This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent power imbalance between a radiographer and a patient, coupled with the sensitive nature of medical imaging and the potential for misinterpretation of information. The radiographer must navigate the patient’s anxiety and potential lack of understanding while adhering to professional standards and ethical obligations. Careful judgment is required to ensure the patient feels informed, respected, and safe, without overstepping professional boundaries or providing information that could cause undue distress or be misinterpreted. The best approach involves a radiographer providing clear, concise, and factual information about the procedure itself, including what the patient can expect during the scan and any immediate post-procedure instructions. This approach prioritises patient understanding and cooperation, which are crucial for successful imaging. It aligns with the Australian Institute of Radiography (AIR) professional standards and ethical guidelines, which emphasise clear communication, patient-centred care, and the importance of obtaining informed consent. By focusing on the procedural aspects and immediate care, the radiographer respects the patient’s autonomy and right to know what is happening to them, without venturing into diagnostic interpretation, which is outside their scope of practice. An incorrect approach would be to offer a preliminary interpretation of the images, even if the radiographer has a strong suspicion about the findings. This is professionally unacceptable because it breaches the scope of practice for a radiographer, who is trained to acquire images, not to diagnose. Providing such interpretations can lead to significant patient anxiety, false reassurance, or distress, and may contradict the official report from a qualified radiologist. This undermines the established diagnostic pathway and can interfere with the patient’s relationship with their referring doctor. Another incorrect approach is to dismiss the patient’s questions entirely or provide vague, unhelpful responses. This demonstrates a lack of empathy and disrespect for the patient’s concerns, potentially increasing their anxiety and eroding trust. Professional standards mandate that patients should be treated with dignity and respect, and their questions, within reason, should be addressed appropriately. Failing to do so can be seen as a breach of ethical conduct and patient care principles. Finally, an approach that involves sharing personal opinions or anecdotes about similar cases is also professionally inappropriate. This blurs professional boundaries, can be misconstrued as diagnostic advice, and may introduce irrelevant or misleading information. It detracts from the professional and objective nature of the imaging service being provided. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritises patient safety, adherence to scope of practice, and ethical conduct. This involves actively listening to patient concerns, providing information relevant to the procedure and immediate care, and knowing when to refer questions to the appropriate medical professional (e.g., the referring doctor or a radiologist) when they fall outside the radiographer’s expertise or scope. Maintaining clear communication channels and respecting professional boundaries are paramount.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the radiographer to reconcile potentially conflicting information from different sources – the patient’s subjective report of symptoms and the objective radiological findings. Misinterpreting or inadequately investigating these discrepancies could lead to delayed diagnosis, inappropriate treatment, or patient harm. The radiographer must exercise critical judgment to determine the significance of the patient’s symptoms in the context of the imaging results and decide on the most appropriate course of action within their scope of practice and professional responsibilities. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive approach that prioritises patient safety and accurate diagnosis. This includes meticulously reviewing the patient’s reported symptoms, correlating them with the anatomical structures visualised in the radiographic images, and considering potential differential diagnoses that could explain both the symptoms and any subtle or unexpected findings. If the symptoms are not fully explained by the initial imaging, or if there is a significant discrepancy, the radiographer should consult with the referring clinician or a senior radiographer to discuss further investigation or clarification. This approach ensures that all available information is considered, patient well-being is paramount, and diagnostic accuracy is maximised, aligning with the ethical obligation to provide competent and diligent care as expected within the Australian Institute of Radiography’s professional standards and the broader Australian healthcare regulatory framework. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves dismissing the patient’s reported symptoms entirely if the initial radiographic findings appear normal or unrelated. This fails to acknowledge that imaging is only one diagnostic tool and that symptoms can arise from conditions not readily visible on standard radiography, or that the initial imaging may have missed subtle pathology. This approach risks overlooking significant underlying issues and violates the professional duty of care to thoroughly investigate a patient’s concerns. Another incorrect approach is to proceed with a standard interpretation of the radiographic images without actively considering how the patient’s specific respiratory symptoms might influence the interpretation or suggest alternative diagnoses. This narrow focus on the images alone, without integrating the clinical context provided by the patient, can lead to a missed or delayed diagnosis. It demonstrates a lack of critical thinking and a failure to apply a holistic approach to patient assessment, which is a cornerstone of professional radiography. A further incorrect approach is to independently recommend a specific treatment or management plan based solely on the perceived discrepancy between symptoms and imaging, without consulting with the referring clinician or a more experienced colleague. This oversteps the radiographer’s scope of practice and could lead to inappropriate medical advice or intervention, potentially causing harm to the patient and contravening professional guidelines that mandate collaboration and consultation for complex cases. