This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a patient’s expressed wishes and the perceived best interests of their child, complicated by the patient’s diminished capacity. Navigating this requires a delicate balance of respecting patient autonomy, upholding the principle of beneficence towards the child, and adhering to professional and legal obligations. Careful judgment is required to ensure the patient’s rights are protected while safeguarding the child’s welfare. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive assessment of the patient’s capacity to make decisions regarding their child’s care. This includes engaging with the patient in a supportive and non-judgmental manner, utilizing communication techniques that facilitate understanding, and involving a multidisciplinary team, such as a social worker or ethics consultant, to explore all available options and support mechanisms. The focus should be on empowering the patient to make the most informed decision possible, even if that decision requires external support. This aligns with ethical principles of autonomy and beneficence, and regulatory frameworks that mandate patient-centered care and the protection of vulnerable individuals, including children. It also respects the patient’s right to participate in decisions affecting their family, even when facing significant health challenges. An approach that immediately assumes the patient is incapable and proceeds to involve external authorities without a thorough capacity assessment is ethically flawed. It bypasses the patient’s right to self-determination and can lead to unnecessary interventions or a breakdown of trust. This fails to uphold the principle of autonomy and may violate regulations concerning patient rights and informed consent. Another unacceptable approach would be to dismiss the patient’s concerns about their child’s well-being due to their own health status. While the patient’s condition is a factor, their perspective and emotional connection to their child are vital. Ignoring these can lead to suboptimal care planning that does not address the holistic needs of the family. This neglects the principle of respect for persons and can result in care plans that are not truly patient-centered. Finally, an approach that focuses solely on the patient’s medical needs without adequately considering the impact on their child’s care and the family unit is incomplete. Nursing care planning requires a holistic perspective that encompasses the patient, their family, and their social context. Failing to integrate the child’s needs into the care plan, even when the patient’s capacity is a concern, is a significant ethical and professional oversight. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes a thorough capacity assessment, followed by collaborative care planning with the patient and relevant support systems. This framework involves: 1) assessing capacity, 2) exploring patient preferences and concerns, 3) identifying potential risks and benefits, 4) consulting with a multidisciplinary team, 5) developing a care plan that respects autonomy while ensuring safety, and 6) documenting all assessments and decisions meticulously.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires an orthopaedic nurse to navigate the complexities of comprehensive assessment, diagnostics, and monitoring across diverse age groups, each with unique physiological, developmental, and psychosocial needs. Balancing the immediate clinical demands with long-term health outcomes, while adhering to evolving best practices and regulatory standards, necessitates a highly skilled and adaptable approach. The critical element is ensuring that the chosen assessment and monitoring strategy is not only clinically sound but also ethically and legally defensible within the specified regulatory framework. The best approach involves a systematic, evidence-based, and individualized strategy that prioritizes patient safety and optimal outcomes throughout the lifespan. This entails utilizing validated assessment tools appropriate for each developmental stage, integrating diagnostic findings with clinical observations, and implementing a monitoring plan that is responsive to changes in the patient’s condition. This approach is correct because it directly aligns with the core principles of patient-centred care, professional accountability, and the ethical imperative to provide high-quality nursing care as mandated by professional nursing standards and regulatory bodies governing practice. It ensures that care is tailored to the specific needs of the infant, child, adolescent, adult, and older adult, addressing potential age-related variations in presentation, response to treatment, and recovery trajectories. An approach that relies solely on generalized diagnostic criteria without considering age-specific variations would be ethically and regulatorily deficient. This failure stems from not acknowledging that diagnostic interpretation and monitoring parameters can differ significantly between a neonate with a fracture and an elderly patient with osteoporosis and a fall-related injury. Such an approach risks misdiagnosis, delayed or inappropriate treatment, and suboptimal patient outcomes, violating the duty of care. Another unacceptable approach would be to adopt a reactive monitoring strategy that only intervenes when a patient’s condition deteriorates significantly. This is professionally unsound as it neglects the proactive and preventative aspects of nursing care. Regulatory frameworks emphasize early detection and intervention to mitigate complications and improve prognosis. Failing to establish baseline parameters and monitor for subtle changes across the lifespan represents a significant lapse in professional responsibility and adherence to standards of care. Furthermore, an approach that prioritizes expediency over thoroughness, perhaps by skipping crucial components of the physical examination or failing to adequately document findings, is also professionally unacceptable. This not only compromises the quality of care but also exposes the nurse and the healthcare institution to legal and ethical repercussions. Professional decision-making in this context requires a commitment to continuous learning, critical thinking, and the application of a structured assessment process that integrates patient history, physical examination, diagnostic data, and psychosocial factors, all within the framework of established nursing practice standards and relevant legislation.