Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a surgical technologist to balance the immediate need for patient care with the critical requirement for accurate and safe equipment operation. Miscalibration or improper use of surgical equipment can lead to patient harm, procedural delays, and potential legal ramifications. The technologist must exercise sound judgment, relying on established protocols and their technical expertise to ensure patient safety and procedural integrity. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves immediately halting the procedure and clearly communicating the observed discrepancy in the electrosurgical unit’s performance to the surgeon and the entire surgical team. This approach is correct because it prioritizes patient safety above all else. Regulatory frameworks, such as those governing medical device use and patient safety standards in North America, mandate that any equipment malfunction or suspected issue that could compromise patient well-being must be addressed before proceeding. Ethically, the technologist has a duty of care to the patient, which includes ensuring the instruments used are functioning as intended. Prompt and clear communication allows for immediate troubleshooting, recalibration, or replacement of the faulty equipment, preventing potential complications. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Proceeding with the procedure while attempting to compensate for the perceived issue without informing the surgeon is professionally unacceptable. This approach violates the duty of care and the principle of patient safety. It creates a hidden risk to the patient, as the surgeon is operating under the assumption that the equipment is functioning correctly. This could lead to unexpected tissue damage or inadequate hemostasis, and it bypasses established protocols for equipment malfunction. Attempting to recalibrate the unit discreetly during the procedure without the surgeon’s explicit awareness or consent is also professionally unacceptable. While the intention might be to resolve the issue quickly, this action undermines the collaborative nature of the surgical team and bypasses necessary communication channels. It also carries the risk of improper recalibration, potentially exacerbating the problem or creating new ones, all without the surgeon’s knowledge of the potential risks. Ignoring the discrepancy and continuing the procedure as if nothing is wrong is the most egregious failure. This approach demonstrates a severe disregard for patient safety and professional responsibility. It directly contravenes regulatory requirements for reporting equipment malfunctions and ethical obligations to act in the patient’s best interest. This could lead to significant patient harm and severe professional and legal consequences. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic approach when encountering equipment discrepancies. This involves: 1. Observation: Accurately identify and document the observed issue. 2. Communication: Immediately and clearly communicate the issue to the responsible parties (in this case, the surgeon and surgical team). 3. Collaboration: Work with the team to determine the best course of action, which may involve troubleshooting, recalibration, or equipment replacement. 4. Documentation: Record the incident, the actions taken, and the resolution. This framework ensures that patient safety remains paramount and that all actions are taken within established professional and regulatory guidelines.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires a surgical technologist to navigate the complex requirements for licensure, balancing personal career aspirations with the established standards for public safety and professional competence. Misunderstanding or misrepresenting eligibility criteria can lead to significant professional repercussions, including denial of licensure, disciplinary action, and damage to reputation. Careful judgment is required to ensure all prerequisites are met accurately and ethically. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a thorough and honest self-assessment against the published eligibility criteria for the Comprehensive North American Surgical Technology Licensure Examination. This means meticulously reviewing all academic, experiential, and any other mandated requirements as outlined by the governing body. The justification for this approach is rooted in regulatory compliance and ethical integrity. The examination’s purpose is to ensure that only qualified individuals are licensed to practice, thereby protecting patient safety. Adhering strictly to the stated eligibility requirements is a fundamental ethical obligation and a direct mandate of the regulatory framework governing surgical technology licensure. This proactive and truthful approach ensures that the applicant is genuinely prepared and meets the minimum standards set forth to safeguard the public. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to assume that general knowledge or experience in a healthcare setting is equivalent to meeting the specific eligibility criteria for the examination. This fails to acknowledge that the examination is designed to assess a specialized skillset and knowledge base directly related to surgical technology, as defined by the licensing body. Relying on assumptions rather than explicit requirements is a regulatory failure and an ethical lapse, as it bypasses the established gatekeeping mechanism for professional practice. Another incorrect approach is to attempt to “fast-track” the process by submitting incomplete or misleading information regarding educational background or supervised practice hours. This constitutes a direct violation of the examination’s integrity and the regulatory framework. Such actions are not only unethical but also fraudulent, undermining the trust placed in licensed professionals and potentially endangering patients by allowing unqualified individuals to practice. A further incorrect approach is to rely solely on anecdotal advice from peers or mentors without independently verifying the official eligibility requirements. While peer advice can be helpful, it is not a substitute for understanding the precise, legally binding criteria set by the licensing authority. This approach risks misinterpretation of requirements and can lead to an applicant being unprepared or ineligible, resulting in wasted time, resources, and potential disciplinary action. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing decisions about licensure eligibility should adopt a systematic and verifiable approach. This involves: 1) Identifying the authoritative source for licensure requirements (e.g., the official website or documentation of the licensing board). 2) Carefully reading and understanding each stated criterion. 3) Honestly assessing one’s own qualifications against each criterion. 4) Seeking clarification from the licensing body directly if any aspect of the requirements is unclear. 5) Maintaining meticulous records of all supporting documentation. This process prioritizes accuracy, integrity, and compliance, ensuring that professional aspirations are pursued through legitimate and ethical channels.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a surgical technologist to balance the immediate needs of a patient during a critical procedure with the established protocols for instrument handling and documentation. The pressure of the operating room environment, coupled with the potential for patient harm if a critical instrument is misplaced, necessitates a calm, systematic, and ethically grounded decision-making process. Failure to adhere to proper procedures can have serious consequences for patient safety and legal accountability. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves immediately and clearly communicating the suspected loss of the instrument to the circulating nurse and the surgeon. This approach is correct because it prioritizes patient safety by initiating the established count procedure and alerting the surgical team to a potential retained surgical item. Regulatory frameworks, such as those outlined by the Association of Surgical Technologists (AST) Standards of Practice and implied by patient safety guidelines from organizations like the Joint Commission, mandate clear communication and adherence to count policies to prevent retained surgical items. Ethically, this approach upholds the principle of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm). Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to continue the surgery without mentioning the missing instrument, hoping it will be found later or that it was never present. This is ethically and regulatorily unacceptable because it directly violates patient safety protocols designed to prevent retained surgical items. It demonstrates a failure to uphold the duty of care and can lead to severe patient harm, requiring further surgery and potentially causing long-term complications. This approach disregards established count procedures and the critical importance of immediate reporting. Another incorrect approach is to discreetly search for the instrument independently without informing the surgical team. While seemingly proactive, this is professionally flawed because it bypasses the established chain of command and communication protocols. The circulating nurse is responsible for instrument counts, and the surgeon must be aware of any potential issues affecting the procedure’s safety. This independent search can delay the formal count process, potentially leading to a false sense of security if the instrument is not found, or it could result in the instrument being overlooked during the official count if it is later discovered. It undermines the collaborative nature of surgical patient care. A further incorrect approach is to assume the instrument was dropped off the sterile field and is no longer a concern, proceeding with the closure. This is a grave error in judgment. Surgical instruments, especially critical ones, must be accounted for. Assuming its absence without proper verification and communication is a direct contravention of safety standards. It places the patient at significant risk of retaining a foreign object, which can lead to infection, pain, and the need for additional medical intervention. This demonstrates a lack of diligence and a failure to adhere to fundamental surgical safety principles. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic approach when faced with such a challenge. First, remain calm and recall established protocols for instrument discrepancies. Second, immediately communicate the suspected loss to the circulating nurse and surgeon, clearly stating the instrument in question. Third, actively participate in the ensuing count and search procedures as directed by the surgical team and established policy. Fourth, document the incident and resolution accurately as per facility policy. This process ensures patient safety, maintains professional accountability, and adheres to regulatory and ethical standards.

