Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the aquatic therapist to balance the client’s immediate desire for pain relief and functional improvement with the need for a comprehensive, evidence-based treatment plan that addresses the underlying pathology of their condition. Misjudging the appropriate intensity or type of aquatic exercise could exacerbate the injury, delay recovery, or even lead to secondary complications. The therapist must also consider the client’s individual response to treatment and adapt accordingly, demonstrating a commitment to patient-centered care and professional accountability. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a thorough initial assessment that includes reviewing the client’s medical history, understanding the specific diagnosis of their rotator cuff tear, and performing functional movement screens. Based on this comprehensive evaluation, the therapist should then develop a progressive aquatic exercise program. This program would start with gentle range-of-motion exercises, progressing to strengthening and proprioceptive activities as tolerated, always prioritizing pain-free movement and proper form. This approach is correct because it aligns with the principles of evidence-based practice, which emphasize individualized treatment plans tailored to specific diagnoses and patient capabilities. It also adheres to ethical guidelines that mandate providing competent care, ensuring patient safety, and promoting optimal outcomes. The ATRIC’s focus on safe and effective aquatic exercise for rehabilitation underscores the importance of this systematic, diagnostic-driven progression. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to immediately implement a high-intensity resistance training program in the water, focusing solely on the client’s reported desire to “work the shoulder hard.” This approach fails to acknowledge the acute or subacute nature of a rotator cuff tear, which requires a gradual progression to avoid re-injury or inflammation. It disregards the fundamental principle of tissue healing and could lead to further damage, violating the ethical duty to do no harm. Another incorrect approach would be to solely rely on passive range-of-motion exercises without incorporating any active or strengthening components. While passive movements can be beneficial for maintaining mobility, a rotator cuff tear necessitates the gradual re-engagement and strengthening of the injured muscles to restore full function and prevent recurrence. This approach would likely lead to prolonged recovery and incomplete rehabilitation, falling short of the professional standard of care. A third incorrect approach would be to proceed with a generic aquatic exercise routine without specific consideration for the rotator cuff injury, perhaps focusing on general cardiovascular fitness or lower body exercises. This demonstrates a lack of specialized knowledge regarding the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in the aquatic environment and a failure to tailor the intervention to the client’s specific condition. It neglects the core principles of therapeutic exercise and the unique benefits aquatic therapy offers for specific injuries. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with a thorough client assessment. This assessment should inform the development of a personalized treatment plan that is evidence-based and considers the client’s specific diagnosis, stage of healing, and functional goals. Continuous monitoring of the client’s response to treatment is crucial, allowing for timely adjustments to the program to ensure safety, efficacy, and optimal outcomes. This iterative process of assessment, intervention, and re-assessment is fundamental to providing high-quality, ethical care in aquatic therapeutic exercise.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the aquatic therapist to apply theoretical knowledge of water properties to a real-time client situation, balancing therapeutic goals with safety and efficacy. The therapist must make an informed decision about the most appropriate intervention based on the client’s specific needs and the physical principles of water, demonstrating a deep understanding beyond rote memorization. Careful judgment is required to select an intervention that maximizes benefits while minimizing risks, directly impacting client outcomes. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves selecting an intervention that directly leverages the most beneficial property of water for the client’s stated goal. In this case, the client’s goal of improving range of motion in a painful shoulder suggests that utilizing the supportive and reducing effect of buoyancy to decrease the load on the joint is the primary consideration. This approach acknowledges that while resistance is present, the immediate need is to facilitate movement with reduced gravitational stress. This aligns with the ethical principle of beneficence, ensuring the intervention is designed to do good and promote the client’s well-being by making movement less painful and more accessible. It also adheres to the principle of non-maleficence by minimizing potential exacerbation of pain through excessive loading. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to focus solely on maximizing resistance for strengthening, without adequately considering the client’s pain and range of motion limitations. This fails to prioritize the client’s immediate comfort and functional goal, potentially leading to increased pain and reduced participation, violating the principle of beneficence. It also risks exacerbating the condition, contravening non-maleficence. Another incorrect approach would be to select an intervention that primarily relies on hydrostatic pressure for edema reduction, even though edema is not the primary concern and the client’s goal is range of motion. While hydrostatic pressure is a property of water, its application here would be misaligned with the client’s stated therapeutic objective, demonstrating a lack of client-centered care and potentially delaying progress towards their primary goal. A further incorrect approach would be to choose an intervention that does not actively utilize any of the key properties of water, such as simply performing land-based exercises in the water without specific adaptation. This would be a missed opportunity to leverage the unique therapeutic benefits of the aquatic environment, failing to provide the most effective and efficient treatment possible and not demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of aquatic therapeutic principles. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a client-centered decision-making framework. This involves: 1) Thoroughly assessing the client’s goals, limitations, and contraindications. 2) Identifying the relevant properties of water (buoyancy, resistance, hydrostatic pressure) and understanding how each can be applied therapeutically. 3) Matching the client’s needs and goals with the most appropriate water property and corresponding intervention. 4) Continuously monitoring the client’s response and adjusting the intervention as needed, always prioritizing safety and efficacy.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the aquatic exercise professional to balance the immediate need for client safety with the client’s desire to continue exercising. The professional must interpret subtle physiological cues and make a rapid, informed decision that prioritizes health and well-being, potentially overriding the client’s immediate preference. This demands a strong understanding of exercise physiology, contraindications, and ethical responsibilities. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves immediately ceasing the exercise session and initiating a thorough assessment of the client’s vital signs and subjective symptoms. This approach is correct because it adheres to the fundamental ethical principle of “do no harm” and aligns with best practices in exercise supervision, which mandate vigilance for signs of distress or physiological compromise. Promptly stopping the activity and gathering objective data (vital signs) and subjective feedback allows for an accurate determination of the client’s condition and the appropriate next steps, which may include seeking medical attention. This proactive stance minimizes risk and ensures the client’s safety is paramount. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves continuing the exercise at a reduced intensity while observing the client. This is professionally unacceptable because it delays a comprehensive assessment and potentially exposes the client to further physiological stress when they are already exhibiting signs of distress. The risk of exacerbating an underlying condition or causing a more serious adverse event is significantly increased by prolonging the exertion. Another incorrect approach is to dismiss the client’s reported fatigue as normal and encourage them to push through it. This is ethically and professionally flawed as it disregards the client’s subjective experience, which is a critical indicator of their physiological state. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding of how fatigue can be a symptom of more serious issues, and it fails to uphold the professional’s duty of care to monitor and respond to client well-being. A further incorrect approach is to simply ask the client if they want to continue and proceed based solely on their verbal affirmation, despite observing concerning signs. This abdicates professional responsibility. While client autonomy is important, it does not supersede the professional’s obligation to ensure safety, especially when there are objective or subjective indicators of potential risk. This approach prioritizes convenience over client welfare and fails to exercise the necessary professional judgment. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes client safety above all else. This involves: 1) Active observation and listening for both objective (e.g., changes in breathing, color) and subjective (e.g., dizziness, nausea) client cues. 2) Understanding the physiological responses to exercise and recognizing deviations from normal. 3) Knowing when to intervene by stopping activity. 4) Having a protocol for assessing the client’s condition post-intervention, including vital sign monitoring. 5) Communicating clearly and empathetically with the client throughout the process. 6) Knowing when to refer to a medical professional.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a therapist to balance the immediate needs of a patient with the foundational principles and historical evolution of aquatic therapy. Misinterpreting the historical context could lead to the application of outdated or less effective techniques, potentially compromising patient outcomes and failing to adhere to the spirit of evidence-based practice that has shaped modern aquatic therapy. Careful judgment is required to select interventions that are both historically informed and clinically appropriate. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves selecting an approach that acknowledges the historical roots of aquatic therapy while prioritizing current, evidence-based techniques. This means recognizing that early forms of hydrotherapy, while foundational, have evolved significantly due to scientific research and clinical experience. A therapist demonstrating best practice would integrate the understanding of how early techniques like passive immersion for relaxation and pain relief have paved the way for more active, rehabilitative exercises that leverage the unique properties of water for strength, balance, and cardiovascular conditioning. This approach honors the past by understanding its contributions but firmly grounds current practice in contemporary scientific understanding and patient-centered goals, aligning with the ongoing development and refinement of the ATRIC certification’s principles. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to exclusively rely on early hydrotherapy techniques, such as simple passive immersion for general well-being, without considering the advancements in understanding water’s physical properties for targeted rehabilitation. This fails to acknowledge the evolution of aquatic therapy into a sophisticated rehabilitative modality and could lead to suboptimal patient outcomes by not utilizing the full spectrum of evidence-based interventions. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the historical development entirely and focus solely on the most recent, complex aquatic exercises without understanding the foundational principles that made them possible. This overlooks the gradual accumulation of knowledge and the iterative process of refinement that has led to current best practices, potentially leading to a superficial understanding and application of techniques. A further incorrect approach would be to apply techniques based on anecdotal evidence from early practitioners without seeking validation through current research or established clinical guidelines. This disregards the rigorous scientific inquiry that has shaped modern aquatic therapy and risks employing methods that are not proven to be safe or effective according to contemporary standards. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach patient care by first understanding the patient’s specific condition and goals. This understanding should then be informed by a comprehensive knowledge of aquatic therapy’s historical development, recognizing how past practices have informed current evidence-based techniques. Therapists must continuously engage with current research and professional development to ensure their practice is both historically grounded and at the forefront of scientific understanding, always prioritizing patient safety and efficacy.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the aquatic therapist to balance the broad benefits of aquatic therapy with the specific, individualized needs and contraindications of a client. Overlooking a client’s unique medical history or the potential for adverse reactions in favor of general therapeutic advantages can lead to harm and professional negligence. Careful judgment is required to ensure that the chosen interventions are both effective and safe for the individual. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive pre-participation assessment that thoroughly reviews the client’s medical history, current conditions, and any specific contraindications or precautions related to aquatic therapy. This approach prioritizes client safety and ensures that the therapeutic program is tailored to their individual needs, maximizing benefits while minimizing risks. This aligns with the ethical obligation to provide competent and individualized care, as well as the implicit requirement of any health professional to act in the best interest of their client, which includes understanding and mitigating potential harms. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves proceeding with a general aquatic exercise program based solely on the known benefits for a particular condition, without a detailed individual assessment. This fails to acknowledge that even within a population that generally benefits from aquatic therapy, individual responses and contraindications can vary significantly. This approach risks exacerbating existing conditions or causing new problems due to a lack of personalized consideration, violating the principle of individualized care. Another incorrect approach is to focus exclusively on the client’s stated desire to engage in aquatic therapy, overlooking potential medical red flags identified during a brief screening. While client autonomy is important, it does not supersede the professional’s responsibility to ensure safety. Ignoring warning signs or potential contraindications based on a client’s enthusiasm is a failure to exercise due diligence and professional judgment, potentially leading to adverse health outcomes. A further incorrect approach is to implement a highly strenuous aquatic program based on the assumption that all individuals with a particular diagnosis can tolerate high-intensity exercise in water. This neglects the crucial aspect of progressive overload and individual tolerance levels. Without assessing the client’s current functional capacity and gradually increasing the intensity, the therapist risks overexertion, injury, or triggering a medical event, demonstrating a lack of personalized programming and risk management. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic approach that begins with a thorough client assessment. This includes gathering detailed medical history, understanding current functional limitations, and identifying any specific contraindications or precautions. Following the assessment, the therapist should develop an individualized treatment plan that aligns with the client’s goals and capabilities, while prioritizing safety. Regular reassessment and communication with the client are crucial to monitor progress and adjust the program as needed. This decision-making framework ensures that therapeutic interventions are evidence-based, client-centered, and ethically sound.