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires balancing the need for efficient and effective examination administration with the ethical obligation to ensure all candidates have a fair and equitable opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and skills. Misinterpreting or misapplying examination policies can lead to accusations of bias, procedural unfairness, and ultimately, compromise the integrity of the licensure process. Careful judgment is required to uphold professional standards and candidate rights. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves proactively identifying and addressing potential barriers to equitable examination access. This includes clearly communicating examination requirements, providing reasonable accommodations for candidates with documented needs, and ensuring that all examination materials and procedures are accessible and understandable to the diverse candidate pool. This approach aligns with the ethical principles of fairness, equity, and professional responsibility inherent in licensure examinations, ensuring that the examination accurately assesses competence rather than external factors. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves assuming all candidates possess the same level of understanding of examination procedures and requirements, without offering any clarification or support. This fails to acknowledge the diverse backgrounds and potential language barriers that candidates may face, potentially disadvantaging those who are not fully conversant with the examination’s structure or expectations. This approach violates the principle of equitable access and can lead to candidates being unfairly penalized for a lack of information rather than a lack of competence. Another incorrect approach is to strictly adhere to a rigid interpretation of examination rules, without considering the spirit of fairness or the potential for unintended consequences. This might involve denying a candidate a minor, reasonable adjustment that would not compromise the examination’s integrity but would significantly improve their ability to participate effectively. Such an approach prioritizes procedural formality over substantive fairness and can lead to a perception of inflexibility and a lack of candidate support. A third incorrect approach is to provide preferential treatment or informal assistance to certain candidates based on personal acquaintance or perceived need, without a standardized and documented process. This introduces bias into the examination process, undermining its credibility and fairness for all candidates. It violates the ethical imperative of impartiality and can lead to challenges regarding the validity and reliability of the examination results. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes fairness, transparency, and adherence to established policies and ethical guidelines. This involves: 1) Understanding the examination’s purpose and the competencies it aims to assess. 2) Familiarizing oneself with all relevant policies, procedures, and accommodation guidelines. 3) Proactively identifying potential barriers to equitable participation and developing strategies to mitigate them. 4) Applying policies consistently and impartially to all candidates. 5) Seeking clarification or guidance from appropriate authorities when faced with ambiguous situations. 6) Documenting all decisions and actions taken, particularly those involving accommodations or deviations from standard procedures.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a nurse to navigate the complex requirements for licensure in a specialized field across a broad geographical region. The core of the challenge lies in understanding and applying the specific eligibility criteria for the Critical Indo-Pacific Orthopaedic Nursing Licensure Examination, which are designed to ensure a baseline of competence and safety for patients undergoing orthopaedic care within the Indo-Pacific region. Misinterpreting or failing to meet these criteria can lead to significant professional setbacks, including delayed licensure, inability to practice, and potential disciplinary action. Careful judgment is required to accurately assess one’s qualifications against the established standards. The best approach involves a thorough and direct engagement with the official documentation outlining the purpose and eligibility for the Critical Indo-Pacific Orthopaedic Nursing Licensure Examination. This means meticulously reviewing the examination’s governing body’s published guidelines, which detail the educational prerequisites, clinical experience requirements, and any specific competency assessments necessary for candidates. Adhering to these official guidelines ensures that the nurse is pursuing licensure based on accurate information and meeting all stipulated requirements. This aligns with the ethical obligation to uphold professional standards and the regulatory mandate to be qualified for practice. The purpose of the examination, as defined by its regulatory framework, is to certify that individuals