This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires the wellness coach to navigate the complexities of specialized coaching areas within the broader scope of chronic care, while adhering to specific Nordic regulatory expectations for licensure and ethical practice. The coach must demonstrate an understanding of how their chosen specialty emphasis aligns with the requirements for providing effective and safe support to individuals managing chronic conditions, ensuring they operate within their defined scope of practice and regulatory boundaries. Careful judgment is required to select the most appropriate and ethically sound approach to defining and communicating this specialty. The best professional practice involves clearly articulating the specific chronic condition(s) or population(s) the coach has specialized training and experience in supporting, and how this specialization directly informs their coaching methodology for chronic care. This approach is correct because it provides transparency to clients and regulatory bodies about the coach’s expertise, ensuring that clients are matched with appropriate support and that the coach is practicing within their validated competencies. Nordic regulations emphasize client well-being and professional accountability, which are best served by a clear and accurate representation of specialized skills in chronic care. This aligns with ethical principles of honesty and competence. An incorrect approach would be to broadly claim expertise in “all chronic conditions” without specific evidence of advanced training or supervised experience in each. This is professionally unacceptable because it misrepresents the coach’s actual capabilities, potentially leading to clients receiving suboptimal or even harmful advice. It violates ethical obligations to practice within one’s scope and regulatory requirements that mandate demonstrable competence in specialized areas. Another incorrect approach would be to focus solely on general wellness coaching principles without explicitly linking them to the unique demands and considerations of chronic care management. This fails to meet the specific licensure requirements for specialty emphasis in chronic care, as it does not demonstrate an understanding of the nuances of supporting individuals with long-term health challenges. It risks providing generic advice that may not be sensitive to the complexities of chronic illness, potentially undermining client adherence and outcomes, and contravening regulatory expectations for specialized chronic care coaching. A further incorrect approach would be to emphasize a personal passion for a particular chronic condition without substantiating it with formal education, training, and practical experience recognized by the regulatory framework. While passion is valuable, it does not substitute for demonstrable expertise and adherence to professional standards. This approach is professionally unacceptable as it prioritizes subjective interest over objective qualifications, failing to assure clients and regulators of the coach’s readiness to provide specialized chronic care support. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a thorough self-assessment of one’s training, experience, and supervised practice in relation to the specific chronic care populations or conditions being considered for specialization. This should be followed by a review of the relevant Nordic regulatory guidelines and professional body standards to understand the defined requirements for specialty emphasis. The coach should then articulate their specialization in a manner that is accurate, transparent, and directly reflects their validated competencies, ensuring it aligns with the needs of their target clientele and the ethical imperative to provide safe and effective care.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires a coach to navigate the nuances of eligibility for a specialized licensure examination. Misinterpreting or misapplying the purpose and eligibility criteria can lead to wasted resources, professional embarrassment, and potentially, the provision of services without the necessary qualifications, which could have ethical and legal ramifications for both the coach and their clients. Careful judgment is required to ensure adherence to the examination’s foundational principles and requirements. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough understanding of the Critical Nordic Wellness Coaching and Chronic Care Licensure Examination’s stated purpose and its specific eligibility criteria as outlined by the governing body. This approach prioritizes accurate information gathering and direct application of the established rules. By consulting the official examination guidelines, a coach can definitively determine if their existing qualifications, experience, and training align with the prerequisites for licensure. This ensures that the application process is based on factual compliance, upholding the integrity of the licensure process and demonstrating professional diligence. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves assuming eligibility based on a broad interpretation of “wellness coaching” without verifying specific alignment with the “Nordic” and “Chronic Care” specializations mandated by the examination. This overlooks the critical need for specialized knowledge and experience that the examination is designed to assess, potentially leading to an application that does not meet the defined scope of practice. Another incorrect approach is to rely solely on anecdotal evidence or the experiences of colleagues who may have successfully obtained licensure under different or outdated criteria. This bypasses the official regulatory framework and introduces an element of uncertainty, as eligibility requirements can evolve. It fails to acknowledge that each applicant must meet the current, documented standards. A further incorrect approach is to focus on the perceived demand for wellness coaching services as a primary determinant of eligibility, rather than on the specific qualifications and competencies required by the examination. While market demand is important for a coaching practice, it does not substitute for meeting the established professional standards for licensure. This approach prioritizes business considerations over regulatory compliance. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach licensure eligibility by first identifying the specific regulatory body and the official documentation outlining the examination’s purpose and requirements. This involves actively seeking out the most current guidelines, often found on the examination provider’s website or through direct communication with their administrative office. A systematic review of personal qualifications against these documented criteria is then essential. If any ambiguity exists, seeking clarification directly from the examination board is the most responsible step before proceeding with an application. This methodical, evidence-based approach ensures compliance and professional integrity.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a coach to navigate the delicate balance between supporting a client’s well-being and adhering to the strict licensure requirements of the Critical Nordic Wellness Coaching and Chronic Care program. The coach must understand the implications of a client’s performance on licensure exams, particularly concerning retake policies, without overstepping professional boundaries or providing inappropriate advice that could be construed as coaching for the exam itself. The pressure to assist a client while maintaining ethical and regulatory integrity necessitates careful judgment. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves the coach acknowledging the client’s concern about the exam and its impact on their licensure, then clearly and empathetically explaining the established retake policies as outlined by the Critical Nordic Wellness Coaching and Chronic Care program. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the client’s stated anxiety by providing factual information about the program’s rules regarding exam retakes. It upholds ethical coaching standards by focusing on the client’s emotional well-being and their understanding of the process, rather than offering strategies to pass the exam, which would be outside the scope of wellness coaching and potentially violate licensure regulations. This aligns with the program’s emphasis on holistic client support within defined professional boundaries. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves the coach offering to “help the client study” or “review specific exam topics.” This is professionally unacceptable because it blurs the line between wellness coaching and exam preparation, potentially violating the spirit and letter of the licensure requirements. Wellness coaches are not typically certified or licensed to provide academic tutoring or exam-specific coaching. Another incorrect approach is for the coach to dismiss the client’s concerns about the exam entirely, stating it is “not their problem.” This is ethically unsound as it fails to acknowledge the client’s distress and the significant impact licensure has on their professional aspirations, thereby neglecting a crucial aspect of their overall well-being. A third incorrect approach is for the coach to speculate about potential policy changes or suggest ways to “get around” the retake rules. This is highly unethical and unprofessional, as it encourages a disregard for established regulations and could lead to serious consequences for both the client and the coach. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach such situations by first actively listening to and validating the client’s concerns. They should then consult the relevant program guidelines and regulations to ensure their understanding of policies is accurate. The decision-making process should prioritize transparency, ethical conduct, and adherence to professional scope of practice. When faced with a client’s anxiety related to licensure, the coach’s role is to provide support and information within their defined expertise, directing the client to appropriate resources for exam-specific preparation if necessary, while always maintaining the integrity of the coaching relationship and the regulatory framework.

The performance metrics show a concerning trend in client adherence to prescribed lifestyle modifications for managing chronic conditions, impacting overall wellness outcomes. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the coach to balance the client’s autonomy and self-determination with the ethical imperative to ensure client safety and promote effective health management. It demands careful judgment to identify the root cause of non-adherence and implement appropriate, evidence-based interventions without overstepping professional boundaries or resorting to coercive tactics. The best approach involves a collaborative exploration of the barriers to adherence, focusing on understanding the client’s perspective and co-creating solutions. This entails active listening, empathy, and a non-judgmental stance to build trust and empower the client. By engaging the client in identifying specific challenges (e.g., time constraints, lack of motivation, environmental factors) and jointly developing personalized, achievable strategies, the coach respects the client’s agency and fosters intrinsic motivation. This aligns with ethical principles of client-centered care and promotes sustainable behavioral change. Regulatory frameworks in wellness coaching emphasize the importance of informed consent, client autonomy, and the coach’s role in facilitating self-efficacy, not dictating behavior. An incorrect approach would be to immediately escalate the situation by contacting the client’s healthcare provider without first attempting to understand the client’s reasons for non-adherence or discussing potential adjustments to the plan with them. This bypasses the client’s right to privacy and self-determination, potentially damaging the therapeutic alliance and creating a sense of distrust. Ethically, this action could be seen as a breach of confidentiality and a failure to uphold the principle