The efficiency study reveals a need to re-evaluate the examination’s blueprint and scoring to ensure fairness and validity. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the need for a robust and accurate assessment with the practical realities of candidate performance and the integrity of the licensure process. Careful judgment is required to interpret the study’s findings and implement changes that uphold professional standards without unduly penalizing candidates. The best approach involves a thorough review of the examination blueprint and scoring methodology, informed by the efficiency study’s data, followed by a transparent communication of any proposed changes to stakeholders, including candidates and educators. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the findings of the efficiency study by examining the core components of the examination’s design and assessment. Adhering to established psychometric principles and regulatory guidelines for licensure examinations ensures that the blueprint accurately reflects the scope of practice and that scoring is reliable and valid. Transparency in communicating changes fosters trust and allows for appropriate preparation by future candidates. This aligns with the ethical obligation to provide a fair and equitable assessment process. An incorrect approach would be to immediately implement drastic changes to the scoring thresholds based solely on the efficiency study’s suggestion of “lower pass rates” without a deeper analysis of the blueprint’s alignment with current surgical technology practice. This fails to consider whether the lower pass rates are indicative of an issue with the examination or with candidate preparedness, and it bypasses the critical step of validating the blueprint itself. Ethically, this could lead to an invalid assessment that does not accurately measure competency. Another incorrect approach would be to focus solely on increasing the number of questions in areas identified as “less efficient” by the study, without considering the overall balance and weighting of the blueprint according to the established scope of practice. This risks creating a skewed examination that overemphasizes certain content areas at the expense of others, potentially failing to assess critical competencies. This violates the principle of comprehensive assessment and could lead to licensure of individuals who are not fully prepared across all essential domains. A further incorrect approach would be to disregard the efficiency study’s findings entirely, citing the need to maintain the status quo to avoid disruption. This fails to acknowledge the responsibility to continuously improve and validate the examination process. Ignoring data that suggests potential issues with the assessment’s efficiency or fairness is professionally negligent and undermines the credibility of the licensure program. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with understanding the problem (as highlighted by the efficiency study), gathering relevant data (including psychometric analysis and scope of practice reviews), consulting with subject matter experts, evaluating potential solutions against established standards and ethical principles, and finally, implementing and communicating changes transparently.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a surgical technology candidate to balance the demands of a rigorous licensure examination with their existing professional responsibilities and personal life. The pressure to succeed on the Comprehensive North American Surgical Technology Licensure Examination is significant, as it is a gateway to professional practice. A poorly planned preparation strategy can lead to burnout, inadequate knowledge acquisition, and ultimately, failure, impacting career progression and potentially patient care if licensure is delayed. Careful judgment is required to select a preparation method that is both effective and sustainable. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a structured, multi-faceted preparation plan that integrates dedicated study time with practical application and seeks guidance from experienced professionals. This includes allocating specific, consistent blocks of time for reviewing core curriculum, utilizing a variety of reputable study resources (e.g., textbooks, online modules, practice exams), and actively engaging with experienced surgical technologists or educators for clarification and insights. This method is correct because it aligns with the ethical obligation of a candidate to be thoroughly prepared for professional practice, ensuring competence and patient safety. It also reflects a responsible approach to professional development, acknowledging that comprehensive understanding requires more than rote memorization. Regulatory frameworks for professional licensure, while not explicitly detailed here, universally emphasize competence and readiness, which this approach directly addresses. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to rely solely on cramming information in the weeks leading up to the examination, perhaps by only reviewing notes from previous coursework. This is professionally unacceptable because it demonstrates a lack of commitment to deep learning and understanding of the breadth and depth of surgical technology principles. Such an approach is unlikely to foster the critical thinking and problem-solving skills necessary for effective surgical assistance and may lead to superficial knowledge that is easily forgotten or misapplied. It fails to meet the implicit ethical standard of diligent preparation for a role that directly impacts patient well-being. Another incorrect approach is to dedicate an excessive amount of time to studying at the expense of all personal and professional commitments, leading to severe burnout. While dedication is important, an unbalanced approach can be detrimental. Burnout impairs cognitive function, reduces retention, and can lead to anxiety and poor performance on the examination. Ethically, professionals are expected to maintain their well-being to ensure they can perform their duties effectively. This approach neglects that crucial aspect of professional responsibility. A third incorrect approach is to solely focus on memorizing answers to practice questions without understanding the underlying principles. This is a flawed strategy because licensure examinations are designed to assess comprehension and application, not just recall. Relying on memorization without understanding the ‘why’ behind the answers can lead to errors when faced with novel scenarios or slightly rephrased questions. It represents a superficial engagement with the material and does not equip the candidate with the robust knowledge base required for safe and competent surgical practice. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing a significant licensure examination should adopt a strategic and balanced preparation process. This involves: 1. Assessment: Honestly evaluate current knowledge gaps and strengths. 2. Planning: Develop a realistic study schedule that incorporates consistent, manageable study sessions over an extended period. 3. Resource Utilization: Employ a diverse range of high-quality study materials and learning methods. 4. Seeking Support: Engage with mentors, peers, or educators for guidance and feedback. 5. Self-Care: Prioritize physical and mental well-being to prevent burnout and optimize learning. 6. Practice and Application: Regularly test understanding through practice questions and, where possible, relate concepts to real-world surgical scenarios. This systematic approach ensures comprehensive preparation, promotes deep understanding, and fosters the confidence needed to perform well on the examination and in professional practice.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the surgical technologist to balance the immediate needs of the patient with the established protocols for instrument sterilization and patient safety. Misinterpreting or overlooking anatomical landmarks can lead to incorrect procedural steps, potentially causing patient harm. Furthermore, failing to adhere to strict sterilization guidelines poses a significant risk of surgical site infection, a serious complication that can have long-term consequences for the patient and lead to regulatory scrutiny. The technologist must demonstrate a thorough understanding of both the patient’s anatomy and the critical importance of aseptic technique. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves meticulously identifying and confirming the anatomical landmarks relevant to the planned surgical procedure before commencing any intervention. This includes a thorough review of the patient’s chart, imaging, and direct palpation or visualization if appropriate and safe. Following this, the surgical technologist must ensure all instruments and supplies are properly sterilized and prepared according to established protocols, maintaining a sterile field throughout the procedure. This approach directly aligns with the fundamental principles of patient safety and the ethical obligation to provide competent care, as mandated by professional standards and regulatory bodies overseeing surgical practice. It prioritizes preventing errors at the source and mitigating infection risks. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves proceeding with the procedure based on a general understanding of the anatomy without precise identification of the specific landmarks for the patient. This bypasses a critical safety check and increases the risk of surgical error, potentially violating the standard of care and leading to patient injury. Another incorrect approach is to assume that instruments are sterile without verifying the sterilization indicators or the integrity of the sterile packaging. This directly contravenes established aseptic technique protocols, significantly increasing the risk of surgical site infection and demonstrating a failure to uphold patient safety standards. A further incorrect approach is to prioritize speed over accuracy in identifying anatomical structures, perhaps due to time pressure or perceived familiarity with the procedure. This compromises the technologist’s duty of care and can lead to inadvertent damage to vital structures, resulting in patient harm and professional liability. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with a comprehensive pre-operative assessment. This includes a thorough review of patient-specific information and a clear understanding of the surgical plan. During the procedure, a constant state of vigilance is required, with continuous verification of anatomical landmarks and the integrity of the sterile field. When in doubt, seeking clarification from the surgeon or a senior colleague is paramount. Adherence to established protocols and guidelines is not optional but a fundamental requirement for safe and ethical practice.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a surgical technologist to balance the immediate need for diagnostic information with the ethical and regulatory obligations concerning patient privacy and data security. The pressure to provide timely information for patient care must be weighed against the strict protocols governing the handling of protected health information (PHI) and the use of medical imaging equipment. Missteps can lead to breaches of patient confidentiality, regulatory violations, and compromised patient safety. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves adhering strictly to established hospital protocols for accessing and sharing patient imaging data. This means utilizing the hospital’s secure Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) or Electronic Health Record (EHR) system, which are designed to maintain the integrity and confidentiality of PHI. This approach is correct because it aligns with federal regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States, which mandates the protection of patient health information. It also upholds ethical principles of patient confidentiality and professional responsibility by ensuring that imaging data is accessed and disseminated only through authorized and secure channels. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Utilizing a personal, unsecured cloud storage service to share the images with the physician bypasses all established security and privacy protocols. This is a significant regulatory failure under HIPAA, as it exposes PHI to unauthorized access and potential breaches. It also violates ethical obligations to maintain patient confidentiality. Forwarding the images directly to the physician’s personal email account, even with the intention of expediting care, is also a critical failure. Personal email accounts are generally not HIPAA-compliant for transmitting PHI, creating a high risk of data exposure and unauthorized disclosure. This action directly contravenes the principles of secure data handling and patient privacy. Discussing the findings of the imaging study verbally with the physician over an unsecured phone line, without verifying the physician’s identity or ensuring the call’s privacy, presents a risk of inadvertent disclosure. While not a direct breach of the image data itself, it can still compromise the confidentiality of the patient’s medical information if the conversation is overheard or intercepted. This approach lacks the robust security measures required for sensitive medical discussions. Professional Reasoning: Surgical technologists must prioritize patient safety and privacy above all else. When faced with situations requiring the sharing of diagnostic information, the decision-making process should involve: 1. Identifying the urgency of the request and the potential impact on patient care. 2. Recalling and applying relevant institutional policies and procedures for data access and sharing. 3. Consulting federal and state regulations (e.g., HIPAA) regarding the protection of PHI. 4. Utilizing only authorized and secure systems for communication and data transfer. 5. Seeking clarification from supervisors or appropriate departments if unsure about the correct procedure. 6. Documenting all actions taken in accordance with hospital policy.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a surgical technologist to navigate a situation where patient safety and professional integrity are at risk due to a colleague’s potential impairment. The technologist must balance their duty to the patient, their obligation to report concerns, and the potential impact on their team and workplace. Immediate and decisive action is crucial to prevent harm. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves immediately and discreetly reporting the observed behavior to the appropriate supervisor or designated authority. This approach prioritizes patient safety by ensuring that a potentially impaired individual is evaluated and removed from patient care if necessary. It aligns with ethical obligations to act in the patient’s best interest and regulatory requirements that mandate reporting of suspected impairment to protect patients. This action initiates a formal process for assessment and intervention, safeguarding both the patient and the integrity of the surgical team. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves directly confronting the colleague in the sterile field. This is professionally unacceptable because it creates a chaotic and potentially unsafe environment, disrupts the surgical procedure, and could escalate the situation without immediate resolution. It bypasses established reporting protocols designed for objective assessment and intervention. Another incorrect approach is to ignore the behavior and hope it resolves on its own. This is ethically and professionally negligent. It directly jeopardizes patient safety by allowing a potentially impaired individual to continue participating in surgery. It also fails to uphold the technologist’s duty to report concerns that could lead to harm, violating professional standards and potentially regulatory mandates. A further incorrect approach is to discuss the observed behavior with other team members outside of the formal reporting structure before taking action. While seeking support is understandable, this can lead to gossip, speculation, and a breakdown of professional communication. It delays the necessary reporting to the appropriate authority and can create a hostile work environment, undermining the objective assessment required to address the situation effectively. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing such a situation should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety above all else. This involves: 1) Objective observation of specific behaviors that raise concern. 2) Immediate, discreet reporting to the designated supervisor or authority, adhering to established institutional policies. 3) Allowing the designated authority to conduct a thorough and objective assessment. 4) Cooperating with any subsequent investigation or intervention. This systematic approach ensures that concerns are addressed promptly, appropriately, and with due process, while minimizing disruption and protecting all parties involved.

The audit findings indicate a potential gap in the surgical technology department’s adherence to best practices regarding the integration and utilization of clinical decision support (CDS) systems. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires surgical technologists to critically evaluate the information provided by CDS tools, understand their limitations, and ensure patient safety without over-reliance or outright dismissal of the technology. The core tension lies in balancing technological assistance with the technologist’s own clinical judgment and responsibility. The best approach involves a surgical technologist actively reviewing the CDS output for relevance and accuracy within the specific patient context, cross-referencing with established protocols and their own clinical observations, and documenting any deviations or concerns. This aligns with the ethical imperative of patient advocacy and the professional responsibility to maintain competence. Regulatory frameworks, such as those governing healthcare information technology and patient safety, implicitly support this by emphasizing the need for human oversight and critical evaluation of automated systems to prevent errors and ensure quality care. The technologist’s role is to augment, not abdicate, their judgment to the system. An incorrect approach would be to blindly accept the CDS recommendation without critical assessment, potentially leading to the implementation of an inappropriate intervention or overlooking a critical patient need. This fails to uphold the principle of professional accountability and could violate guidelines that mandate human oversight in clinical decision-making. Another incorrect approach would be to disregard the CDS output entirely, even when it offers potentially valuable insights or alerts. This demonstrates a failure to leverage available tools that are designed to enhance patient care and could be seen as a dereliction of duty to utilize all available resources for optimal patient outcomes. Such an action might also contravene institutional policies that encourage the use of evidence-based tools. A further incorrect approach would be to solely rely on the CDS system for all decision-making, treating it as an infallible authority. This not only undermines the technologist’s professional expertise but also ignores the inherent limitations and potential for error within any software system. This approach neglects the fundamental ethical obligation to exercise independent professional judgment and critically assess all information pertinent to patient care. Professionals should approach situations involving CDS by first understanding the purpose and limitations of the specific tool. They should then integrate the CDS output with their own clinical knowledge, patient assessment, and established protocols. Any discrepancies or uncertainties should be addressed through further investigation, consultation with the surgical team, and careful documentation. The ultimate goal is to use CDS as a supportive tool to enhance, not replace, professional judgment and ensure the highest standard of patient care.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing immediate patient care needs with established protocols for infection prevention and quality control. The surgical technologist is in a position to observe a potential breach of sterile technique, which could have serious consequences for patient safety. Decisive action is required to prevent harm, but this must be done in a way that respects the established chain of command and reporting procedures within the healthcare facility. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves immediately and discreetly informing the circulating nurse about the observed potential breach. This approach is correct because the circulating nurse is the designated individual responsible for overseeing the sterile field and ensuring adherence to aseptic technique. They have the authority and responsibility to address such issues directly with the surgical team, implement corrective actions, and document the event. This aligns with established patient safety guidelines and infection control standards prevalent in North American healthcare settings, which emphasize clear communication and adherence to established protocols for managing deviations from sterile technique. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Disregarding the observation and continuing with the procedure is professionally unacceptable because it directly violates fundamental principles of patient safety and infection prevention. This failure to act could lead to a surgical site infection, causing significant harm to the patient and potentially leading to prolonged recovery, additional medical interventions, and increased healthcare costs. It also represents a dereliction of the surgical technologist’s ethical duty to advocate for patient well-being. Directly confronting the surgeon in the sterile field without first informing the circulating nurse is also professionally unacceptable. While the intention may be to address the issue promptly, this approach bypasses the established chain of command and can create unnecessary tension and disruption within the surgical environment. It may also undermine the authority of the circulating nurse and create a less effective resolution. Regulatory guidelines and facility policies typically outline specific reporting mechanisms for such events, which prioritize clear, professional communication through designated personnel. Waiting until after the procedure to report the observation to a supervisor is professionally unacceptable. This delay significantly increases the risk of patient harm. If a breach has occurred, the opportunity to intervene and mitigate the risk of infection is lost. Patient safety requires immediate action when a potential compromise to sterile technique is identified. Post-procedure reporting, while important for quality improvement, does not address the immediate risk to the patient undergoing the surgery. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety above all else. This involves: 1) Recognizing a potential deviation from standard practice or a safety risk. 2) Understanding the established protocols and chain of command within their facility for addressing such issues. 3) Communicating the concern clearly and professionally to the appropriate individual (in this case, the circulating nurse). 4) Supporting the implementation of corrective actions. 5) Participating in any subsequent documentation or debriefing as required. This systematic approach ensures that patient safety is protected while maintaining professional conduct and adhering to regulatory requirements.