possess the specialized knowledge and skills essential for safe and effective orthopaedic nursing care within the Indo-Pacific context. Eligibility criteria are the gatekeepers to this certification, ensuring only qualified individuals are granted the license. An incorrect approach would be to rely on anecdotal information or the experiences of colleagues who may have been licensed under different or outdated regulations. While peer advice can be helpful, it is not a substitute for official guidance. Relying on hearsay can lead to significant errors in understanding the current eligibility requirements, potentially causing a candidate to waste time and resources on an application that is destined to fail. This approach fails to meet the regulatory requirement for accurate self-assessment against established standards and could be seen as a lack of due diligence. Another incorrect approach is to assume that general nursing licensure automatically confers eligibility for specialized orthopaedic certification. While a general nursing license is a foundational requirement, specialized examinations like the Critical Indo-Pacific Orthopaedic Nursing Licensure Examination have distinct and often more stringent eligibility criteria related to advanced knowledge, specific clinical skills, and often, specialized postgraduate education or extensive experience in orthopaedics. This assumption bypasses the explicit purpose of the specialized examination, which is to validate a higher level of expertise beyond general nursing practice. A third incorrect approach is to focus solely on the desire to practice orthopaedic nursing without a systematic evaluation of personal qualifications against the examination’s stated purpose and eligibility criteria. This can lead to an impulsive pursuit of the examination without understanding the underlying rationale for its existence or the specific competencies it aims to assess. The purpose of the examination is not merely to grant practice rights but to ensure a high standard of care, and eligibility is directly tied to demonstrating the capacity to meet that standard. This approach neglects the fundamental regulatory and ethical imperative to be demonstrably competent before seeking specialized licensure. Professionals should adopt a systematic decision-making process that begins with identifying the specific regulatory body responsible for the Critical Indo-Pacific Orthopaedic Nursing Licensure Examination. This should be followed by a comprehensive review of all official documentation pertaining to the examination’s purpose, scope, and eligibility requirements. Candidates should then conduct an honest self-assessment of their educational background, clinical experience, and any other stipulated qualifications against these requirements. If gaps are identified, professionals should seek clarification from the governing body or pursue necessary further education or experience before proceeding with an application. This methodical approach ensures compliance, ethical practice, and a higher probability of successful licensure.

This scenario is professionally challenging due to the inherent conflict between patient autonomy, the nurse’s duty of care, and the potential for financial exploitation within the healthcare system. Navigating these competing interests requires careful judgment, adherence to ethical principles, and a thorough understanding of professional conduct guidelines. The nurse must balance the patient’s right to make informed decisions about their care with the responsibility to ensure those decisions are not influenced by undue pressure or misrepresentation. The best approach involves prioritizing patient education and advocacy. This means clearly and comprehensively explaining the proposed treatment, including its benefits, risks, alternatives, and costs, in a manner the patient can understand. It also entails actively listening to the patient’s concerns, addressing any misunderstandings, and ensuring they feel empowered to make a decision without coercion. This approach aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), and respect for autonomy. Professional nursing standards emphasize the nurse’s role as a patient advocate, ensuring informed consent and protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with the treatment without ensuring the patient fully understands the financial implications, especially if the patient expresses confusion or hesitation. This fails to uphold the principle of informed consent, as consent cannot be truly informed if the patient is unaware of significant costs. It also risks violating the nurse’s duty of care by potentially leading the patient into financial hardship without their full comprehension, which could be considered a form of harm. Another incorrect approach would be to defer entirely to the physician’s recommendation without independently verifying the patient’s understanding or exploring potential financial barriers. While physicians are responsible for medical decision-making, nurses have a distinct role in patient education and advocacy, particularly concerning aspects that impact the patient’s overall well-being, including financial considerations. Over-reliance on the physician’s judgment without patient-centered communication can leave gaps in understanding and consent. A further incorrect approach would be to dismiss the patient’s concerns about cost as irrelevant to the medical decision. Healthcare decisions are often intertwined with financial realities, and a patient’s ability to afford treatment can significantly impact their adherence and overall health outcomes. Ignoring these concerns demonstrates a lack of empathy and a failure to address the holistic needs of the patient, potentially leading to a decision that is medically appropriate but practically unachievable for the patient. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with active listening to the patient’s concerns. This should be followed by a thorough assessment of the patient’s understanding of the proposed treatment, including its medical necessity, benefits, risks, and alternatives. Crucially, the financial implications must be discussed openly and honestly, with the nurse acting as a bridge between the patient and financial resources or support services if needed. The nurse should then facilitate a discussion where the patient can ask questions and express their preferences, ensuring that any decision made is voluntary, informed, and aligned with their values and capabilities.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires an orthopaedic nurse to navigate the complex and often opaque policies surrounding licensure examinations, specifically concerning blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake procedures. Misunderstanding or misapplying these policies can lead to significant personal and professional consequences, including delayed licensure, financial strain, and emotional distress. The critical judgment required lies in accurately interpreting the official examination guidelines and applying them to individual circumstances, ensuring fairness and adherence to established protocols. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves diligently consulting the official examination handbook and the governing body’s website for the most current and authoritative information regarding blueprint weighting, scoring methodologies, and retake policies. This approach is correct because it directly aligns with the ethical obligation of professionals to be informed and compliant with the regulations that govern their practice and licensure. Adhering to official documentation ensures that decisions are based on established, transparent, and legally binding guidelines, thereby upholding the integrity of the examination process and the nursing profession. This proactive and evidence-based method minimizes the risk of misinterpretation and ensures that any actions taken, such as scheduling a retake, are in full accordance with the established rules. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves relying on anecdotal evidence or informal discussions with colleagues about retake policies. This is professionally unacceptable because it bypasses the official channels of information and can lead to decisions based on outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete understanding of the rules. Such reliance can result in procedural errors, such as attempting a retake without meeting prerequisite conditions or misunderstanding the scoring implications, potentially jeopardizing licensure. Another incorrect approach is assuming that retake policies are standardized across all nursing examinations and applying general knowledge without verifying specific details for the Critical Indo-Pacific Orthopaedic Nursing Licensure Examination. This failure to seek jurisdiction-specific information is a significant ethical lapse, as it demonstrates a lack of due diligence and respect for the unique regulatory framework governing this particular licensure. It can lead to incorrect assumptions about scoring adjustments, waiting periods, or the number of allowed attempts, all of which are critical for successful licensure. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing such situations should adopt a systematic approach. First, identify the official source of information for the examination in question. Second, thoroughly review the relevant sections of the official handbook or website pertaining to blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies. Third, if any ambiguity exists, proactively contact the examination board or governing body directly for clarification. Finally, document all communications and decisions made based on the information obtained to serve as a record of due diligence. This structured process ensures that decisions are informed, compliant, and ethically sound, safeguarding both the individual professional and the integrity of the licensure process.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the candidate to balance the desire for efficient preparation with the need for comprehensive understanding and adherence to the examination’s scope. Misjudging the timeline or relying on inadequate resources can lead to significant stress, potential failure, and a delay in licensure, impacting their ability to practice and serve the public. Careful judgment is required to select resources that are both effective and aligned with the examination’s stated objectives and format. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a structured, phased preparation strategy that begins with a thorough review of the official examination blueprint and recommended study materials. This approach is correct because it directly aligns with the stated requirements and guidelines of the Critical Indo-Pacific Orthopaedic Nursing Licensure Examination. By prioritizing official resources, the candidate ensures they are focusing on the exact knowledge domains and skill sets assessed. A phased timeline, starting with foundational knowledge and progressing to practice questions, allows for systematic learning and reinforcement, minimizing the risk of superficial understanding. This methodical process is ethically sound as it demonstrates a commitment to meeting the standards set by the licensing body, ensuring patient safety and competent practice. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on anecdotal advice from peers without cross-referencing official examination content is professionally unacceptable. This approach risks focusing on topics that are not emphasized or are entirely absent from the examination, leading to inefficient use of study time and a potential lack of preparedness in critical areas. It also bypasses the regulatory framework that dictates the examination’s content. Cramming in the final weeks without a structured study plan is also professionally unsound. This method often leads to superficial learning, poor retention, and increased anxiety, failing to build the deep understanding necessary for competent orthopaedic nursing practice as assessed by the licensure examination. It neglects the ethical imperative to prepare thoroughly for a role that impacts patient well-being. Focusing exclusively on practice questions without understanding the underlying theoretical principles is another professionally unacceptable approach. While practice questions are valuable, they are tools to assess understanding, not a substitute for it. This method can lead to memorization of answers without true comprehension, which is insufficient for real-world clinical decision-making and fails to meet the ethical standard of developing comprehensive nursing competence. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing similar situations should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes official guidance. This involves: 1. Identifying the authoritative source of information (e.g., the examination board’s website, official study guides). 2. Deconstructing the examination blueprint to understand the scope and weighting of topics. 3. Selecting preparation resources that directly map to the blueprint. 4. Developing a realistic and phased study timeline that allows for both learning and practice. 5. Regularly assessing progress against the blueprint and adjusting the plan as needed. This systematic and evidence-based approach ensures preparedness and upholds professional standards.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate needs of a patient with the established protocols for managing medication administration and the potential for adverse events. The nurse must exercise sound clinical judgment, adhering to professional standards and regulatory guidelines to ensure patient safety and the integrity of the treatment plan. The best approach involves a systematic and evidence-based response. This includes immediately assessing the patient’s current condition to determine the severity of any potential adverse reaction, consulting the prescribing physician to report the observed symptoms and discuss potential interventions, and meticulously documenting all findings and actions taken. This aligns with the fundamental nursing principle of patient advocacy and the regulatory requirement for clear communication with the medical team and accurate record-keeping. The physician’s involvement is crucial for determining the appropriate medical management, which may involve adjusting the dosage, changing the medication, or initiating supportive care. An incorrect approach would be to administer the medication without confirming the correct dosage or route, especially if there is any doubt. This bypasses essential safety checks and could lead to a serious adverse event, violating the nurse’s duty of care and potentially breaching medication administration regulations. Another unacceptable approach is to delay reporting the patient’s symptoms to the physician. This inaction could result in a delayed diagnosis and treatment of a potential adverse drug reaction, compromising patient safety and failing to meet professional standards for timely communication. Finally, failing to document the patient’s symptoms and the interventions performed is a significant ethical and regulatory failure. Accurate documentation is vital for continuity of care, legal protection, and quality improvement. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety. This involves a continuous cycle of assessment, diagnosis (nursing diagnosis), planning, implementation, and evaluation. When faced with a potential medication error or adverse event, the immediate steps should be to assess the patient, then communicate with the prescriber, and finally, document thoroughly. This structured approach ensures that all critical aspects of patient care and regulatory compliance are addressed.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common challenge in healthcare settings where the integrity and accessibility of patient clinical documentation are paramount. The professional challenge lies in balancing the need for efficient information sharing with the stringent requirements for patient privacy, data security, and regulatory compliance, particularly under the framework of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States. Mismanagement of electronic health records (EHRs) can lead to breaches of confidentiality, compromised patient care, and significant legal and financial penalties for the healthcare institution and individuals involved. Careful judgment is required to ensure all actions align with established protocols and legal mandates. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic and secure approach to accessing and utilizing patient information within the EHR system. This includes verifying the necessity of the access for direct patient care or related administrative functions, adhering strictly to the principle of minimum necessary access, and documenting the access in accordance with institutional policy and HIPAA regulations. This approach is correct because it directly upholds the core tenets of HIPAA, specifically the Privacy Rule, which mandates that covered entities protect individuals’ health information and allows for its use and disclosure only for specific purposes, such as treatment, payment, and healthcare operations, while ensuring that only the minimum necessary information is accessed. Furthermore, it aligns with the ethical obligation of nurses to maintain patient confidentiality and trust. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves accessing a patient’s EHR solely out of personal curiosity or to review past medical history without a direct, immediate need for patient care. This violates the HIPAA Privacy Rule’s requirement for a legitimate purpose for accessing protected health information (PHI). It constitutes an unauthorized disclosure and potential breach of privacy, as it goes beyond the “minimum necessary” standard and is not related to treatment, payment, or healthcare operations. Another incorrect approach is to share login credentials with a colleague to allow them to access the EHR on your behalf. This is a direct violation of HIPAA’s Security Rule, which requires covered entities to implement security measures to protect electronic PHI. Sharing credentials bypasses audit trails, makes it impossible to determine who accessed what information, and effectively allows unauthorized access. It also undermines accountability and can lead to significant penalties. A third incorrect approach is to leave an active EHR session unattended on a workstation in a public area of the unit. This creates a significant security vulnerability, increasing the risk of unauthorized viewing or access to PHI by individuals who are not authorized to see it. It fails to meet the requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule for safeguarding electronic PHI against unauthorized access, modification, or destruction. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient privacy and regulatory compliance. This framework involves: 1) Identifying the purpose of accessing patient information – is it directly related to providing care, coordinating care, or other legitimate healthcare operations? 2) Assessing the “minimum necessary” information required to fulfill that purpose. 3) Ensuring secure access through authorized credentials and adherence to institutional policies. 4) Documenting access appropriately. 5) Recognizing and reporting any potential breaches or vulnerabilities. When in doubt, consulting with a supervisor or the institution’s privacy officer is crucial.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves a critical medication error with potential for severe patient harm. The nurse is faced with a situation where a prescribed medication, intended for a different patient, has been administered. This requires immediate, decisive action to mitigate harm, adhere to patient safety protocols, and comply with reporting requirements. The pressure to act quickly while maintaining accuracy and following established procedures is paramount. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves immediately assessing the patient for any adverse effects, notifying the prescribing physician and the pharmacy of the error, and documenting the incident thoroughly according to institutional policy. This approach is correct because it prioritizes patient safety by directly addressing potential harm and initiating corrective measures. Prompt notification of the physician and pharmacy allows for timely intervention, such as monitoring for side effects or administering an antidote if necessary. Accurate documentation is crucial for patient care continuity, legal protection, and quality improvement initiatives, aligning with ethical obligations to provide safe and competent care and regulatory requirements for incident reporting. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Administering a second dose of the correct medication without informing the physician or pharmacy is professionally unacceptable. This approach fails to address the immediate risk of the incorrect medication already administered and could lead to a dangerous medication overdose or adverse drug interaction. It bypasses essential communication channels designed to ensure patient safety and violates the principle of informed consent and physician oversight. Waiting until the end of the shift to report the error to the charge nurse and document it is professionally unacceptable. This delay significantly compromises patient safety by postponing necessary medical intervention and assessment. It also violates institutional policies and regulatory guidelines that mandate immediate reporting of medication errors to allow for prompt management of potential harm and to prevent further adverse events. Discreetly disposing of the remaining incorrect medication and not reporting the incident to avoid disciplinary action is professionally unacceptable and unethical. This approach actively conceals a critical patient safety event, which is a direct violation of professional integrity and legal obligations. It obstructs quality improvement processes, prevents learning from the error, and puts future patients at risk if the underlying cause is not identified and addressed. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should utilize a structured decision-making framework when encountering medication errors. This framework typically involves: 1. Patient Assessment: Immediately evaluate the patient’s condition for any signs of adverse effects. 2. Immediate Intervention: Take necessary steps to mitigate harm, such as discontinuing the offending medication or administering an antidote if indicated and prescribed. 3. Communication: Promptly notify the prescribing physician, the pharmacy, and the nursing supervisor. 4. Documentation: Accurately and thoroughly document the error, the patient’s response, and all interventions according to policy. 5. Incident Reporting: Complete all required internal and external incident reports. 6. Learning and Prevention: Participate in root cause analysis and implement strategies to prevent recurrence.