The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
A Camel’s Nose Under the Tent? Some Australian Perspectives on Confidentiality and Social Work Practice
Abstract
This article examines contemporary meanings attributed to the ethical principle of confidentiality—a core practice dimension for social workers—in the context of current practice realities and legislative requirements. The meanings usually attributed to the term, together with Code of Practice requirements, are considered alongside the organizational and legal riders so frequently used to justify a stepping away from what clients may consider confidentiality to require. The particular difficulties associated for those in practice with families and children, and the implications of attention to best interests and paramount rights notions, are examined. The article concludes that, in lieu of a misleading commitment to confidentiality, the practitioner rather needs to commit to respectful and open dealing with client information.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Swain, P. A.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Phillip A. Swain
- Venue
- The British Journal of Social Work
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-01-01
- ISSN
- 0045-3102 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-263X
- OpenAlex
- W2139542267
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 1.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The British Journal of Social Work (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Social Sciences and Policies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Child Welfare and Adoption
- Keywords
- confidentiality, social work ethics, social work practice, Australian social work, social work legislation, code of practice, best interests, children's rights, family responsibilities, client information
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review