Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a pulmonary function technologist to balance the immediate need for patient testing with the critical requirement for accurate and reliable data. Deviations from calibration protocols, even if seemingly minor or driven by time constraints, can lead to misdiagnosis, inappropriate treatment, and potentially harm to the patient. The technologist must exercise sound professional judgment to ensure patient safety and data integrity, adhering strictly to established standards. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves immediately ceasing testing and performing a full recalibration of the spirometer using the manufacturer’s specified procedures and certified reference standards. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the identified discrepancy, ensuring that all subsequent measurements are accurate and reliable. Adherence to manufacturer guidelines and the use of certified standards are fundamental to maintaining the integrity of pulmonary function testing, as mandated by professional bodies and regulatory standards that emphasize data accuracy for clinical decision-making. This proactive measure prevents the generation of potentially misleading results. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Performing the test without recalibration, assuming the discrepancy is minor, is professionally unacceptable. This approach disregards the potential for significant measurement error, which can lead to incorrect clinical interpretations and patient management. It violates the ethical obligation to provide accurate diagnostic information and the regulatory requirement for validated equipment performance. Proceeding with the test after a quick, non-standard adjustment without a full recalibration is also professionally unacceptable. Such an approach bypasses established protocols designed to ensure accuracy and reproducibility. It introduces an unknown level of error and compromises the validity of the test results, potentially leading to misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment, which is a breach of professional responsibility and regulatory compliance. Using a different, uncertified reference standard for a quick check instead of a full recalibration is professionally unacceptable. This undermines the fundamental principle of using traceable and certified standards for calibration. Without certified standards, the accuracy of the calibration cannot be verified, rendering the subsequent test results unreliable and potentially misleading. This deviates from best practices for quality assurance in diagnostic testing. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic approach to equipment management and testing. This involves understanding and strictly adhering to manufacturer calibration protocols, recognizing the critical role of certified reference standards, and prioritizing data integrity and patient safety above all else. When any doubt arises regarding equipment performance, the immediate and correct course of action is to halt testing and perform a thorough, protocol-compliant recalibration. This decision-making process should be guided by a commitment to ethical practice, regulatory compliance, and the pursuit of accurate diagnostic information.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the pulmonary function technologist to balance the immediate need for accurate diagnostic data with the ethical imperative to protect patient privacy and comply with data protection regulations. The technologist must navigate the potential for unauthorized disclosure of sensitive health information while ensuring that necessary clinical decisions can be made promptly. Careful judgment is required to determine the appropriate level of information sharing and the secure methods for doing so. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves anonymizing the patient’s identifying information before sharing the pulmonary function test results with the referring physician. This approach directly addresses the core principles of patient confidentiality and data privacy mandated by relevant health information regulations. By removing direct identifiers such as name, date of birth, and medical record number, the technologist ensures that the data shared is not linked to a specific individual, thereby mitigating the risk of unauthorized disclosure. This allows the physician to access the necessary clinical data for diagnosis and treatment planning without compromising the patient’s privacy. This aligns with the ethical duty of care and the legal requirements to protect patient data. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Sharing the full, unredacted pulmonary function test report directly with the referring physician without any form of anonymization or secure transmission protocol is a significant breach of patient privacy and data protection regulations. This approach exposes the patient’s sensitive health information to potential unauthorized access and disclosure, violating their right to confidentiality. Sharing the pulmonary function test results with the referring physician via a public or unsecured email service, even if anonymized, introduces a high risk of data interception and unauthorized access. While anonymization is a positive step, the transmission method itself creates a vulnerability that contravenes the principles of secure data handling and patient confidentiality. Refusing to share the pulmonary function test results with the referring physician altogether, even with appropriate anonymization, would impede necessary medical care and could be considered a failure in the duty of care. While patient privacy is paramount, withholding essential diagnostic information without a valid regulatory or ethical justification can negatively impact patient outcomes. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a risk-based approach to data handling. First, identify the purpose of data sharing and the minimum necessary information required. Second, assess the potential risks to patient privacy and data security associated with different sharing methods. Third, implement appropriate safeguards, such as anonymization and secure transmission channels, to mitigate identified risks. Fourth, consult relevant professional guidelines and regulatory requirements to ensure compliance. In situations involving sensitive health information, prioritizing patient confidentiality and data protection while facilitating necessary clinical care is the guiding principle.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the integrity of the licensure examination process with the need to provide fair opportunities for candidates to demonstrate their competency. The Caribbean Pulmonary Function Technology Licensure Examination, like any professional licensing body, has a vested interest in ensuring that its examination reflects a candidate’s current knowledge and skills, while also maintaining a consistent and equitable testing environment. The blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies are critical components of this process, designed to uphold standards and protect public safety by ensuring only qualified individuals are licensed. Careful judgment is required to interpret and apply these policies in a manner that is both procedurally just and substantively sound. The best approach involves a thorough review of the candidate’s previous examination performance against the established retake policy and the current examination blueprint. This includes understanding how the weighting of different content areas on the blueprint has evolved and how scoring is applied to ensure a consistent measure of competency. Adhering strictly to the documented retake policy, which likely outlines the number of attempts allowed, the time intervals between attempts, and any required remediation, is paramount. This approach ensures that the candidate is evaluated fairly based on the established rules, and that the examination’s validity and reliability are maintained. It prioritizes adherence to the regulatory framework governing the licensure process, ensuring that decisions are objective and defensible. An approach that focuses solely on the candidate’s expressed desire for a retake without considering the established policy is procedurally flawed. It risks undermining the examination’s integrity by creating an ad hoc exception that could be perceived as preferential treatment. This failure to adhere to documented policies can lead to challenges regarding fairness and equity for other candidates. Another incorrect approach would be to assume that a previous passing score on a different version of the examination automatically qualifies a candidate for a retake without further assessment. The examination blueprint and scoring methodologies can change over time, and a prior passing score does not guarantee current competency under a potentially revised framework. This approach neglects the dynamic nature of professional knowledge and the examination’s role in assessing it. Furthermore, an approach that prioritizes the candidate’s perceived urgency or personal circumstances over the established examination policies is ethically problematic. While empathy is important, professional licensing bodies must operate under objective criteria to ensure public trust and the validity of their licensure process. Deviating from policy based on personal appeals can compromise the examination’s credibility. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a clear understanding of the governing regulations, including the examination blueprint, scoring rubrics, and retake policies. This framework involves objectively assessing the candidate’s situation against these established criteria. When faced with ambiguity or unique circumstances, seeking clarification from the examination board or relevant regulatory body is a crucial step. The ultimate goal is to make decisions that are consistent, fair, transparent, and uphold the professional standards of the Caribbean Pulmonary Function Technology Licensure Examination.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common professional challenge for candidates preparing for a specialized licensure examination. The challenge lies in navigating the vast array of available preparation resources and determining an optimal timeline that balances thoroughness with efficiency, while adhering to the ethical imperative of responsible professional development. Misjudging this balance can lead to either inadequate preparation, potentially compromising patient safety and professional competence, or inefficient use of time and resources, which can be demotivating and costly. Careful judgment is required to select resources that are evidence-based, relevant to the examination’s scope, and to structure a study plan that is both realistic and effective. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic and evidence-informed approach to candidate preparation. This begins with a thorough review of the official examination blueprint and syllabus provided by the Caribbean Pulmonary Function Technology Licensure Examination board. This document outlines the specific knowledge domains, skills, and competencies that will be assessed. Based on this blueprint, candidates should then identify reputable and current preparation resources, such as peer-reviewed literature, established textbooks in pulmonary function testing, and any official study guides or practice assessments recommended by the licensing body. The timeline should be structured by breaking down the syllabus into manageable modules, allocating dedicated study periods for each, and incorporating regular self-assessment and review sessions. A realistic timeline typically spans several months, allowing for deep understanding rather than superficial memorization, and includes buffer periods for unexpected delays or areas requiring more attention. This approach ensures that preparation is directly aligned with examination requirements, utilizes credible information, and fosters a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, thereby upholding the ethical obligation to be competent and prepared. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves relying solely on informal study groups or anecdotal advice from peers without cross-referencing with official examination materials or established professional guidelines. This can lead to a fragmented understanding of the subject matter, potentially focusing on less critical topics or misinterpreting complex concepts. It fails to adhere to the principle of using authoritative and validated resources, which is crucial for ensuring the accuracy and relevance of preparation. Another incorrect approach is to cram extensively in the final weeks leading up to the examination. This method prioritizes speed over depth of understanding and is unlikely to facilitate the retention of complex physiological principles and technical procedures required for pulmonary function technology. It neglects the importance of spaced repetition and gradual mastery, which are essential for long-term knowledge retention and application, and can lead to superficial learning that does not equip the candidate for real-world clinical scenarios. A third incorrect approach is to exclusively use outdated or commercially driven preparation materials that may not reflect current best practices or the specific nuances of the Caribbean examination. This can result in preparation that is misaligned with the examination’s scope and may not cover the most up-to-date diagnostic criteria or technological advancements in the field, potentially leading to a failure to meet the required standards of competence. Professional Reasoning: Professionals preparing for licensure examinations should adopt a structured and self-directed learning approach. The process should begin with understanding the examination’s scope and objectives as defined by the governing body. This forms the foundation for resource selection and timeline development. Candidates should prioritize resources that are evidence-based, current, and directly relevant to the examination content. The development of a study plan should be iterative, involving the breakdown of content into manageable units, the scheduling of dedicated study time, and the integration of regular self-assessment to identify areas of strength and weakness. Flexibility within the timeline is also important to accommodate individual learning paces and unforeseen circumstances. This systematic approach not only maximizes the likelihood of examination success but also cultivates the lifelong learning habits essential for maintaining professional competence and ensuring high-quality patient care.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a precise understanding of the eligibility criteria for the Comprehensive Caribbean Pulmonary Function Technology Licensure Examination. Misinterpreting or misapplying these criteria can lead to significant professional setbacks for aspiring technologists, including wasted time, financial loss, and delayed career progression. Careful judgment is required to ensure that all applicants meet the established standards, thereby upholding the integrity and credibility of the licensure process. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a thorough review of the applicant’s documentation against the explicitly stated eligibility requirements for the Comprehensive Caribbean Pulmonary Function Technology Licensure Examination. This includes verifying educational qualifications, practical experience, and any other prerequisites mandated by the relevant Caribbean regulatory body overseeing pulmonary function technology licensure. This approach is correct because it directly adheres to the established regulatory framework designed to ensure that only qualified individuals are licensed, thereby protecting public health and maintaining professional standards. It prioritizes objective verification of documented evidence against defined criteria, minimizing subjective interpretation. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves accepting an applicant’s self-declaration of meeting all eligibility criteria without independent verification. This is professionally unacceptable as it bypasses the essential due diligence required by the regulatory framework. It relies on an assumption of honesty rather than concrete proof, which can lead to unqualified individuals being granted licensure, compromising patient safety and the reputation of the profession. Another incorrect approach is to grant provisional eligibility based on the applicant’s stated intent to complete outstanding requirements in the near future, without concrete evidence of progress or a defined timeline for completion. This deviates from the principle of ensuring all prerequisites are met *prior* to licensure. It introduces an element of uncertainty and risk, potentially allowing individuals to practice without full qualification, which is a direct contravention of the regulatory intent to safeguard the public. A further incorrect approach is to consider the applicant’s personal circumstances or perceived enthusiasm for the profession as mitigating factors for not meeting specific educational or experiential requirements. Eligibility criteria are established to ensure a baseline level of competence, irrespective of individual situations. Prioritizing personal circumstances over established professional standards undermines the fairness and objectivity of the licensure process and fails to uphold the regulatory mandate. Professional Reasoning: Professionals involved in licensure processes should adopt a systematic and evidence-based approach. This involves clearly understanding the governing regulations, meticulously reviewing all submitted documentation, and seeking clarification or additional information when necessary. A decision-making framework should prioritize adherence to established criteria, objective assessment of qualifications, and a commitment to maintaining the integrity and standards of the profession. When in doubt, consulting the official guidelines or seeking advice from the governing regulatory body is paramount.

