| Course | NU 672 Counseling and Psychotherapy |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Boundary and self-disclosure review |
| Length | About 930 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 672 Unit 2
Five Pressures on the Frame in Twelve Weeks of Therapy for Panic Disorder: A Gift, a Follow Request, a Personal Question, an After-Hours Request, and a Car Ride
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 672: Counseling and Psychotherapy
Instructor Name
January 28, 2026
Five Pressures on the Frame in Twelve Weeks of Therapy for Panic Disorder: A Gift, a Follow Request, a Personal Question, an After-Hours Request, and a Car Ride
Framework
The patient, Ms. J., is a composite woman of 29 in cognitive behavioral therapy for panic disorder with agoraphobic avoidance, seen weekly by a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner. Over 12 weeks, five situations pressed on the frame of the therapy. Each is reviewed below: what happened, what she appeared to be asking for, what was done, and why. The review uses a widely cited distinction between boundary crossings, steps outside the usual frame that can be neutral or useful, and boundary violations, which exploit the patient or harm the therapy (Gutheil & Gabbard, 1993). Nurses' professional guidance frames the same question as keeping the relationship focused on the patient's needs rather than the nurse's (National Council of State Boards of Nursing [NCSBN], 2018).
1. The Banana Bread, Session 6
What happened: she arrived with a loaf of banana bread "for the office," saying she had baked for the first time in a year because she felt well enough.
What she appeared to be asking for: acknowledgment of her progress, and perhaps to give something back.
What was done: "Thank you. It sounds like baking again is its own sign of how things are changing. The front desk staff will enjoy it." The gift was accepted and shared with staff, and the moment was used to review what else she had resumed.
Why: a small, homemade gift offered in gratitude is a boundary crossing of low risk; refusing it would have been experienced as rejection at a moment of progress. Had gifts become frequent or costly, the pattern would have been explored in session.
2. The Social Media Request, Between Sessions 7 and 8
What happened: she sent a follow request to the nurse practitioner's personal social media account.
What she appeared to be asking for: a more personal connection, and perhaps reassurance that the relationship was real outside the office.
What was done: the request was not accepted, and it was raised at the next session: "I saw your request, and I wanted to talk about it rather than just ignore it. I keep my personal accounts separate from my work with patients, for everyone, so that our time here stays focused on you. I'm glad you feel connected to this work." She said she had felt embarrassed afterward; the conversation eased it.
Why: a social media connection would blur the relationship and expose both parties' personal lives; the response had to decline clearly without shaming her, and naming that the rule applies to everyone prevented her from hearing it as personal rejection.
3. "Have You Ever Had a Panic Attack?", Session 4
What happened: during education about the panic cycle, she asked, "Have you ever had one? You describe it like you know."
What she appeared to be asking for: reassurance that she was not unusual, and whether the therapist truly understood.
What was done: "I've had moments of intense anxiety, like most people, though not panic disorder the way you're living it. What I do know is how common these attacks are, and how well people recover from them. What made you wonder?" She said she worried the therapist thought she was exaggerating.
Why: a brief, honest disclosure, returned quickly to her concern, can strengthen the relationship; research on therapist self-disclosure suggests that disclosures that are infrequent, brief, and in the patient's interest tend to be experienced positively (Henretty & Levitt, 2010). A longer account of personal experience would have shifted the focus to the therapist.
4. The After-Hours Request, Session 9
What happened: she asked to move sessions to 7 p.m., after the clinic closes, so she would not miss work.
What she appeared to be asking for: help fitting therapy around her return to full-time work, itself a goal of treatment.
What was done: the request was declined for after-hours sessions, but an early morning slot at 7:30 a.m., within clinic hours, was offered and accepted.
Why: seeing a patient alone in an empty building after hours changes the frame and removes the safeguards of a staffed clinic; the underlying need was legitimate and was met another way.
5. The Highway Drive, Session 10
What happened: she asked whether the nurse practitioner would ride with her for her first highway drive, as part of exposure.
What she appeared to be asking for: support for the hardest step in her exposure hierarchy.
What was done: therapist-assisted exposure is an established part of treatment for agoraphobic avoidance, so the request was not refused out of hand. After consultation with the clinical supervisor and a check of clinic policy on off-site sessions, one assisted drive was scheduled during a regular session time, with a clear plan: a 20-minute highway segment and back, documented as a treatment session, with the goal of her driving the same route alone within a week. She did.
Why: this was a boundary crossing planned in the patient's interest, with consultation, documentation, a time limit, and a purpose tied directly to treatment goals, which distinguishes it from a violation.
What the Five Situations Share
Each request carried a meaning worth exploring, and in each case the response met the underlying need where it could without changing what the relationship is for. The decisions were documented at the time, and two, the social media request and the drive, were discussed with a supervisor. None was treated as a lapse by the patient; each became part of the therapy.