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic approach to patient assessment, beginning with a thorough understanding of the patient’s presenting complaint and history. This should be followed by a critical evaluation of all diagnostic data, including imaging findings and clinical information. When discrepancies arise, the professional must engage in critical thinking to identify potential causes and determine the most appropriate next steps, which may involve further investigation, consultation with colleagues, or referral to the referring clinician. This iterative process ensures that patient care is evidence-based, safe, and effective.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between achieving optimal diagnostic clarity and maintaining the integrity of the original image data. Radiographers are entrusted with producing images that accurately represent the patient’s anatomy and pathology. Any manipulation that distorts this representation, even with good intentions, can lead to misdiagnosis, inappropriate treatment, and erosion of patient trust. The challenge lies in discerning acceptable enhancement techniques from those that cross ethical and professional boundaries, particularly when faced with suboptimal initial imaging. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves utilising image enhancement techniques that are specifically designed to improve diagnostic quality without altering the fundamental pixel values or introducing artificial information. This approach prioritises the preservation of the original data’s integrity. Regulatory guidelines, such as those from the Australian Institute of Radiography (AIR) and the Medical Radiation Practice Board of Australia (MRPBA), mandate that radiographers must practice competently and ethically, which includes ensuring the accuracy and reliability of diagnostic images. Enhancements that fall within the approved parameters of the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) or Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) standards, such as adjusting brightness, contrast, or applying filters that uniformly modify pixel intensity, are considered acceptable as they aim to reveal existing detail rather than create new, non-existent detail. This approach aligns with the ethical obligation to provide accurate diagnostic information to referring clinicians. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves applying aggressive sharpening filters that create artificial edges and halos around structures. This is ethically unacceptable because it introduces visual artefacts that are not present in the original anatomy, potentially leading to the misinterpretation of subtle findings or the creation of false positives. It violates the principle of accurate representation and can mislead the treating physician. Another incorrect approach is to significantly alter the contrast and brightness to the point where subtle pathological changes become exaggerated or normal anatomical structures are obscured. While the intention might be to highlight a suspected abnormality, this level of manipulation can distort the relative densities within the image, making it difficult to assess the true extent or nature of any pathology. This contravenes the professional duty to present an uncompromised view of the patient’s condition. A further incorrect approach is to digitally reconstruct or add anatomical structures that were not captured in the original scan. This is a severe ethical breach as it constitutes the fabrication of diagnostic information. It directly undermines the diagnostic process and can have catastrophic consequences for patient care, leading to entirely inappropriate medical interventions. This action fundamentally violates the trust placed in the radiographer and the diagnostic imaging process. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritises the principle of “do no harm” and “beneficence.” When considering image enhancement, the primary question should be: “Does this manipulation improve the visualisation of existing anatomical or pathological detail without introducing artefacts or altering the fundamental data?” This involves understanding the capabilities and limitations of the imaging system and post-processing software, adhering strictly to institutional protocols and professional guidelines, and maintaining a critical eye for any changes that appear artificial. If there is any doubt about the appropriateness or potential for misinterpretation of an enhancement, the radiographer should err on the side of caution and present the image with minimal, justifiable adjustments, or consult with a senior radiographer or radiologist.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires the radiographer to balance the technical requirements of producing a diagnostic image with the ethical and regulatory obligation to minimise radiation dose to the patient. The radiographer must make a judgment call on image quality versus dose, understanding that suboptimal image quality can lead to repeat exposures, thereby increasing overall patient dose, while excessive radiation can lead to unnecessary stochastic risks. This requires a deep understanding of radiographic principles and their practical application within the Australian regulatory framework for radiation safety. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a systematic evaluation of the image quality in relation to diagnostic acceptability, considering the principles of radiographic contrast, density, and detail. This means assessing whether the current image, despite its perceived minor deficiencies, still contains sufficient information for accurate diagnosis. If the image is diagnostically acceptable, the radiographer should proceed without repeating the exposure, thereby adhering to the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle enshrined in Australian radiation safety legislation and guidelines, such as those from ARPANSA (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency) and state/territory radiation control authorities. This approach prioritises dose reduction when diagnostic efficacy is not compromised. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to immediately repeat the exposure based on a subjective assessment of minor imperfections in contrast or detail, without first determining if the original image is diagnostically useful. This fails to uphold the ALARA principle, as it introduces unnecessary radiation dose to the patient without a clear clinical justification. Another incorrect approach is to accept an image that is clearly diagnostically suboptimal due to poor contrast or lack of detail, even if it means the radiologist may struggle to make a definitive diagnosis. This compromises patient care by potentially leading to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis, and it also fails to meet the professional standards expected of a radiographer. A further incorrect approach would be to adjust technical factors significantly to achieve an ‘ideal’ image without considering the impact on patient dose, potentially leading to an unnecessarily high exposure. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritises diagnostic image quality while strictly adhering to radiation safety principles. This involves: 1) Initial assessment of the image against diagnostic criteria. 2) Consideration of the ALARA principle and relevant Australian regulatory guidelines. 3) Evaluating the potential impact of repeating the exposure on patient dose versus the benefit of improved image quality. 4) Consulting with senior colleagues or radiologists if uncertainty exists regarding diagnostic acceptability or appropriate technical adjustments. The ultimate goal is to achieve the best possible diagnostic outcome with the lowest achievable radiation dose.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the diagnostic necessity of an imaging procedure with the fundamental principle of radiation protection, ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable). The radiographer must make a judgment call that prioritises patient safety without compromising the clinical information required for diagnosis. This involves understanding the practical application of ALARA beyond mere compliance, into a proactive risk management strategy. The correct approach involves a thorough assessment of the patient’s clinical presentation and the specific imaging requirements. This includes considering alternative imaging modalities if appropriate, optimising imaging parameters for the specific examination, and employing shielding techniques where feasible. This approach is correct because it directly embodies the ALARA principle by actively seeking to minimise radiation dose while still achieving the diagnostic objective. It aligns with the ethical duty of care owed to the patient and the regulatory requirements for radiation safety in Australia, which mandate that radiation doses are kept As Low As Reasonably Achievable, taking into account social and economic factors. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with a standard, potentially higher-dose protocol without considering patient-specific factors or alternative dose-reduction strategies. This fails to uphold the ALARA principle by not actively seeking to minimise dose, potentially exposing the patient to unnecessary radiation. It also neglects the ethical responsibility to provide care that is both effective and safe. Another incorrect approach would be to refuse to perform the examination altogether due to concerns about radiation dose, without exploring all reasonable options for dose reduction or alternative imaging. This could be considered a failure of professional duty if the examination is clinically indicated and can be performed safely with appropriate ALARA measures. It prioritises radiation avoidance over patient care without due consideration. A further incorrect approach would be to rely solely on the referring physician’s request without any independent radiographer assessment of dose optimisation. While the referring physician determines the clinical need, the radiographer is responsible for the safe and effective delivery of the imaging procedure, including dose optimisation. This approach abdicates the radiographer’s professional responsibility in radiation protection. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with understanding the clinical indication. This is followed by an assessment of the imaging requirements and potential for dose reduction through technique optimisation, patient positioning, and shielding. Consideration of alternative imaging modalities should be part of this assessment. The radiographer should then implement the chosen approach, documenting any specific dose-reduction measures taken. This systematic process ensures that patient safety is paramount while still meeting diagnostic needs.

