Objectives:
During pandemic, what was offered to patients on a large scale was psychotherapy in the form of video interviews. The psychotherapeutic community, however, seems to be convinced of the inferiority of this form of work with patients. We undertook research to verify the rationality of this belief by asking whether the difference between remote psychotherapy and psychotherapy with direct client contact is relevant, i.e. whether it concerns the essence of what psychotherapy is.

Methods:
In the research we used a phenomenological analysis of our own experiences of conducting psychotherapy in the form of video interviews and participating in psychotherapy training in the form of meetings using audio-visual channels. We explored in detail two phenomena that potentially distinguish these two forms of psychotherapy practice, namely the indirectness of person-to-person contact and long-distance communication.

Results:
We conclude that the crucial difference between remote psychotherapy and psychotherapy with direct client contact is that in case of the former one, the patient's immersion in virtual reality, where the meeting with the therapist occurs, must be accompanied by an anchoring in a real-life space, where s/he is exposed to others. The fact that the therapist offers his/her office as a safe haven to the patient is, in principle, a way of creating better conditions for the healing process. Nevertheless, offering remote psychotherapy in a pandemic situation — with the therapist’s office no longer a physically safe space – is in accordance with the essence of psychotherapy.

Conclusions:
At a time of „high-risk office”, the provision of opportunities for psychotherapy in the form of video interviews is an expression of concern for patient which, together with an attitude of openness and hospitality, constitutes the essence of psychotherapy, while the form of psychotherapy appears to be secondary importance in this respect.