Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between adopting innovative informatics solutions for radiation dose management and ensuring strict adherence to the regulatory framework governing medical imaging and patient safety in the Nordic region. The core difficulty lies in balancing the potential benefits of advanced data analytics and integrated systems with the imperative of maintaining data integrity, patient privacy, and compliance with national and regional radiation protection laws. Professionals must navigate the complex landscape of accreditation requirements, which often lag behind technological advancements, and ensure that any informatics integration does not inadvertently compromise the established standards for quality and safety in radiation dose management. This requires a proactive and informed approach to regulatory interpretation and implementation. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic and documented process of evaluating new informatics solutions against existing regulatory requirements and accreditation standards. This approach prioritizes a thorough understanding of the applicable Nordic radiation protection legislation and relevant national guidelines for medical device software and health informatics. It necessitates engaging with regulatory bodies or accredited conformity assessment bodies early in the adoption process to seek clarification and ensure alignment. Furthermore, it involves developing robust internal protocols for data governance, security, and quality assurance that explicitly address the informatics integration, ensuring that patient data remains confidential and accurate, and that dose management practices meet or exceed regulatory benchmarks. This proactive engagement and documented compliance framework is essential for demonstrating due diligence and safeguarding patient welfare. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Adopting a new informatics system solely based on its perceived technological superiority or potential for efficiency gains, without a comprehensive regulatory compliance review, represents a significant ethical and regulatory failure. This approach risks introducing systems that may not meet data privacy standards, could compromise the integrity of dose records, or fail to align with national accreditation criteria for radiation dose management. Implementing an informatics solution without seeking expert advice or engaging with regulatory authorities, assuming that general data protection principles are sufficient, is also professionally unacceptable. This overlooks the specific requirements of radiation protection legislation, which often includes detailed stipulations regarding record-keeping, reporting, and quality control of diagnostic imaging procedures. Such an oversight can lead to non-compliance, potentially resulting in sanctions and, more importantly, jeopardizing patient safety. Relying on vendor assurances alone regarding regulatory compliance, without independent verification or internal validation, is another flawed approach. While vendors may claim compliance, the ultimate responsibility for adhering to national and regional regulations rests with the healthcare provider. This approach abdicates professional responsibility and fails to establish the necessary internal controls to ensure ongoing adherence to the specific demands of radiation dose management regulations. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing this challenge should adopt a risk-based decision-making framework. This involves: 1. Identifying all relevant regulatory frameworks and accreditation standards applicable to radiation dose management in the specific Nordic jurisdiction. 2. Conducting a thorough gap analysis between the proposed informatics solution’s capabilities and the identified regulatory requirements. 3. Proactively seeking guidance from regulatory bodies or accredited consultants to clarify any ambiguities. 4. Developing and implementing robust internal policies and procedures to ensure ongoing compliance and data integrity. 5. Establishing a continuous monitoring and auditing process to verify that the informatics system consistently meets regulatory and accreditation standards. This structured approach ensures that technological advancements are integrated responsibly, prioritizing patient safety and regulatory adherence above all else.