The analysis reveals a common yet critical challenge in diagnostic imaging: balancing patient comfort and cooperation with the absolute necessity of accurate anatomical positioning for diagnostic quality. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the radiographer to make an immediate, informed decision that directly impacts patient well-being, diagnostic yield, and adherence to professional standards, all within a limited timeframe. The patient’s distress and potential for movement introduce variables that can compromise image integrity and patient safety. Careful judgment is required to navigate these competing demands ethically and effectively. The best professional practice involves a systematic, patient-centred approach that prioritises both safety and diagnostic accuracy. This begins with a clear, calm explanation of the procedure and the importance of specific positioning, using simple language tailored to the patient’s understanding. Gentle, reassuring communication is key to building trust and encouraging cooperation. If the initial explanation and gentle guidance are insufficient, the radiographer should then employ appropriate, non-invasive immobilization techniques that are specifically designed for the anatomical region being imaged and the patient’s condition. This might include the use of positioning aids like sponges, sandbags, or straps, applied with minimal pressure and ensuring no discomfort is caused. The goal is to achieve the required stillness without causing pain or anxiety, thereby obtaining diagnostic images while respecting the patient’s dignity and comfort. This approach aligns with the Australian Institute of Radiography’s ethical guidelines and professional standards, which emphasise patient-centred care, the minimisation of radiation dose, and the production of diagnostic quality images. An approach that involves forcefully restraining the patient without adequate explanation or consideration for their comfort is professionally unacceptable. This fails to uphold the ethical principle of patient autonomy and dignity, potentially causing distress and violating the patient’s right to be treated with respect. Furthermore, such forceful methods may not effectively immobilise the patient and could even lead to injury, compromising patient safety. Another unacceptable approach is to proceed with the examination without attempting any form of patient positioning or immobilization, despite the patient’s evident difficulty in remaining still. This directly contravenes the professional responsibility to obtain diagnostic quality images. The resulting images would likely be suboptimal, potentially leading to repeat examinations (increasing radiation dose and patient inconvenience) or misdiagnosis, thereby failing to meet the fundamental purpose of the imaging procedure and potentially harming the patient’s health outcomes. Finally, an approach that involves immediately abandoning the examination due to minor patient movement, without exploring alternative communication strategies or appropriate immobilization techniques, demonstrates a lack of professional diligence. While patient cooperation is ideal, experienced radiographers are trained to manage a range of patient challenges. This approach fails to exhaust reasonable options for achieving diagnostic quality images and may unnecessarily delay or prevent necessary medical investigations. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with assessing the patient’s condition and understanding their ability to cooperate. This is followed by clear, empathetic communication and education about the procedure. If cooperation is still lacking, the radiographer should then consider and apply appropriate, gentle immobilization techniques, always prioritising patient comfort and safety. If these measures are insufficient, a reassessment of the situation, potentially involving consultation with a supervisor or referring clinician, may be necessary to determine the best course of action, which could include alternative imaging modalities or rescheduling the examination.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires the radiographer to balance the immediate need for diagnostic imaging with the fundamental principles of patient care and radiation safety, as mandated by Australian regulatory frameworks. The potential for image degradation due to equipment malfunction necessitates a careful, evidence-based decision, rather than a reactive or dismissive one. The radiographer must exercise professional judgment, considering both the diagnostic utility of the image and the ethical obligation to minimise radiation exposure. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves immediately ceasing the examination and initiating a formal quality control (QC) process. This aligns with the principles of radiation safety and diagnostic imaging quality enshrined in Australian regulations, such as those guided by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and state-specific radiation safety legislation. By stopping the procedure, the radiographer prevents unnecessary radiation exposure to the patient if the equipment is indeed faulty. Initiating a QC process ensures that the equipment is thoroughly checked and calibrated by qualified personnel, thereby safeguarding future patient care and maintaining diagnostic accuracy. This proactive approach upholds the radiographer’s duty of care and adherence to professional standards. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Ceasing the examination and proceeding with the patient’s diagnostic needs without a formal QC check is professionally unacceptable. While it addresses the immediate diagnostic requirement, it bypasses essential safety protocols. If the equipment is malfunctioning, subsequent images may be diagnostically inadequate, leading to further radiation exposure and potential misdiagnosis. This approach fails to uphold the principle of ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) for radiation exposure and neglects the systematic approach to quality assurance required by regulatory bodies. Continuing the examination without any investigation, assuming the artefact is minor or patient-related, is also professionally unsound. This approach disregards the initial quality control finding and prioritises expediency over patient safety and diagnostic integrity. It risks producing suboptimal images that may lead to misinterpretation or require repeat examinations, thereby increasing the patient’s radiation dose unnecessarily. This directly contravenes the radiographer’s responsibility to ensure image quality and minimise radiation exposure as per Australian guidelines. Immediately re-running the examination without a formal QC check, hoping the artefact was a one-off occurrence, is similarly flawed. While it attempts to rectify the perceived issue, it does not address the root cause if there is an underlying equipment problem. This approach risks repeating the same artefact or generating further compromised images if the equipment fault persists. It fails to adhere to the systematic troubleshooting and quality assurance procedures expected of radiographers under Australian radiation safety legislation. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic approach to quality assurance. Upon identifying a potential issue through QC measures, the immediate priority is patient safety and diagnostic integrity. This involves pausing the procedure if necessary, thoroughly investigating the cause of the anomaly, and adhering to established protocols for equipment testing and maintenance. Decision-making should be guided by regulatory requirements, ethical principles of patient care, and professional standards, ensuring that all actions are documented and justifiable.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the radiographer to balance the immediate need for diagnostic imaging with the fundamental ethical and regulatory obligation to minimise radiation exposure to the patient. The potential for patient harm due to excessive radiation necessitates a rigorous approach to technique selection and justification, even when faced with time constraints or perceived urgency. Careful judgment is required to ensure that the diagnostic benefit of the X-ray examination clearly outweighs the radiation risk, adhering to the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough assessment of the patient’s clinical presentation and the specific diagnostic question being asked. This radiographer should consult with the referring clinician to confirm the necessity of the X-ray examination and to understand the precise anatomical region and diagnostic information required. Based on this information, the radiographer must then select the most appropriate imaging technique, optimising parameters such as kVp, mAs, filtration, and collimation to achieve the necessary diagnostic image quality while delivering the lowest possible radiation dose. This aligns with the principles of justification and optimisation enshrined in radiation safety legislation and professional codes of conduct, such as those guided by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) codes and the Australian Institute of Radiography’s ethical guidelines. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to proceed with a standard, unadjusted technique based solely on the patient’s age and general complaint without further clinical clarification or optimisation. This fails to adhere to the principle of optimisation, potentially exposing the patient to unnecessary radiation if a lower dose technique could achieve the diagnostic objective. It also neglects the specific diagnostic information required, which might be obtainable with a more targeted approach. Another incorrect approach would be to immediately increase exposure factors (e.g., mAs) to ensure a “clear” image, assuming this is always preferable. This directly contravenes the ALARA principle and the requirement for justification. While image quality is important, it must be balanced against radiation dose. An image that is diagnostically adequate at a lower dose is preferable to an overexposed image with no additional diagnostic benefit. A further incorrect approach would be to defer the decision-making entirely to the patient’s request without independent professional judgment or consultation. While patient comfort and understanding are important, the ultimate responsibility for radiation protection lies with the radiographer and the referring clinician. The patient may not fully understand the risks associated with radiation exposure or the nuances of optimal imaging techniques. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that prioritises patient safety and adherence to regulatory requirements. This involves: 1) Understanding the clinical indication and diagnostic question. 2) Consulting with the referring clinician to confirm the necessity and scope of the examination. 3) Applying the principles of justification and optimisation by selecting appropriate imaging parameters and techniques. 4) Documenting the rationale for technique selection. 5) Continuously evaluating image quality against diagnostic requirements and radiation dose. This framework ensures that all examinations are clinically justified and performed at the lowest reasonably achievable dose.