Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Certified Breast Patient Navigator to balance the patient’s immediate emotional distress and desire for information with strict legal obligations regarding Protected Health Information (PHI). The patient’s family member is acting out of concern, but their request directly implicates HIPAA’s privacy rules. The navigator must navigate this sensitive situation with empathy while upholding legal and ethical standards to protect the patient’s privacy. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves politely but firmly explaining to the family member that due to HIPAA regulations, the patient’s specific medical information cannot be shared without their explicit consent. The navigator should then offer to speak with the patient directly to ascertain their wishes regarding information sharing with their family. This approach is correct because it directly adheres to HIPAA’s core principle of patient confidentiality. It prioritizes the patient’s autonomy and right to control their own health information. By offering to speak with the patient, the navigator demonstrates a commitment to patient-centered care and facilitates a compliant way to address the family’s concerns. This aligns with the ethical duty of a patient navigator to advocate for the patient while respecting legal boundaries. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to immediately provide the requested information to the family member. This is a direct violation of HIPAA. Sharing PHI with a third party without the patient’s authorization is a breach of privacy and can lead to significant legal penalties for the healthcare provider and the navigator. It undermines patient trust and disregards the patient’s right to control their medical information. Another incorrect approach is to dismiss the family member’s concerns without offering any alternative solutions or explanations. While maintaining confidentiality is crucial, a lack of empathy or a refusal to engage can create further distress for the family and may be perceived as unhelpful. This approach fails to acknowledge the family’s role and concern, potentially damaging the patient-navigator relationship and the overall care experience. A third incorrect approach is to vaguely state that “privacy rules prevent sharing” without offering to facilitate communication or explore the patient’s wishes. While technically correct in principle, this approach lacks the proactive, patient-centered element of the best practice. It can leave the family feeling shut out and does not actively work towards a resolution that respects both privacy and family involvement, if the patient desires it. Professional Reasoning: Professionals in patient navigation roles must develop a framework for decision-making that prioritizes patient rights and legal compliance. This involves: 1) Identifying the core issue: Is there a request for PHI? 2) Recalling relevant regulations: What are the specific requirements of HIPAA regarding information sharing? 3) Assessing the situation: Who is requesting the information, and what is their relationship to the patient? 4) Considering patient autonomy: Does the patient have the capacity to consent, and what are their wishes? 5) Communicating clearly and empathetically: Explaining limitations while offering compliant solutions. 6) Documenting actions: Recording the interaction and the steps taken. This systematic approach ensures that patient privacy is protected while also fostering trust and effective communication.

The control framework reveals a common challenge in patient navigation: balancing immediate patient needs with the structured requirements of a healthcare system and the ethical imperative of informed consent. The professional challenge lies in ensuring the patient fully understands their options and the implications of their choices, particularly when facing a serious diagnosis like breast cancer. This requires not only clear communication but also an understanding of the patient’s emotional state and decision-making capacity. Careful judgment is required to avoid overwhelming the patient or making decisions on their behalf. The correct approach involves empowering the patient through comprehensive education and respecting their autonomy. This means providing clear, unbiased information about all available treatment options, including their potential benefits, risks, and side effects, without steering them towards a particular choice. It also necessitates ensuring the patient has sufficient time and support to process this information and ask questions before proceeding with any decisions. This aligns with fundamental ethical principles of patient autonomy and informed consent, which are cornerstones of patient navigation and healthcare practice. Regulatory frameworks, such as those governing patient rights and informed consent, mandate that patients receive adequate information to make voluntary decisions about their care. An incorrect approach would be to present only the most commonly chosen or institutionally preferred treatment options. This fails to uphold the principle of patient autonomy by limiting the patient’s awareness of their full range of choices. Ethically, this can be seen as a form of subtle coercion, as the patient is not given the complete picture necessary for an uninfluenced decision. Regulatory failure occurs because it violates the patient’s right to comprehensive information and the requirement for truly informed consent. Another incorrect approach would be to proceed with scheduling the next steps based on the assumption that the patient understands and agrees, without explicit confirmation or further discussion. This bypasses the crucial step of ensuring genuine understanding and consent. It is a failure of professional responsibility and a violation of ethical obligations to ensure patient comprehension. Regulatory bodies emphasize the importance of active confirmation of understanding and consent, not passive assumption. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to defer all decision-making to the patient’s family without ensuring the patient’s own wishes are understood and respected, or without the patient’s explicit consent to delegate this role. While family support is important, the ultimate decision-making authority rests with the patient, provided they have the capacity to make such decisions. Failing to involve the patient directly, or to ascertain their preferences, is an ethical and potentially regulatory breach of patient rights. The professional reasoning process for similar situations should involve a structured approach: first, assess the patient’s current understanding and emotional state; second, provide clear, comprehensive, and unbiased information about all relevant options; third, actively solicit questions and ensure comprehension; fourth, respect the patient’s pace and provide opportunities for reflection and discussion with loved ones if desired; and fifth, obtain explicit, informed consent before proceeding with any treatment plan.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Certified Breast Patient Navigator to synthesize information from multiple specialists, each with their own expertise and perspective, to create a cohesive and patient-centered treatment plan. The navigator must balance the medical recommendations with the patient’s personal values, goals, and understanding of their condition, ensuring all parties are aligned and the patient feels empowered in their care journey. Careful judgment is required to identify potential conflicts or gaps in the multidisciplinary team’s recommendations and to facilitate clear communication. The best approach involves the Certified Breast Patient Navigator proactively scheduling and facilitating a dedicated meeting with all relevant multidisciplinary team members (e.g., oncologist, surgeon, radiologist, pathologist, genetic counselor, social worker) and the patient. This meeting’s purpose is to collaboratively review all diagnostic findings, discuss all available treatment options with their respective risks and benefits, and jointly develop a comprehensive, individualized treatment plan that aligns with the patient’s expressed preferences and goals. This approach ensures that the patient is at the center of decision-making, that all team members are informed and contribute to the final plan, and that communication is transparent and efficient. This aligns with ethical principles of patient autonomy and beneficence, and professional guidelines emphasizing coordinated care and patient-centeredness. An incorrect approach would be for the Certified Breast Patient Navigator to independently compile a treatment plan based on individual consultations with each specialist, without a joint discussion involving the patient and all team members. This risks overlooking crucial interdependencies between treatment modalities, misinterpreting specialist recommendations, or failing to adequately address the patient’s unique concerns and values, potentially leading to a fragmented or suboptimal care plan. This fails to uphold the principle of collaborative decision-making and can undermine patient trust. Another incorrect approach would be for the navigator to present the patient with a single recommended treatment option, derived from the perceived consensus of the specialists, without fully exploring all alternatives or ensuring the patient understands the rationale behind the recommendation. This approach undermines patient autonomy by limiting their choices and can lead to a feeling of coercion or lack of informed consent. It also bypasses the opportunity for the patient to actively participate in shaping their care. A further incorrect approach would be for the Certified Breast Patient Navigator to delegate the responsibility of synthesizing information and developing the treatment plan solely to the oncologist, assuming they will coordinate with other specialists. While the oncologist plays a central role, this neglects the navigator’s crucial function in facilitating communication and ensuring all perspectives, including the patient’s, are integrated. This can lead to communication breakdowns and a plan that does not fully consider the patient’s holistic needs. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient-centeredness, interdisciplinary collaboration, and clear communication. This involves actively listening to the patient’s concerns and goals, understanding the roles and expertise of each team member, identifying potential areas of consensus and divergence, and facilitating open dialogue to achieve a shared understanding and a mutually agreed-upon treatment plan. The navigator acts as a crucial facilitator and advocate, ensuring the patient’s voice is heard and respected throughout the process.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Certified Breast Patient Navigator to balance immediate patient needs with long-term survivorship care and adherence to established follow-up protocols. The patient’s expressed desire for a break from medical appointments, while understandable, directly conflicts with the evidence-based recommendations for ongoing monitoring to detect recurrence or secondary malignancies. The navigator must navigate this emotional and clinical tension with sensitivity and professional integrity, ensuring the patient’s autonomy is respected while also advocating for their optimal health outcomes. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a comprehensive discussion with the patient about the critical importance of adhering to the survivorship care plan and follow-up protocols. This includes clearly explaining the rationale behind each recommended screening and follow-up appointment, emphasizing how these measures contribute to early detection of potential issues, improved prognosis, and management of long-term side effects. The navigator should actively listen to the patient’s concerns and anxieties regarding appointments, validate their feelings, and collaboratively explore strategies to mitigate these barriers. This might involve discussing appointment scheduling flexibility, providing resources for emotional support, or addressing practical concerns like transportation or childcare. The ultimate goal is to empower the patient with knowledge and support to make an informed decision that aligns with their health and well-being, while reinforcing the necessity of the established follow-up plan. This approach aligns with ethical principles of patient autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence, as well as professional guidelines emphasizing patient education and shared decision-making in survivorship care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to immediately agree to the patient’s request to postpone all follow-up appointments without further discussion or exploration of alternatives. This fails to uphold the navigator’s professional responsibility to advocate for the patient’s health and well-being. It disregards the established survivorship care plan, which is based on evidence to improve outcomes and detect potential recurrence or secondary cancers. This approach prioritizes immediate patient comfort over long-term health, potentially leading to delayed diagnosis and poorer outcomes, which is a failure of the principle of beneficence. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the patient’s feelings and insist on immediate adherence to the schedule, without attempting to understand or address the underlying reasons for their reluctance. This approach disrespects patient autonomy and can erode trust, making the patient less likely to engage in future care. It fails to acknowledge the emotional burden of cancer survivorship and can lead to patient disengagement from essential follow-up care, ultimately undermining the purpose of the survivorship plan. A third incorrect approach would be to simply document the patient’s request to skip appointments without any attempt to educate them on the risks or explore solutions. This passive approach abdicates the navigator’s role in patient advocacy and education. It fails to provide the patient with the necessary information to make an informed decision about their health and does not fulfill the ethical obligation to promote patient understanding and engagement in their ongoing care. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach such situations by first actively listening and empathizing with the patient’s expressed feelings and concerns. This should be followed by a clear, patient-centered explanation of the survivorship care plan and the rationale behind recommended follow-up protocols, emphasizing the benefits of early detection and management. Collaborative problem-solving should then be employed to identify and address any barriers to adherence, ensuring the patient feels supported and empowered to make informed decisions about their ongoing health management.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Breast Patient Navigator to interpret complex medical information and communicate it effectively to a patient who is likely experiencing significant emotional distress. The navigator must balance providing accurate information with demonstrating empathy and respecting patient autonomy, all while operating within their scope of practice and adhering to privacy regulations. Misinterpreting or miscommunicating the type of breast cancer can lead to incorrect patient expectations, inappropriate treatment discussions, and potential delays in care, impacting the patient’s prognosis and overall well-being. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves the Breast Patient Navigator confirming the specific type of breast cancer with the treating physician and then relaying this information to the patient in clear, understandable language, while also offering to facilitate a discussion with the physician for further clarification. This approach is correct because it ensures accuracy by deferring definitive diagnostic interpretation to the physician, respects the patient’s right to understand their diagnosis, and empowers the patient by offering direct access to the medical expert. It aligns with ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest), non-maleficence (avoiding harm through misinformation), and patient autonomy (respecting their right to informed decision-making). Furthermore, it adheres to professional guidelines for patient navigation, which emphasize clear communication and patient advocacy within the bounds of medical expertise. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to assume the patient has a common type of breast cancer and proceed with general information without confirming the specific diagnosis. This is professionally unacceptable as it risks providing inaccurate information, potentially leading the patient to believe they have a different prognosis or treatment plan than reality. This violates the principle of accuracy in communication and could cause significant distress and confusion. Another incorrect approach is to overwhelm the patient with highly technical medical terminology and detailed pathology reports without simplification or context. This fails to meet the patient’s need for understandable information and can be disempowering and anxiety-inducing. It neglects the navigator’s role in translating complex medical information into a patient-friendly format, thereby hindering informed consent and shared decision-making. A third incorrect approach is to avoid discussing the specific type of breast cancer altogether, citing it as a matter solely for the physician. While the physician is ultimately responsible for diagnosis and treatment, the navigator’s role is to support the patient’s understanding. Withholding this crucial information, even with good intentions, can create a barrier to trust and prevent the patient from asking relevant questions, thus undermining the navigator’s supportive function and potentially delaying the patient’s engagement with their care. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient understanding and safety. This involves: 1) Identifying the core information needed by the patient (the specific type of breast cancer). 2) Recognizing the limits of one’s own expertise and the need for physician confirmation. 3) Employing clear, empathetic, and patient-centered communication strategies. 4) Offering resources and support for further clarification and decision-making. 5) Adhering to all relevant privacy and professional conduct guidelines.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Breast Patient Navigator to synthesize complex clinical information (staging and grading) and translate it into actionable, patient-centered communication. The navigator must balance the need for accurate medical information with the patient’s emotional state and understanding, ensuring that the information provided is not only clinically sound but also delivered in a way that empowers the patient and facilitates informed decision-making. Misinterpreting or miscommunicating staging and grading can lead to significant patient anxiety, incorrect treatment expectations, and a breakdown in trust. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves the Breast Patient Navigator first confirming their understanding of the patient’s current knowledge and emotional readiness to receive detailed information about staging and grading. This is followed by a clear, empathetic explanation of what each component of the staging (TNM system) and grading (e.g., Nottingham score) signifies in terms of tumor size, lymph node involvement, metastasis, and cellular characteristics. The explanation should be tailored to the patient’s comprehension level, using analogies where appropriate, and explicitly linking these findings to the likely treatment pathways and prognosis. This approach aligns with ethical principles of patient autonomy and informed consent, ensuring the patient is an active participant in their care. It also adheres to professional guidelines for patient education, emphasizing clarity, accuracy, and compassion. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately presenting the patient with the full TNM classification and Gleason score without assessing their readiness or providing context. This can overwhelm the patient with technical jargon, leading to confusion and distress, and fails to uphold the ethical duty to communicate in a patient-centered manner. It bypasses the crucial step of gauging patient understanding and emotional capacity. Another incorrect approach is to provide a simplified, vague overview of the cancer’s stage and grade without detailing what these classifications mean for the individual patient’s prognosis or treatment options. This approach, while avoiding overwhelming the patient, deprives them of the necessary information to make truly informed decisions about their care and may foster a false sense of security or undue alarm depending on the unstated details. It falls short of the navigator’s responsibility to provide comprehensive, understandable information. A third incorrect approach is to defer all detailed discussion of staging and grading solely to the oncologist, offering no clarification or support to the patient. While the oncologist is ultimately responsible for treatment decisions, the navigator’s role includes bridging the gap between complex medical information and patient understanding. This abdication of responsibility fails to leverage the navigator’s unique position to support the patient through this critical phase of information gathering. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach this situation by prioritizing patient-centered communication. This involves a multi-step process: 1) Assess patient readiness and existing knowledge. 2) Provide clear, accurate, and contextually relevant information about staging and grading, using understandable language. 3) Link this information directly to potential treatment implications and prognosis. 4) Continuously check for patient understanding and address concerns. 5) Collaborate with the oncology team to ensure consistent messaging. This framework ensures that the patient is empowered with knowledge to participate actively in their care journey.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Certified Breast Patient Navigator to interpret complex biological and pathological information and translate it into actionable, patient-centered care plans. The challenge lies in balancing the scientific accuracy of the findings with the patient’s understanding, emotional state, and individual needs, all while adhering to ethical principles of patient autonomy and informed consent. The navigator must avoid oversimplification that could lead to misunderstanding or alarm, and also avoid overwhelming the patient with technical jargon. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a clear, empathetic, and staged explanation of the pathology report. This begins with confirming the patient’s readiness to discuss the results and then systematically breaking down the key findings. The navigator should explain what each term means in understandable language, focusing on the implications for prognosis and treatment options. Crucially, this approach prioritizes patient comprehension and empowers the patient to ask questions, ensuring they feel supported and informed throughout the process. This aligns with ethical guidelines emphasizing patient autonomy and the right to understand one’s medical condition. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to present the pathology report with minimal explanation, assuming the patient will understand or can seek clarification from the physician. This fails to meet the navigator’s role in bridging communication gaps and can leave the patient feeling anxious and uninformed, potentially violating the ethical principle of beneficence by not actively ensuring patient understanding. Another incorrect approach is to use highly technical medical terminology without adequate explanation, even with the intention of being thorough. This can overwhelm and confuse the patient, hindering their ability to participate in decision-making and potentially leading to anxiety and distrust, which is ethically problematic as it undermines informed consent and patient empowerment. A third incorrect approach is to offer definitive prognoses or treatment recommendations based solely on the pathology report without consulting the treating physician. This oversteps the navigator’s scope of practice, potentially providing inaccurate or incomplete information and undermining the physician-patient relationship. It also risks making promises or predictions that cannot be guaranteed, leading to ethical breaches related to honesty and professional boundaries. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a patient-centered communication model. This involves assessing the patient’s current understanding and emotional state, tailoring explanations to their level of comprehension, and actively encouraging questions. It requires a thorough understanding of the subject matter to translate complex information accurately and empathetically. When in doubt about interpretation or implications, always defer to the treating physician. The navigator’s role is to facilitate understanding and support, not to replace the physician’s diagnostic and treatment planning authority.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Breast Patient Navigator to interpret complex biological test results and communicate them accurately and empathetically to a patient who may be experiencing significant anxiety. The navigator must balance the need for precise information with the patient’s emotional state, ensuring they understand the implications of the results for their treatment plan without causing undue distress. Misinterpretation or miscommunication can lead to incorrect treatment decisions, patient confusion, and erosion of trust. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves the Breast Patient Navigator first confirming the accuracy of the reported hormone receptor status (ER, PR) and HER2/neu test results by reviewing the official pathology report. Following this verification, the navigator should schedule a dedicated meeting with the patient, ideally with the oncologist present or having already discussed the results with the oncologist. During this meeting, the navigator should clearly explain what each test measures, what the specific results mean in plain language, and how these results directly influence the recommended treatment options. This approach ensures the patient receives accurate, contextually relevant information directly from the medical team, fostering understanding and informed consent. This aligns with ethical principles of patient autonomy and beneficence, and regulatory guidelines that emphasize clear communication of diagnostic information. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to immediately relay the test results to the patient via a brief phone call without first verifying them against the official report or ensuring the oncologist has reviewed them. This risks communicating inaccurate information if there was a transcription error or preliminary result. It also bypasses the crucial step of contextualizing the results within the patient’s overall treatment plan, potentially causing confusion and anxiety. Another incorrect approach is to explain the results in highly technical medical jargon, assuming the patient will understand complex terminology related to immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). This fails to meet the navigator’s ethical obligation to ensure patient comprehension and can lead to misinterpretation and fear. It also neglects the professional responsibility to translate complex medical information into understandable terms. A third incorrect approach is to defer all explanation of the test results directly to the patient’s primary oncologist, stating that the navigator is not qualified to discuss them. While the navigator is not the prescribing physician, they are a crucial conduit for information and support. This approach abandons the patient at a critical juncture, failing to provide the immediate support and clarification that a patient navigator is specifically trained to offer, and potentially leaving the patient feeling unsupported and confused until their next scheduled appointment with the oncologist. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic approach when communicating critical test results. This involves: 1) Verification of information from the primary source. 2) Collaboration with the treating physician to ensure a unified and accurate message. 3) Tailoring communication to the patient’s level of understanding, using clear, non-technical language. 4) Providing emotional support and addressing patient concerns. 5) Ensuring the patient understands the implications of the results for their treatment plan and has the opportunity to ask questions.