The review process indicates a common challenge in ensuring the integrity and appropriateness of competency assessments within regulated environments. Professionals must navigate the delicate balance between recognizing prior experience and adhering to mandated assessment frameworks designed to uphold public safety and professional standards. Misinterpreting eligibility criteria can lead to individuals undertaking assessments they are not qualified for, or conversely, being unfairly excluded from opportunities, both of which have significant professional and regulatory implications. Careful judgment is required to ensure that the assessment process is fair, transparent, and aligned with the stated purpose of the competency assessment. The correct approach involves a thorough examination of the individual’s documented training and experience against the explicit eligibility requirements stipulated by the Nordic Radiation Dose Management Competency Assessment framework. This entails verifying that the applicant has completed the prerequisite educational modules and has accumulated the specified duration of practical experience in radiation dose management, as outlined in the official guidelines. This method is correct because it directly adheres to the regulatory intent of the assessment, which is to ensure a baseline level of knowledge and practical skill before an individual can be deemed competent. The framework’s eligibility criteria are designed to protect public health by ensuring that only adequately prepared individuals are certified. An incorrect approach would be to grant eligibility based solely on a generalized statement of “extensive experience” without substantiating it against the specific, quantifiable requirements of the Nordic framework. This fails to uphold the regulatory mandate for demonstrable competency and risks allowing individuals to bypass essential foundational training. Another incorrect approach would be to assume that certification in a related but distinct field, such as general medical imaging physics, automatically confers eligibility without meeting the specific dose management competencies. This overlooks the specialized nature of radiation dose management and the distinct learning outcomes the assessment is designed to verify. Finally, accepting an applicant based on a personal recommendation from a supervisor, without independent verification of the applicant’s qualifications against the stated eligibility criteria, represents a failure to follow established procedures and introduces an unacceptable level of subjectivity, undermining the fairness and reliability of the assessment process. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that prioritizes adherence to documented regulatory requirements. This involves: 1) Clearly identifying and understanding the specific eligibility criteria for the competency assessment. 2) Requesting and meticulously reviewing all supporting documentation from the applicant that demonstrates fulfillment of these criteria. 3) Cross-referencing the submitted evidence against the official guidelines. 4) Seeking clarification from the assessment body or regulatory authority if any ambiguity exists regarding the interpretation of eligibility requirements. 5) Making a decision based on objective evidence and regulatory compliance, rather than subjective impressions or assumptions.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between the need for timely and accurate radiation dose management and the strict regulatory requirements for data integrity and reporting. Professionals must navigate the complexities of data collection, verification, and reporting while ensuring compliance with the Nordic radiation dose management framework. The challenge lies in balancing operational efficiency with the absolute necessity of adhering to established protocols, which are designed to protect patient safety and maintain public trust. Misinterpreting or circumventing these protocols can lead to significant regulatory penalties and compromise the integrity of dose management practices. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic and documented process of data verification and reconciliation. This approach prioritizes accuracy and compliance by ensuring that all collected dose data is cross-referenced against established patient records and imaging protocols before being formally entered into the dose management system. Any discrepancies are then investigated and resolved according to predefined procedures, with clear audit trails maintained. This aligns with the core principles of regulatory compliance in radiation dose management, which mandate accurate record-keeping and transparent reporting to regulatory bodies. The emphasis is on proactive identification and correction of errors, thereby upholding the integrity of the dose management system and ensuring that reported data is reliable and defensible. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves the immediate input of raw data into the system without a thorough verification step. This bypasses critical quality control measures and increases the risk of inaccurate dose records being established. Such an approach fails to meet the regulatory requirement for data accuracy and could lead to misinformed clinical decisions or flawed reporting to authorities. Another unacceptable approach is to rely solely on automated data entry without human oversight or periodic validation. While automation can improve efficiency, it does not absolve professionals of their responsibility to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data. Regulatory frameworks typically require a level of human accountability and validation to safeguard against systemic errors or system malfunctions. A further flawed approach is to delay the reconciliation of discrepancies until a formal audit or incident is flagged. Proactive identification and resolution of data anomalies are crucial. Waiting for an external trigger suggests a reactive rather than a preventative approach to compliance, which is contrary to best practices in dose management and regulatory expectations. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes a “verify-then-record” methodology. This involves establishing clear protocols for data collection, implementing robust verification checks at multiple stages, and maintaining comprehensive audit trails. When faced with data discrepancies, the framework should guide professionals to investigate the root cause, consult relevant protocols and expert advice, and document the resolution process meticulously. This systematic approach ensures that all actions are aligned with regulatory requirements and ethical obligations, fostering a culture of accuracy and accountability in radiation dose management.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires balancing the need for consistent and fair assessment with the practicalities of a competency framework that has defined weighting and scoring mechanisms. Misinterpreting or misapplying these policies can lead to inaccurate assessments, potentially impacting an individual’s ability to practice and the overall safety of radiation dose management. The retake policy adds another layer of complexity, requiring careful consideration of when and how re-assessment is appropriate without undermining the integrity of the initial evaluation. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough understanding of the established blueprint weighting and scoring criteria as the primary determinant of assessment outcomes. This approach is correct because it adheres directly to the defined standards of the Applied Nordic Radiation Dose Management Competency Assessment. The weighting and scoring are designed to reflect the relative importance of different knowledge and skill areas, ensuring that the assessment accurately measures competence against the established framework. The retake policy should be applied strictly according to its defined parameters, typically triggered by a failure to meet the minimum scoring threshold, thereby maintaining the integrity and validity of the assessment process. This aligns with principles of fair and objective evaluation. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves prioritizing subjective impressions of an individual’s overall understanding over the specific scoring rubric. This is professionally unacceptable because it deviates from the objective criteria established by the competency assessment. It introduces bias and can lead to inconsistent and unfair evaluations, undermining the credibility of the assessment framework. The blueprint weighting and scoring are in place precisely to mitigate such subjective interpretations. Another incorrect approach is to allow individuals to retake the assessment immediately after a failure without a clear process for remediation or further learning. This undermines the purpose of the retake policy, which is generally intended to provide an opportunity for improvement after addressing identified weaknesses. Allowing immediate retakes without such a process can devalue the competency assessment and may not genuinely reflect improved competence. A further incorrect approach is to adjust the weighting or scoring of specific sections of the assessment post-hoc to accommodate an individual’s performance. This is a significant ethical and regulatory failure. The blueprint weighting and scoring are fixed to ensure standardization and comparability across all candidates. Altering them for an individual compromises the integrity of the entire assessment system and is a direct violation of the established competency framework. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach competency assessments by first thoroughly familiarizing themselves with the official blueprint, including its weighting and scoring mechanisms, and the detailed retake policy. When evaluating an individual, the primary reference point must always be these established criteria. Any deviation from the blueprint or policy should be avoided. If an individual fails to meet the required standard, the retake policy should be consulted and applied as written, potentially with guidance on areas for improvement based on the assessment results, but without altering the assessment’s fundamental structure or scoring. This systematic and objective approach ensures fairness, consistency, and upholds the professional standards of the Applied Nordic Radiation Dose Management Competency Assessment.

The scenario presents a common challenge for professionals preparing for competency assessments: balancing thorough preparation with time constraints and the need to focus on relevant material. The risk matrix, in this context, highlights the potential for inadequate preparation leading to assessment failure, which carries professional consequences. Careful judgment is required to select a preparation strategy that is both effective and efficient, aligning with the principles of continuous professional development and adherence to regulatory standards for competence. The best approach involves a structured, resource-aligned preparation strategy. This entails identifying the specific learning objectives and recommended resources outlined by the Nordic radiation dose management competency assessment framework. A realistic timeline should then be developed, allocating sufficient time for understanding the core concepts, practicing application through relevant exercises, and reviewing key guidelines. This method ensures that preparation is targeted, comprehensive, and directly addresses the assessment’s requirements, thereby minimizing the risk of knowledge gaps and promoting a confident, competent performance. This aligns with the ethical obligation to maintain professional competence and the regulatory expectation that individuals possess the necessary knowledge and skills to perform their roles safely and effectively. An incorrect approach would be to rely solely on general radiation safety knowledge without consulting the specific assessment framework. This fails to address the unique nuances and specific regulatory requirements of Nordic dose management, potentially leading to a superficial understanding and an