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the potential for misinterpreting image quality indicators, which can directly impact diagnostic accuracy and patient care. Radiographers must exercise careful judgment to ensure images meet established quality standards, adhering to both professional guidelines and ethical responsibilities. The best approach involves a systematic evaluation of image quality against established Australian Institute of Radiography (AIR) guidelines and departmental protocols. This includes assessing factors such as spatial resolution, contrast, noise, and artefacts. By comparing the acquired images to these benchmarks, the radiographer can objectively determine if the image is diagnostically adequate. This aligns with the AIR’s commitment to maintaining high standards of practice and ensuring patient safety through accurate imaging. It also reflects the ethical obligation to provide competent and reliable diagnostic information. An incorrect approach would be to assume the image is acceptable simply because the patient appears comfortable or the procedure was completed without incident. This overlooks the critical technical aspects of image formation and quality, potentially leading to a missed diagnosis or unnecessary repeat examinations, which is inefficient and exposes the patient to additional radiation. This fails to meet the professional standard of care expected by the AIR. Another unacceptable approach is to rely solely on the radiologist’s interpretation without independently verifying image quality. While the radiologist provides the diagnostic interpretation, the radiographer is responsible for producing images of sufficient quality to enable that interpretation. Delegating this responsibility is a failure in professional accountability and contravenes the principles of good practice. Finally, making a subjective judgment based on personal preference rather than objective criteria is also professionally unsound. Image quality assessment must be based on established, measurable parameters to ensure consistency and reliability across all examinations and practitioners, as advocated by professional bodies like the AIR. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes objective assessment against established standards, followed by consultation if uncertainty remains. This ensures that patient care is paramount and that diagnostic information is accurate and reliable.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires balancing the immediate need for diagnostic imaging with the fundamental ethical and regulatory obligation to minimise radiation exposure to patients. The radiographer must exercise sound professional judgment, informed by their understanding of radiation safety principles and relevant Australian regulations, to ensure patient well-being without compromising diagnostic quality. The pressure to meet departmental targets or patient expectations can create a conflict that necessitates careful ethical and regulatory navigation. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough review of the patient’s clinical history and the specific examination requested to determine if the proposed imaging protocol is appropriate and if any prior relevant imaging exists that could obviate the need for further exposure. This approach aligns with the principles of justification and optimisation enshrined in Australian radiation protection legislation and guidelines, such as those from ARPANSA (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency) and state/territory radiation control authorities. Justification requires that the benefit of the examination outweighs the risk of radiation exposure, and optimisation (ALARA – As Low As Reasonably Achievable) mandates that doses are kept as low as possible while still achieving the diagnostic objective. By reviewing the clinical context, the radiographer ensures the examination is necessary and can then proceed to optimise the protocol. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves proceeding with the examination using standard protocols without critically assessing the clinical indication or considering alternative imaging pathways. This fails the principle of justification, as the examination might not be clinically necessary, leading to unnecessary radiation exposure. It also potentially violates the optimisation principle if a lower-dose protocol could achieve the diagnostic goal. Another incorrect approach is to defer the decision-making entirely to the referring clinician without engaging in professional dialogue or offering expertise on radiation safety. While collaboration is crucial, the radiographer has a professional responsibility to ensure radiation safety and can contribute valuable insights into appropriate protocols and the necessity of the examination based on their specialised knowledge. This abdication of responsibility can lead to suboptimal patient care and regulatory non-compliance. A further incorrect approach is to prioritise speed and efficiency over thorough patient assessment, leading to the immediate commencement of the examination without adequate consideration of dose reduction techniques or the potential for repeat exposures due to suboptimal positioning or technique. This directly contravenes the ALARA principle and risks unnecessary radiation burden on the patient. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic decision-making process that begins with understanding the clinical context and the rationale for the requested examination. This involves critically evaluating the necessity of the procedure and considering all available information, including prior imaging. Following this, the radiographer must apply the principles of justification and optimisation, selecting the most appropriate imaging technique and parameters to achieve the diagnostic objective with the lowest possible radiation dose. Open communication with referring clinicians and adherence to established protocols and regulatory guidelines are paramount throughout this process.