References
Gutheil, T. G., & Gabbard, G. O. (1993). The concept of boundaries in clinical practice: Theoretical and risk-management dimensions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150(2), 188-196. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.150.2.188
Henretty, J. R., & Levitt, H. M. (2010). The role of therapist self-disclosure in psychotherapy: A qualitative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(1), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.09.004
National Council of State Boards of Nursing. (2018). A nurse's guide to professional boundaries. National Council of State Boards of Nursing.
What the NU 672 Unit 2 instructions ask for
Unit 2 asks you to review boundary and self-disclosure situations in a therapeutic relationship. Expect to describe each situation, consider its meaning for the patient, choose a response and justify it with ethical codes and literature. Many versions ask whether self-disclosure is ever appropriate. Check how many situations your section expects. Use real codes, such as the ANA Code of Ethics and the NCSBN guide to professional boundaries, rather than general principles. Distinguish crossings, which may help when thoughtful, from violations, which harm. Each response should meet the patient's underlying need where possible, not simply refuse. Exploring what a request means is often as important as the decision itself, and it can move the therapy forward.
How this NU 672 Unit 2 example is built
The review opens with the framework, defining crossings and violations. Each situation then has four parts: what happened, what it might mean, the response and the reason. The gift section accepts a small item and explores what baking for the first time meant to her. The social media section declines clearly and discusses the request in the next session. The self-disclosure section answers briefly and returns the focus to her, following research on when disclosure helps. The after-hours section explains why the request cannot be met and what alternatives exist. The ride-along section declines therapist participation but plans the exposure with a support person. The final section draws out the common thread, which shows the review understands boundaries as part of therapy.
Reading the NU 672 Unit 2 rubric
Herzing's rubric for a boundary review typically covers the description of situations, analysis of meaning, the responses, use of ethical codes and literature, distinction between crossings and violations and writing. Analysis of meaning separates stronger papers, because graders want each request understood from the patient's side before it is answered. Response criteria reward choices that protect the frame while meeting the underlying need. Code points require specific provisions applied to each situation, not a general reference. The crossing and violation distinction should be used accurately. Consistent structure across situations helps the reader. Gutheil and Gabbard's 1993 article, Henretty and Levitt's review and the NCSBN guide belong in the APA 7 list.
Common NU 672 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Boundary reviews in Unit 2 frequently treat every request as a violation to refuse, which misses the therapeutic meaning. Another common problem is accepting requests without considering their effect on the frame. Students often cite codes in general terms without applying them to the situation. Self-disclosure is either banned outright or used freely. The patient's perspective is left out. Responses are described without the words used, so the grader cannot judge tone. Situations are too similar, so the review shows little range. Finally, connect each situation to the therapy, because graders reward a review that treats boundary moments as material for the work rather than interruptions to it.
Get a NU 672 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Send us the Unit 2 instructions and the rubric from your NU 672 classroom, along with any ethics code the course names. The custom example works through several pressures on the frame, gives the response in speakable words, cites a standard beside each decision and leaves one case unresolved. First custom sample free, returned in 24 to 48 hours.
More NU 672 papers and PMHNP samples
- NU 672 Unit 1: Therapeutic modality comparison
- NU 672 Unit 3: Session transcript analysis
- NU 672 Unit 4: Treatment goal hierarchy
- NU 672 Unit 5: Group therapy proposal
- NU 672 Unit 6: In-session ethical decision record
- NU 672 Unit 7: Treatment review and revision brief
- NU 672 Unit 8: Therapy episode portfolio
- NU 671 Unit 2: Mental status examination record
- NU 673 Unit 2: Community resource pathway
- NU 674 Unit 2: Chronic illness trajectory review
- NU 670 Unit 2: Clearance pathway table
NU 672 Unit 2 questions, answered
Is self-disclosure ever the right call?
Sections differ, and the honest answer in most writing on this is that it depends on purpose and on the approach in use. What earns credit is not the verdict but the reasoning: what the person would take from it, whether it moves attention toward the therapist, and whether the same aim could be met without it. State the standard you are working from and the limits of your own jurisdiction.
Should the review use real ethical codes?
Yes, and cite the current version rather than a summary. Professional codes are revised, and provisions get renumbered, so a paper quoting an old edition can be right in substance and wrong on the reference. Board rules sit on top of the code and vary by state, which is why the example flags them as something checked locally rather than stated as fact.
How many situations should the review cover?
Three or four handled properly usually reads better than eight listed, unless the instructions specify otherwise. Each situation needs the account, the reading of the request, the response and the standard, and that is four passages of real writing. A review carrying ten scenarios almost always thins into a list of rules with no clinical reasoning left in it.
Where can I find a free NU 672 Unit 2 sample paper?
Read the complete NU 672 Unit 2 boundary review here at no charge, five situations with meaning, response and reason. A review built on different boundary situations can be prepared on request.
Is therapist self-disclosure ever appropriate?
Sometimes, when it is brief, serves the patient and returns the focus to them. This sample answers a patient's question about panic attacks in a sentence, then explores why she asked, following research on when disclosure helps and when it does not.