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because the patient navigator must balance the immediate need for information to guide care with the patient’s right to privacy and autonomy. The navigator must gather comprehensive data without overwhelming or alienating the patient, ensuring all information is relevant to their breast health journey and collected in a manner that respects their dignity and trust. Careful judgment is required to determine the scope and depth of assessment appropriate for the initial encounter. The best approach involves a structured, yet empathetic, initial assessment that prioritizes gathering essential information for immediate care planning while clearly establishing rapport and trust. This includes inquiring about the patient’s presenting concerns, relevant medical history, family history of breast cancer, and current symptoms. Crucially, this approach involves explaining the purpose of the questions, obtaining informed consent for information gathering, and actively listening to the patient’s narrative. This aligns with ethical principles of patient-centered care, beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest by gathering necessary information), and respect for autonomy (involving the patient in the assessment process). It also implicitly adheres to guidelines that emphasize thoroughness in patient assessment to ensure appropriate navigation and support. An approach that focuses solely on immediate physical symptoms without exploring psychosocial factors or family history is insufficient. This failure to conduct a comprehensive assessment could lead to missed opportunities for early detection or personalized support, potentially impacting the quality of care and patient outcomes. It neglects the holistic nature of patient navigation. Another unacceptable approach is to conduct a superficial assessment that does not delve into the patient’s understanding of their condition or their support systems. This can result in a disconnect between the navigator’s recommendations and the patient’s lived experience, hindering effective navigation and potentially leading to patient disengagement. Finally, an approach that involves extensive questioning about unrelated personal matters beyond what is pertinent to breast health navigation is inappropriate. This oversteps professional boundaries, erodes patient trust, and is an inefficient use of both the patient’s and the navigator’s time, potentially violating privacy principles. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with understanding the core purpose of the assessment in the context of patient navigation. This involves identifying essential data points required for effective care planning, prioritizing patient comfort and trust, and continuously evaluating the appropriateness and relevance of questions. Active listening, empathetic communication, and a commitment to patient-centered care are paramount throughout the assessment process.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Certified Breast Patient Navigator to balance the patient’s immediate emotional distress with the need for accurate, evidence-based information and support. The patient’s fear and anxiety can cloud her judgment and make her susceptible to misinformation or unproven remedies. The navigator must navigate this emotional landscape with empathy while upholding professional standards of care and patient advocacy. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves validating the patient’s feelings, actively listening to her concerns, and then gently guiding the conversation towards reliable information and established support systems. This approach prioritizes the patient’s emotional well-being by acknowledging her fear and distress, creating a safe space for her to express herself. It then ethically and professionally addresses her need for information by offering to provide accurate, evidence-based resources and connecting her with appropriate healthcare professionals or support groups. This aligns with the core principles of patient navigation, which include empowering patients with knowledge and facilitating access to care, all while maintaining a compassionate and supportive demeanor. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Offering immediate reassurance without fully understanding the patient’s specific fears or providing concrete information can be dismissive of her distress and may lead to false hope or a lack of engagement with necessary medical steps. This approach fails to address the root of her anxiety and bypasses the crucial step of information gathering and validation. Suggesting the patient research alternative therapies online without any guidance or vetting of sources is irresponsible. The internet is rife with misinformation, and directing a vulnerable patient to unverified sources can lead to dangerous decisions, delaying or replacing evidence-based treatment. This breaches the navigator’s duty to provide accurate information and protect the patient from harm. Focusing solely on the medical aspects of her diagnosis and treatment plan without acknowledging or addressing her emotional state is a significant ethical failure. While medical information is vital, ignoring the psychological impact of a cancer diagnosis can exacerbate her anxiety, hinder her ability to cope, and negatively affect her treatment adherence and overall well-being. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a patient-centered approach that begins with empathetic listening and validation of emotions. This should be followed by a clear assessment of the patient’s understanding and concerns. The navigator then ethically provides accurate, evidence-based information and resources, empowering the patient to make informed decisions in collaboration with her healthcare team. This process involves active listening, clear communication, and a commitment to patient advocacy within established professional and ethical boundaries.