The audit findings indicate a potential breach in the quality control of pulmonary function testing equipment, directly impacting diagnostic accuracy and patient care. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires immediate and decisive action to mitigate risks to patient safety and maintain the integrity of diagnostic services, while also adhering to established protocols and regulatory expectations. The pressure to ensure continued service delivery must be balanced against the imperative to address equipment malfunctions and potential diagnostic errors. The best approach involves a systematic and documented process of equipment validation and recalibration, prioritizing patient safety. This entails immediately removing the suspect equipment from service, initiating a thorough diagnostic assessment to identify the root cause of the deviation, and performing recalibration or repair according to manufacturer specifications and established laboratory protocols. Following this, a revalidation of the equipment’s performance using known standards is crucial before it is returned to clinical use. This methodical approach ensures that any identified issues are fully resolved, thereby preventing the generation of inaccurate data and safeguarding patient diagnoses. This aligns with the fundamental ethical obligation to provide competent and safe patient care and the regulatory requirement for accurate diagnostic testing. An incorrect approach would be to continue using the equipment while awaiting a full investigation, especially if the deviation is significant. This poses a direct risk of misdiagnosis, leading to inappropriate treatment or delayed care, which is a serious ethical and regulatory failure. Another unacceptable approach is to perform only a superficial check and recalibration without a comprehensive diagnostic assessment of the underlying issue. This may not address the root cause of the deviation, leaving the equipment prone to further malfunctions and continued generation of unreliable data. Furthermore, failing to document the entire process, from initial identification of the issue to final validation, represents a significant regulatory and professional lapse, hindering accountability and future quality assurance efforts. Professionals should employ a risk-based decision-making framework. This involves first identifying potential hazards (equipment malfunction), assessing the severity of the risk (impact on patient diagnosis and treatment), and then implementing control measures (equipment validation, recalibration, and revalidation). Transparency and adherence to established Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are paramount throughout this process.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a pulmonary function technologist to balance immediate patient needs with established protocols and the potential for long-term health implications, all while operating within the scope of their licensure and ethical obligations. The technologist must assess the risk of exacerbating the patient’s condition versus the benefit of obtaining crucial diagnostic data. Careful judgment is required to avoid both under-treatment and over-intervention. The best approach involves a comprehensive risk assessment that prioritizes patient safety and adherence to established clinical guidelines for managing patients with known respiratory conditions during pulmonary function testing. This includes evaluating the patient’s current symptom severity, reviewing their medical history for contraindications or specific management protocols, and consulting with the supervising physician if there is any uncertainty. This approach ensures that the intervention, if any, is evidence-based, tailored to the individual patient, and within the technologist’s scope of practice, thereby minimizing the risk of adverse events and maximizing the diagnostic utility of the test. This aligns with the ethical principle of non-maleficence (do no harm) and beneficence (act in the patient’s best interest), as well as professional standards of care. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with the full diagnostic testing without adequately assessing the patient’s current respiratory status, potentially leading to an exacerbation of their condition. This disregards the principle of patient safety and could violate professional standards of care by failing to exercise due diligence. Another incorrect approach would be to unilaterally decide to withhold testing entirely based on a subjective feeling of risk without consulting the supervising physician or following established protocols for managing patients with potential exacerbations. This could lead to a delay in diagnosis and treatment, potentially harming the patient by not obtaining necessary information. It also oversteps the technologist’s role by making a definitive diagnostic or treatment decision without appropriate medical oversight. A further incorrect approach would be to administer a bronchodilator without a clear indication or physician order, even if the patient reports mild symptoms. While seemingly helpful, this constitutes an unauthorized medical intervention, potentially masking underlying issues or causing unintended side effects, and violates the scope of practice for a pulmonary function technologist. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making framework that begins with a thorough patient assessment, including a review of their history and current symptoms. This should be followed by consulting relevant clinical guidelines and protocols. If any doubt or ambiguity exists regarding patient safety or the appropriate course of action, escalation to the supervising physician is paramount. This ensures that decisions are collaborative, evidence-based, and prioritize patient well-being within the established regulatory and ethical framework.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the pulmonary function technologist to balance the immediate need for accurate diagnostic data with the patient’s expressed discomfort and potential anxiety. The technologist must navigate the ethical imperative to obtain a complete and reliable test while respecting the patient’s autonomy and well-being. Failure to do so could lead to a compromised test, patient distress, or even a breach of professional conduct. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic approach to risk assessment and mitigation. This begins with acknowledging the patient’s stated discomfort and immediately pausing the procedure. The technologist should then engage in open communication with the patient to understand the specific nature and severity of their discomfort. This communication should be empathetic and non-judgmental. Following this, the technologist should assess if the discomfort is manageable through minor adjustments to the technique, such as altering the mouthpiece, providing reassurance, or offering a brief rest period, without compromising the integrity of the test. If the discomfort persists or is severe, the technologist must then consider if the test can be safely and effectively completed, or if it needs to be rescheduled or modified, always prioritizing patient safety and comfort within the bounds of obtaining a clinically meaningful result. This approach aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm), as well as respecting patient autonomy. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to ignore the patient’s expressed discomfort and proceed with the test as planned. This disregards the patient’s autonomy and can lead to increased anxiety, a less cooperative patient, and potentially inaccurate results due to the patient’s inability to perform optimally. It also fails to uphold the principle of non-maleficence by potentially causing unnecessary distress. Another incorrect approach is to immediately terminate the test without attempting to understand or mitigate the patient’s discomfort. While patient comfort is important, a complete diagnostic assessment is also a primary goal. Abruptly ending the test without exploring less invasive solutions or understanding the cause of discomfort may be premature and could lead to a missed diagnostic opportunity or the need for repeat testing, which can be burdensome for the patient. A third incorrect approach is to proceed with the test while making significant, unverified modifications to the standard protocol based solely on the patient’s initial complaint, without a clear understanding of the cause or impact of the discomfort. This risks compromising the validity and reliability of the pulmonary function test results, rendering them clinically useless and potentially leading to misdiagnosis or inappropriate treatment. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a structured decision-making process that prioritizes patient safety and ethical considerations. This involves active listening to the patient’s concerns, a thorough assessment of the situation, and a collaborative approach to finding the most appropriate course of action. When faced with patient discomfort during a procedure, the technologist should first seek to understand the nature and cause of the discomfort. Then, they should evaluate potential interventions to alleviate the discomfort while maintaining the integrity of the diagnostic process. If the discomfort cannot be managed or poses a significant risk, the technologist must then consider alternative strategies, such as rescheduling the test or modifying the procedure, always in consultation with the patient and, if necessary, the referring physician.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common challenge in healthcare settings where maintaining optimal patient safety and infection control requires constant vigilance and adherence to established protocols. The professional challenge lies in interpreting data from monitoring systems and translating it into actionable steps that prevent adverse events, ensuring both patient well-being and compliance with regulatory standards for quality control in pulmonary function technology. Careful judgment is required to differentiate between minor deviations and significant risks that necessitate immediate intervention. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic risk assessment that prioritizes immediate investigation and corrective action for any identified deviation from established quality control parameters. This approach aligns with the core principles of patient safety and regulatory compliance, which mandate proactive identification and mitigation of risks. Specifically, it requires immediate notification of the supervisor and the initiation of a root cause analysis to understand the source of the deviation. This ensures that potential breaches in infection control or equipment malfunction are addressed promptly, preventing harm to patients and maintaining the integrity of diagnostic procedures. Such a proactive stance is fundamental to quality assurance in healthcare technology. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves documenting the deviation and scheduling a review at a later date without immediate investigation. This fails to address potential immediate risks to patient safety or infection control. Regulatory guidelines emphasize timely intervention when quality control parameters are breached, and delaying action could lead to continued exposure to suboptimal conditions or faulty equipment, violating standards of care and potentially leading to patient harm. Another incorrect approach is to assume the deviation is a temporary anomaly and continue with patient testing without further verification. This demonstrates a disregard for established quality control protocols. Such an assumption bypasses the critical step of ensuring equipment accuracy and sterility, which are paramount for preventing the spread of infections and ensuring the reliability of diagnostic results. This approach directly contravenes the principles of infection prevention and quality assurance mandated by regulatory bodies overseeing healthcare technology. A further incorrect approach is to adjust the monitoring system’s parameters to align with the observed readings without investigating the cause of the deviation. This is a serious ethical and regulatory failure. Manipulating data to mask a problem rather than addressing its root cause undermines the entire quality control process. It creates a false sense of security, potentially leading to misdiagnosis or the continued use of malfunctioning equipment, which poses significant risks to patient safety and violates the integrity of the diagnostic process. Professional Reasoning: Professionals in pulmonary function technology should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety and regulatory compliance. This involves: 1) Recognizing and understanding established quality control parameters and infection prevention protocols. 2) Actively monitoring all relevant systems and data. 3) When a deviation occurs, immediately assessing the potential risk to patients and the integrity of the procedure. 4) Following established protocols for reporting and investigating deviations, which typically involve immediate notification of a supervisor and initiating a root cause analysis. 5) Implementing corrective actions based on the findings of the investigation. 6) Documenting all steps taken and their outcomes. This systematic approach ensures that potential issues are addressed promptly and effectively, upholding the highest standards of professional practice.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing patient safety and data integrity with the practicalities of equipment maintenance and the potential for diagnostic delays. A pulmonary function technologist must exercise sound judgment to ensure that equipment issues do not compromise the quality of patient care or lead to misdiagnosis, while also adhering to established protocols. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves immediately reporting the observed calibration drift to the supervising physician and the equipment maintenance department. This approach is correct because it prioritizes patient safety by ensuring that any potentially inaccurate results are flagged and investigated promptly. Regulatory guidelines for allied health professionals, such as those emphasized by the Caribbean Association of Allied Health Professionals (CAAHP) Code of Ethics, mandate that practitioners maintain the highest standards of professional conduct, which includes ensuring the accuracy and reliability of diagnostic equipment. Prompt reporting allows for timely recalibration or repair, preventing the use of faulty equipment for patient testing and upholding the integrity of diagnostic data. This proactive measure aligns with ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, ensuring that patients receive accurate assessments and are not subjected to potentially misleading results. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to proceed with testing patients, assuming the drift is minor and unlikely to significantly impact results. This is professionally unacceptable because it violates the principle of non-maleficence. Even minor calibration drift can lead to subtle inaccuracies that, when aggregated or in specific patient populations, could result in misdiagnosis or inappropriate treatment decisions. It also breaches the ethical obligation to maintain professional competence and ensure the reliability of diagnostic tools. Another incorrect approach is to attempt to recalibrate the equipment independently without proper training or authorization. This is problematic as it bypasses established safety and maintenance protocols. Unauthorized adjustments could further compromise the equipment’s accuracy, potentially leading to more severe diagnostic errors. It also undermines the established chain of command and the roles of specialized maintenance personnel, potentially creating liability issues and further delaying proper resolution. A third incorrect approach is to delay reporting the issue until the end of the day or the next scheduled maintenance check. This is unacceptable as it unnecessarily exposes multiple patients to the risk of inaccurate testing. The potential for harm is cumulative, and delaying action means that potentially flawed data could be used in clinical decision-making for an extended period, compromising patient care and the credibility of the diagnostic service. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic approach to equipment issues. This involves immediate observation and documentation of any anomalies, followed by prompt communication through established channels to relevant personnel (supervisors, physicians, maintenance). The decision-making process should always prioritize patient safety and data integrity, adhering to professional codes of conduct and regulatory requirements. If there is any doubt about equipment accuracy, testing should be suspended until the issue is resolved and validated.