youth, and address any parental concerns. This respects the parents’ rights and responsibilities while ensuring the team receives the necessary information for a coordinated care plan. This aligns with general ethical principles of autonomy and beneficence, and in many Sub-Saharan African contexts, cultural norms often emphasize family involvement in decision-making for minors, making this direct engagement crucial. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Sharing the detailed substance use history directly with the multidisciplinary team without first obtaining explicit parental consent, even if the psychologist believes it is clinically necessary, constitutes a breach of confidentiality. This violates the ethical principle of respecting client privacy and can erode trust between the psychologist, the youth, and their family. It also potentially contravenes local data protection and child welfare regulations that mandate parental involvement and consent for information sharing concerning minors. Presenting a generalized summary of “risk factors” to the team without any specific details about the youth’s substance use history, while seemingly protective of confidentiality, is insufficient for effective multidisciplinary collaboration. This approach fails to provide the team with the actionable information needed to develop a targeted intervention plan, thereby undermining the purpose of the consultation-liaison process and potentially delaying or compromising the youth’s care. It represents a failure in professional duty to advocate for the client’s comprehensive needs within the team setting. Approaching the team leader to unilaterally decide what information can be shared, bypassing direct communication with the parents, is ethically problematic. While team collaboration is important, the psychologist retains the primary ethical responsibility for managing client confidentiality. This approach abdicates that responsibility and risks making decisions that may not be in the best interest of the youth or their family, and could also lead to inter-professional conflict if the parents later discover information was shared without their knowledge. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes ethical principles, legal requirements, and client well-being. This involves: 1) Identifying the ethical and legal obligations (confidentiality, informed consent, duty of care). 2) Assessing the clinical need for information sharing and its potential impact on the client. 3) Exploring all avenues for obtaining consent, starting with direct communication with the client and/or their guardians. 4) If consent cannot be obtained, carefully considering legal exceptions or mandatory reporting requirements, always documenting the rationale. 5) Collaborating with the multidisciplinary team to understand their information needs while advocating for the client’s rights. 6) Maintaining clear and professional communication throughout the process.