inability to answer questions accurately. It also disregards the explicit guidance provided by the assessment body, which is a breach of professional diligence. Another incorrect approach is to cram a vast amount of unrelated material into a short period. This is inefficient and ineffective, as it does not allow for deep learning or retention of the specific competencies being assessed. It risks overwhelming the candidate and leading to confusion, rather than clarity, and does not demonstrate a commitment to targeted professional development. A further incorrect approach is to focus exclusively on past examination papers without understanding the underlying principles. While past papers can offer insight into question style, they do not guarantee coverage of all relevant topics or the ability to adapt to new scenarios. Over-reliance on memorization of past answers, rather than conceptual understanding, is a superficial preparation method that does not foster true competence and may not prepare the candidate for the breadth of knowledge expected. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes understanding the assessment’s scope and requirements first. This involves actively seeking out and reviewing the official documentation for the Nordic radiation dose management competency assessment. Subsequently, they should create a personalized study plan that maps their current knowledge against the assessment’s objectives, identifying areas requiring more attention. This plan should incorporate a variety of learning methods, including reviewing recommended materials, engaging in practice scenarios, and seeking clarification on complex topics. Regular self-assessment and timeline adjustments are crucial to ensure progress and maintain focus on the most critical areas.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the radiation protection professional to integrate complex anatomical knowledge with the practicalities of dose management in a clinical setting. The challenge lies in accurately correlating observed anatomical variations with potential functional impacts on radiation dose distribution, especially when interpreting dose metrics from imaging procedures. Misinterpreting these correlations can lead to suboptimal patient protection strategies, potentially resulting in unnecessary radiation exposure or inadequate diagnostic information. The professional must navigate the inherent variability in human anatomy and physiology while adhering to established Nordic radiation protection principles and guidelines. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic approach that prioritizes understanding the patient’s specific cross-sectional anatomy as depicted in imaging data and then correlating this with the functional implications for radiation dose. This means meticulously examining the anatomical structures relevant to the imaging procedure, identifying any deviations from typical anatomy (e.g., organ displacement, unusual tissue density), and then considering how these variations might influence radiation attenuation, scatter, and ultimately, the dose delivered to organs at risk. This approach aligns with the core principles of justification and optimization in radiation protection, ensuring that dose is minimized while maintaining diagnostic efficacy, as mandated by Nordic radiation protection legislation and professional ethical standards. It emphasizes a patient-centric view, where individual anatomical characteristics dictate the most appropriate dose management strategies. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to solely rely on generic dose reference levels (DRLs) without considering the individual patient’s anatomy. This fails to account for anatomical variations that can significantly alter radiation dose, leading to either overexposure or underexposure, and thus violates the optimization principle. It neglects the crucial step of correlating anatomy with functional dose impact. Another incorrect approach is to focus exclusively on the functional aspect of the imaging procedure (e.g., the diagnostic task) without adequately assessing the cross-sectional anatomy. While the functional goal is important, ignoring anatomical specifics means the dose management strategy might not be tailored to the individual’s unique radiation interaction characteristics, potentially leading to suboptimal protection. A further incorrect approach would be to assume that standard imaging protocols are always appropriate, regardless of anatomical findings. This demonstrates a lack of critical evaluation and fails to adapt protocols based on individual patient anatomy and its functional implications for dose. It represents a passive rather than an active approach to radiation protection. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a structured decision-making process that begins with a thorough review of the imaging data to understand the patient’s cross-sectional anatomy. This anatomical understanding should then be critically evaluated for its functional implications regarding radiation dose. The next step involves comparing these findings with established DRLs and relevant Nordic radiation protection guidelines, not as rigid rules, but as benchmarks. Based on this comprehensive assessment, the professional should then determine if protocol adjustments are necessary to optimize radiation dose for the individual patient, always prioritizing the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle. This iterative process of anatomical assessment, functional correlation, and protocol adaptation ensures patient safety and effective radiation protection.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the need for accurate radiation dose management with the practical limitations of instrumentation and the imperative of maintaining quality assurance. Misinterpreting or misapplying quality assurance principles in the context of radiation physics and instrumentation can lead to inaccurate dose assessments, potentially impacting patient safety and regulatory compliance. Careful judgment is required to select the most robust and ethically sound approach to ensure reliable data. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic and documented approach to verifying instrumentation performance against established quality assurance protocols. This includes regular calibration, performance testing, and record-keeping, ensuring that the instruments used for dose management are functioning within acceptable parameters and that any deviations are identified and addressed promptly. This aligns with the fundamental principles of radiation safety and quality assurance mandated by regulatory frameworks that emphasize accuracy, reliability, and accountability in radiation monitoring and dose assessment. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves relying solely on manufacturer specifications without independent verification. This fails to account for real-world operating conditions, potential instrument drift, or environmental factors that can affect performance. Regulatory guidelines typically require independent verification and ongoing quality assurance to ensure that instrumentation meets the necessary standards for accurate dose measurement. Another unacceptable approach is to perform quality assurance checks only when a problem is suspected. This reactive approach is insufficient as it allows for potential inaccuracies to go undetected for extended periods, compromising the integrity of dose management. Proactive and regular quality assurance is a cornerstone of radiation safety and regulatory compliance, aiming to prevent issues rather than merely react to them. A further flawed approach is to prioritize speed of data acquisition over the thoroughness of quality assurance checks. While efficiency is important, it must not come at the expense of accuracy and reliability. Inaccurate dose data can have serious consequences for patient care and regulatory reporting, making rigorous quality assurance a non-negotiable aspect of radiation dose management. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a proactive and systematic approach to quality assurance for radiation instrumentation. This involves establishing clear protocols for calibration, performance testing, and maintenance, ensuring that all activities are documented. When faced with instrumentation issues or data anomalies, a structured troubleshooting process should be followed, referencing established quality assurance procedures and regulatory requirements. The decision-making process should always prioritize patient safety, data integrity, and regulatory compliance, ensuring that any actions taken are justifiable and ethically sound.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the potential diagnostic benefits of advanced imaging modalities with the inherent risks of radiation exposure, particularly in vulnerable patient populations. The decision-making process must be grounded in established radiation protection principles and regulatory requirements, ensuring that patient safety and well-being are paramount. The complexity arises from the need to justify the use of higher-dose techniques when alternative, lower-risk options might exist, and to ensure that the imaging is performed by competent professionals adhering to strict protocols. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment that prioritizes minimizing radiation dose while achieving diagnostic efficacy. This approach mandates that the referring clinician and the imaging professional collaborate to determine if the clinical question can be answered with a lower-dose modality or technique. If advanced modalities like CT or hybrid imaging are deemed necessary, the protocol must be optimized to use the lowest achievable dose for the required diagnostic information, adhering to ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principles. This aligns with the fundamental ethical obligation to beneficence and non-maleficence, as well as regulatory mandates for dose optimization and justification of procedures. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves proceeding with a high-dose CT scan solely based on the referring physician’s request without a thorough evaluation of alternative imaging options or dose optimization. This fails to uphold the ALARA principle and the ethical duty to minimize patient harm. It bypasses the critical step of justification and optimization, potentially exposing the patient to unnecessary radiation. Another incorrect approach is to default to the most advanced imaging modality available, such as PET-CT, without a clear clinical indication that justifies its use over less complex or lower-dose alternatives. This disregards the principle of justification, which requires that all radiation exposures are justified by the expected benefit to the individual or society. It also overlooks the potential for diagnostic information to be obtained through other means, such as MRI or ultrasound, which do not involve ionizing radiation. A third incorrect approach is to perform the advanced imaging procedure without ensuring that the equipment is properly calibrated and that the personnel operating it are adequately trained and competent in dose management techniques. This violates regulatory requirements for quality assurance and professional standards, increasing the risk of suboptimal imaging and excessive radiation exposure due to technical errors or lack of expertise. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making framework that begins with a clear understanding of the clinical question. This is followed by an evaluation of all available imaging modalities, considering their diagnostic capabilities, associated risks (including radiation dose), and patient-specific factors. The principle of justification requires that the chosen modality provides a net benefit that outweighs the risks. If ionizing radiation is involved, the ALARA principle must guide the selection of techniques and protocols to ensure the lowest reasonably achievable dose. Continuous professional development and adherence to regulatory guidelines are essential for maintaining competence in advanced imaging and radiation dose management.