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the aquatic therapist to interpret a client’s subjective experience of physiological responses in the water and translate that into appropriate exercise modifications. The challenge lies in distinguishing between normal, expected physiological adaptations to aquatic therapy and potential signs of distress or contraindication, necessitating a nuanced understanding of hydrotherapy’s effects. Careful judgment is required to ensure client safety and optimize therapeutic outcomes. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves systematically assessing the client’s reported sensations against known physiological effects of water immersion and exercise. This approach prioritizes client feedback as a primary data point, correlating it with the therapist’s knowledge of hydrostatic pressure, buoyancy, and thermoregulation. For instance, a feeling of increased ease of movement is directly attributable to buoyancy, while a mild sensation of increased breathing effort might relate to hydrostatic pressure on the chest wall. This approach is correct because it aligns with the ATRIC’s emphasis on evidence-based practice and client-centered care, ensuring that interventions are responsive to individual physiological responses and within safe parameters. It also implicitly adheres to ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence by actively monitoring and responding to the client’s experience. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves dismissing the client’s sensations as insignificant or solely attributable to psychological factors. This fails to acknowledge the profound physiological impact of water immersion and exercise, potentially overlooking early warning signs of adverse reactions or contraindications. This approach is ethically problematic as it neglects the client’s subjective experience, which is a vital component of safe and effective therapy. Another incorrect approach is to immediately cease all activity and escalate to a medical emergency without further assessment. While safety is paramount, this reaction is disproportionate if the reported sensations are consistent with expected physiological effects of aquatic therapy. This approach demonstrates a lack of understanding of the typical physiological responses to water and can lead to unnecessary anxiety for the client and potentially disrupt the therapeutic process without cause. It fails to apply a reasoned, evidence-based assessment of the situation. A third incorrect approach is to continue with the planned exercise intensity and duration without any modification, despite the client reporting unusual sensations. This disregards the client’s feedback and the potential for the water’s physiological effects to exacerbate underlying conditions or lead to adverse outcomes. This approach violates the principle of non-maleficence by potentially exposing the client to harm and demonstrates a failure to adapt the treatment plan based on real-time client response. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic approach to client assessment in aquatic therapy. This involves active listening to client feedback, correlating subjective reports with objective observations and knowledge of hydrotherapy’s physiological effects, and making informed decisions about exercise modification or progression. A decision-making framework should include: 1) Eliciting detailed subjective reports from the client. 2) Assessing the reported sensations against known physiological effects of water (e.g., buoyancy, hydrostatic pressure, temperature). 3) Observing for objective signs of distress or adaptation. 4) Modifying the exercise program based on this comprehensive assessment, prioritizing client safety and therapeutic goals.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the aquatic therapist to balance the client’s immediate desire for pain relief with the long-term goal of functional improvement, all while adhering to the principles of biomechanics in an aquatic environment. Misjudging the application of resistance or buoyancy can lead to ineffective treatment, potential exacerbation of symptoms, or even injury, undermining the therapeutic goals and client trust. Careful judgment is required to select exercises that are both safe and effective, considering the unique properties of water and the individual’s biomechanical limitations. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic assessment of the client’s current range of motion, muscle strength, and pain levels in the water. Based on this assessment, the therapist should then select exercises that progressively challenge the client’s biomechanics, utilizing the principles of buoyancy to support and reduce joint load, and water resistance to facilitate strengthening. This approach prioritizes a gradual increase in intensity and complexity, ensuring that the client’s body adapts safely and effectively to the demands of the exercise, thereby promoting optimal functional gains and minimizing the risk of adverse effects. This aligns with the ATRIC’s emphasis on evidence-based practice and client-centered care, ensuring that interventions are tailored to individual needs and biomechanical principles. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately implementing high-intensity resistance exercises without a thorough assessment of the client’s baseline function and pain response. This fails to consider the biomechanical principles of progressive overload and can lead to overexertion, increased pain, and potential injury, directly contradicting the goal of safe and effective therapeutic exercise. Another incorrect approach is to solely focus on passive movements or exercises that do not challenge the client’s active participation and muscle engagement. While buoyancy can be supportive, neglecting to utilize water resistance for strengthening and functional improvement misses a key biomechanical advantage of aquatic therapy and can lead to stagnation in progress. A third incorrect approach is to disregard the client’s subjective feedback regarding pain or discomfort during an exercise and continue with the prescribed routine. This demonstrates a failure to adapt the treatment plan based on real-time biomechanical responses and can result in harm, violating the ethical obligation to prioritize client safety and well-being. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive client assessment, including biomechanical evaluation in the aquatic environment. This assessment informs the selection of exercises that leverage water’s properties (buoyancy, resistance, viscosity) to address specific therapeutic goals. The framework emphasizes progressive overload, gradual adaptation, and continuous monitoring of the client’s response, including subjective feedback and objective measures. This iterative process ensures that interventions are safe, effective, and aligned with the principles of biomechanics and client-centered care.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the therapist to balance the immediate need of the client for pain relief with the overarching responsibility for their safety and the integrity of the therapeutic environment. The presence of a potential environmental hazard (slippery surface) introduces a risk that must be proactively managed, even when the client expresses a strong desire to proceed with the session. Failure to address this risk could lead to a fall, injury, and potential legal or ethical repercussions. Careful judgment is required to assess the severity of the risk, communicate effectively with the client, and implement appropriate safety measures without unduly delaying necessary treatment. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves immediately addressing the identified safety concern before proceeding with the therapeutic exercise. This approach prioritizes client safety above all else, aligning with the fundamental ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the client’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm). Specifically, it involves a clear and direct communication with the client about the observed hazard, explaining the potential risks associated with the slippery surface, and proposing a solution, such as drying the area or using non-slip mats. This proactive stance demonstrates a commitment to maintaining a safe therapeutic environment, a core tenet of aquatic therapy practice and a requirement for all healthcare professionals. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Proceeding with the session without addressing the slippery surface, despite the client’s request, disregards the therapist’s duty of care. This failure to proactively mitigate a known environmental hazard constitutes a breach of professional responsibility and could lead to a preventable injury, violating the principle of non-maleficence. It also demonstrates poor risk management. Delaying the session significantly to find a supervisor or administrator before addressing the immediate hazard is inefficient and potentially delays necessary treatment without a clear justification for the delay in addressing the safety issue itself. While seeking guidance can be appropriate in complex situations, the immediate risk of a slippery surface requires prompt action by the attending therapist. Ignoring the client’s request and proceeding with the session as if the hazard were not present is a direct abdication of the therapist’s responsibility to ensure a safe environment. This approach prioritizes the therapist’s pre-conceived plan over the client’s immediate safety and the reality of the environment, which is ethically unsound and professionally negligent. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a risk assessment framework. First, identify potential hazards in the environment. Second, assess the likelihood and severity of harm from each hazard. Third, determine appropriate control measures to mitigate the identified risks. Fourth, communicate these risks and control measures to the client, ensuring their understanding and consent. Finally, implement the control measures before proceeding with the therapeutic intervention. In situations where a client expresses a desire to proceed despite a clear safety risk, the professional’s duty to ensure safety must always take precedence.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the aquatic exercise professional to balance client autonomy and safety with their own scope of practice and the potential for liability. The client’s expressed desire for a specific, potentially advanced technique, coupled with their perceived lack of progress, necessitates a careful and evidence-based response that prioritizes their well-being and avoids overstepping professional boundaries. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough assessment of the client’s current capabilities and limitations within the aquatic environment. This includes evaluating their understanding of fundamental aquatic exercise principles, their current range of motion, strength, and any contraindications or precautions relevant to their condition. Based on this assessment, the professional should then educate the client on appropriate and safe progression strategies, which may or may not include the requested technique. If the requested technique is deemed safe and appropriate for the client’s current level, it should be introduced gradually with close supervision and modification. If it is not appropriate, the professional must clearly explain why, offering alternative, evidence-based exercises that address the client’s goals safely. This approach aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the client’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm), as well as the professional standard of care which mandates that interventions are evidence-based and tailored to individual client needs and capabilities. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Implementing the requested advanced technique without a comprehensive assessment of the client’s current functional level and understanding of basic aquatic principles is a failure to adhere to the standard of care. This could lead to injury due to the client’s potential lack of preparedness for the demands of the technique, violating the principle of non-maleficence. It also demonstrates a lack of professional judgment and an abdication of responsibility to ensure client safety. Suggesting that the client is “not trying hard enough” and therefore not progressing is unprofessional and potentially harmful. This approach lacks empathy, fails to acknowledge potential underlying physiological or biomechanical limitations, and places undue blame on the client. It is ethically unsound as it does not uphold the professional’s duty to support and guide the client effectively. Immediately dismissing the client’s request and refusing to explore any modifications or alternative approaches without a proper assessment is also professionally deficient. While safety is paramount, a complete refusal without explanation or offering alternatives can damage the client-professional relationship and may prevent the client from achieving their goals through other safe and effective means. This approach fails to demonstrate a commitment to client-centered care and problem-solving. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic approach that begins with a thorough client assessment. This assessment should inform the selection of appropriate exercises and techniques. When a client requests a specific intervention, the professional must evaluate its suitability based on the client’s individual needs, goals, and current functional status. Open communication, client education, and a collaborative approach to goal setting are crucial. If a requested technique is not appropriate, the professional must be able to articulate the reasons clearly and offer safe, evidence-based alternatives. This decision-making process prioritizes client safety, ethical practice, and the establishment of a trusting and effective therapeutic relationship.

The assessment process reveals a client with significant limitations in shoulder abduction and external rotation due to post-surgical scarring. The challenge lies in selecting appropriate aquatic therapeutic exercises that effectively address these limitations without exacerbating pain or causing further injury, while also respecting the client’s individual recovery stage and physician’s orders. Careful judgment is required to balance therapeutic goals with client safety and adherence to established best practices in aquatic therapy. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive assessment of the client’s current range of motion, pain levels, and any specific contraindications provided by their physician. Based on this, the therapist should select exercises that are graded in intensity and complexity, starting with gentle, passive or active-assisted movements within the pain-free range, and gradually progressing to active and resisted movements as tolerated. This approach prioritizes client safety by avoiding overexertion and respecting the healing process, aligning with the ethical principle of ‘do no harm’ and the professional standard of providing individualized care based on thorough evaluation. An incorrect approach would be to immediately implement a standardized set of advanced aquatic exercises without a thorough individual assessment. This fails to account for the client’s specific limitations and pain, potentially leading to increased inflammation, delayed healing, or re-injury, violating the ethical duty of care. Another professionally unacceptable approach would be to solely rely on the client’s subjective report of pain without objective assessment of their range of motion and functional capacity. While client feedback is crucial, it must be integrated with objective findings to ensure the exercise program is therapeutically effective and safe. Ignoring objective measures can lead to an inappropriate exercise prescription. A further incorrect approach would be to proceed with exercises that involve forceful or rapid movements, or those that place direct stress on the scarred tissue, without considering the potential for tissue damage. This disregards the principles of tissue healing and biomechanics, increasing the risk of adverse outcomes. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with a thorough client assessment, including review of medical history and physician’s recommendations. This is followed by the selection of exercises based on evidence-based practice, tailored to the individual’s needs and limitations, with continuous monitoring of the client’s response and adjustment of the program as necessary. This iterative process ensures that the therapeutic intervention is safe, effective, and promotes optimal recovery.