The performance metrics show a consistent trend of slightly elevated radiation doses for a specific patient undergoing follow-up imaging for a chronic condition. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the diagnostic necessity of imaging with the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle, particularly for a patient with ongoing exposure. The clinician must make a judgment call that prioritizes patient well-being and regulatory compliance without compromising diagnostic efficacy. Careful consideration of individual patient factors and adherence to established protocols are paramount. The best approach involves a comprehensive review of the patient’s imaging history, the clinical indication for each scan, and the specific dose parameters used. This includes consulting with the radiology department’s radiation safety officer (RSO) or medical physicist to explore potential dose reduction techniques without compromising image quality. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the elevated doses through a systematic, evidence-based, and collaborative process, aligning with the ethical duty of care and the regulatory requirement to minimize radiation exposure. It demonstrates a proactive commitment to patient safety and adherence to best practices in radiation management, as advocated by Nordic radiation protection guidelines which emphasize individualized dose optimization and continuous quality improvement. An incorrect approach would be to simply continue with the current imaging protocol without further investigation, assuming the doses are within acceptable limits. This fails to uphold the ALARA principle and neglects the professional responsibility to actively seek dose reduction opportunities. It could lead to unnecessary cumulative radiation exposure for the patient, potentially increasing long-term risks without a clear clinical benefit. Another incorrect approach would be to unilaterally reduce imaging frequency or alter protocols without consulting relevant specialists or considering the clinical impact. This bypasses established procedures for dose management and could compromise the diagnostic accuracy of the follow-up, potentially leading to missed diagnoses or delayed treatment, which is ethically unacceptable and may contraindicate specific regulatory requirements for monitoring chronic conditions. A further incorrect approach would be to dismiss the elevated doses as a minor anomaly without investigating the underlying causes, such as equipment calibration, technique variations, or protocol optimization. This demonstrates a lack of diligence and a failure to engage in the continuous quality improvement expected in radiation medicine. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with recognizing and acknowledging deviations from expected norms, such as elevated dose metrics. This should be followed by a thorough investigation involving data analysis, consultation with subject matter experts (e.g., RSO, medical physicist), and consideration of patient-specific factors. The decision-making process must prioritize patient safety, adhere to regulatory requirements, and maintain diagnostic integrity, fostering a culture of continuous improvement in radiation dose management.

Strategic planning requires careful consideration of various factors to ensure effective and ethical radiation dose management. This scenario is professionally challenging because it demands balancing the need for accurate diagnostic information with the imperative to minimize patient radiation exposure, all within the framework of established Nordic radiation protection principles and guidelines. The selection of an appropriate protocol is not merely a technical decision but one that carries significant ethical and regulatory weight, directly impacting patient safety and the responsible use of medical resources. The best professional approach involves a thorough evaluation of the specific clinical question, patient characteristics, and available imaging technologies to select the protocol that provides the necessary diagnostic information with the lowest achievable radiation dose. This aligns with the fundamental principle of justification in radiation protection, which mandates that any exposure to ionizing radiation must be justified by the expected benefit to the individual or society outweighing the potential harm. Furthermore, it adheres to the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle, a cornerstone of Nordic radiation dose management, by actively seeking to optimize protocols to reduce dose without compromising diagnostic quality. This approach demonstrates a commitment to patient-centered care and regulatory compliance. An approach that prioritizes the use of the most advanced or highest-resolution imaging protocol without a direct correlation to the clinical question is professionally unacceptable. This fails the justification principle by potentially exposing the patient to unnecessary radiation for information that is not clinically relevant or required for diagnosis. It also contravenes the ALARA principle by not actively seeking dose optimization. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to rely solely on default or pre-set protocols without critical assessment. While these protocols are often designed with dose optimization in mind, they may not be universally suitable for every clinical scenario or patient demographic. Failing to tailor the protocol to the specific clinical question and patient can lead to suboptimal image quality, requiring repeat scans and thus increasing overall radiation exposure, or conversely, delivering a higher dose than necessary for the information obtained. This neglects the optimization aspect of radiation protection. Finally, an approach that solely focuses on reducing scan time or increasing throughput at the expense of diagnostic image quality and appropriate dose is also professionally unsound. While efficiency is important, it must not supersede the primary goals of accurate diagnosis and patient safety. Compromising image quality can lead to misdiagnosis or the need for further investigations, ultimately increasing the patient’s radiation burden and healthcare costs. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with a clear understanding of the clinical question. This should be followed by an assessment of the patient’s individual factors (e.g., age, body habitus, clinical history). Subsequently, the available imaging modalities and their respective protocols should be reviewed, considering their diagnostic efficacy and associated radiation doses. The chosen protocol must represent the optimal balance between diagnostic yield and radiation dose, in line with justification and ALARA principles, and relevant national and international guidelines.