of beneficence by not exploring less intrusive interventions first. Another incorrect approach is to dismiss the client’s challenges and simply reiterate the importance of the prescribed interventions without seeking to understand the underlying issues. This demonstrates a lack of empathy and a failure to adapt the therapeutic approach to the client’s individual circumstances. It neglects the principle of non-maleficence by not addressing potential underlying factors that may be contributing to the non-adherence, which could inadvertently lead to negative health consequences if the chronic condition is not managed effectively. A further incorrect approach involves imposing stricter guidelines or penalties for non-adherence. This is a form of coercion that undermines the client’s autonomy and can lead to feelings of shame or guilt, further hindering progress. Wellness coaching is fundamentally about empowerment and support, not enforcement. Such an approach fails to recognize that adherence is a complex process influenced by numerous factors beyond the client’s immediate control and neglects the collaborative nature of effective therapeutic interventions. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes understanding the client’s experience. This involves: 1) Active listening and empathetic inquiry to uncover barriers to adherence. 2) Collaborative problem-solving to co-create personalized, realistic strategies. 3) Respecting client autonomy and empowering them to make informed choices. 4) Seeking professional consultation or referring to other healthcare professionals when necessary, but only after appropriate client engagement and with informed consent.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the candidate to balance the urgency of preparing for a licensure examination with the need for a structured, evidence-based approach to learning. Rushing the preparation without a clear plan can lead to superficial understanding and an inability to apply knowledge effectively, potentially impacting future client care. Conversely, an overly rigid or unfocused approach can lead to missed deadlines and increased stress. Careful judgment is required to select resources and a timeline that are both comprehensive and manageable. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a systematic review of the examination blueprint, identifying key knowledge domains and skill areas. This is followed by selecting a diverse range of high-quality preparation resources, including official study guides, reputable online courses, and practice examinations that align with the examination’s scope and format. A realistic timeline is then developed, incorporating regular study sessions, spaced repetition, and ample time for practice assessments and review. This method ensures that preparation is targeted, comprehensive, and allows for iterative learning and reinforcement, directly addressing the requirements for licensure by ensuring mastery of the subject matter as outlined by the examination body. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves relying solely on anecdotal recommendations from peers without verifying the quality or relevance of the suggested materials. This can lead to the use of outdated or inappropriate resources, failing to cover essential examination content and potentially misinterpreting the scope of practice. It neglects the fundamental step of understanding the official examination requirements. Another incorrect approach is to cram all study material into the final weeks before the examination. This method is known to be ineffective for long-term retention and deep understanding, leading to superficial learning and increased anxiety. It fails to incorporate spaced repetition and adequate review, which are crucial for solidifying knowledge and preparing for the application-based questions common in professional licensure exams. A further incorrect approach is to focus exclusively on memorizing facts without engaging with practice questions or case studies. This overlooks the examination’s likely emphasis on applying knowledge to real-world scenarios, a critical skill for wellness coaches. Without practicing application, candidates may struggle to translate theoretical knowledge into practical solutions, which is a core competency assessed in licensure. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach licensure preparation by first thoroughly understanding the examination’s objectives and structure, as outlined by the governing body. This involves consulting official documentation and blueprints. Next, they should curate a learning plan that integrates various learning modalities, prioritizing resources that are evidence-based and directly relevant to the examination content. A realistic and flexible timeline should be established, allowing for consistent progress, self-assessment through practice, and adaptation based on performance. This systematic and self-aware approach ensures comprehensive preparation and builds confidence for successful licensure.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the wellness coach to integrate knowledge of the client’s specific physiological limitations (osteoarthritis in the knee) with the principles of applied biomechanics to design a safe and effective exercise program. The coach must balance the client’s desire for improved functional mobility with the inherent risks of exacerbating their condition. Careful judgment is required to avoid overexertion or movements that could cause further joint damage, while still promoting positive physiological adaptation. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive assessment that specifically considers the client’s diagnosed condition and its biomechanical implications. This includes understanding how osteoarthritis affects joint mechanics, range of motion, and pain response. Based on this, the coach should design a program that prioritizes low-impact exercises, proper form to minimize joint stress, and gradual progression. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the client’s specific health needs and limitations, adhering to the ethical principle of “do no harm” and the professional standard of care in wellness coaching, which mandates tailoring interventions to individual client circumstances and known physiological conditions. It aligns with the understanding that applied biomechanics should inform exercise selection and modification to optimize outcomes and prevent injury. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves recommending a generic strength training program without specific modifications for knee osteoarthritis. This fails to account for the biomechanical stresses that certain exercises, like deep squats or lunges, can place on an already compromised joint, potentially leading to increased pain and inflammation, and violating the principle of individualized care. Another incorrect approach is to focus solely on cardiovascular fitness without considering the impact on the knee joint. While cardiovascular health is important, neglecting the biomechanical considerations of osteoarthritis can lead to exercises that are detrimental to the knee, such as high-impact activities, thereby failing to provide holistic and safe guidance. A further incorrect approach is to advise the client to push through pain to build strength. This is ethically unsound and biomechanically dangerous. Pain is a signal of tissue stress or damage. Ignoring it in the context of osteoarthritis can lead to significant exacerbation of the condition and long-term joint deterioration, directly contradicting the core responsibility of a wellness coach to promote well-being and prevent harm. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic approach that begins with a thorough understanding of the client’s medical history and current condition. This is followed by an assessment of their functional capabilities and limitations, specifically considering how their anatomy and physiology interact with movement. Applied biomechanics then provides the framework for analyzing movement patterns and identifying potential risks and benefits of different exercises. The decision-making process should prioritize safety, efficacy, and individualization, ensuring that all recommendations are evidence-based and ethically sound, with a clear understanding of the coach’s scope of practice and when to refer to other healthcare professionals.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the wellness coach to navigate the ethical and regulatory boundaries between providing general wellness guidance and engaging in diagnostic activities that fall outside their scope of practice. Misinterpreting symptoms or recommending specific diagnostic tests without proper qualification can lead to patient harm, misdiagnosis, and legal repercussions. The coach must exercise careful judgment to ensure they are operating within their licensure and ethical guidelines, prioritizing client safety and appropriate referral. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves recognizing the limitations of a wellness coach’s scope of practice. This approach involves acknowledging the client’s reported symptoms, validating their concerns, and then clearly and ethically advising them to seek professional medical evaluation from a qualified healthcare provider. This is correct because it adheres strictly to the principle of operating within one’s defined professional boundaries. Nordic wellness coaching, while holistic, does not grant the authority to diagnose or prescribe medical tests. Directing the client to a physician ensures they receive appropriate medical assessment and care, preventing potential harm from delayed or incorrect self-management based on non-professional advice. This aligns with ethical guidelines that prioritize client well-being and professional integrity by ensuring that medical issues are handled by licensed medical professionals. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Recommending specific diagnostic imaging tests, such as an MRI, without a medical referral is ethically and regulatorily unsound. This constitutes practicing medicine without a license and oversteps the defined scope of a wellness coach. It can lead to unnecessary patient anxiety, financial burden, and potentially misinterpretation of results without a medical professional to contextualize them. Suggesting over-the-counter remedies or supplements to address the reported pain is also problematic. While supplements might be within the broader scope of wellness advice, recommending them as a direct treatment for a symptom that could indicate a serious underlying condition is a form of self-treatment advice that bypasses necessary medical diagnosis. This could mask symptoms, delay proper medical intervention, and potentially interact negatively with other conditions or medications the client may have. Dismissing the client’s symptoms as likely stress-related and advising them to simply relax and drink herbal tea is negligent. While stress can manifest physically, it is not the role of a wellness coach to make such a definitive medical judgment without proper diagnostic input. This approach fails to acknowledge the potential for serious underlying medical issues and could lead to a dangerous delay in diagnosis and treatment, directly contravening the ethical imperative to act in the client’s best interest. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes client safety and adheres to regulatory and ethical boundaries. This involves a four-step process: 1) Active Listening and Validation: Acknowledge and validate the client’s concerns without making diagnostic pronouncements. 2) Scope of Practice Assessment: Critically evaluate whether the client’s reported issue falls within the coach’s defined professional scope. 3) Ethical and Regulatory Compliance: Determine if any proposed action aligns with relevant laws, regulations, and professional codes of conduct. 4) Appropriate Referral: If the issue falls outside the scope of practice or suggests a potential medical concern, the professional’s responsibility is to refer the client to the appropriate qualified professional.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires a wellness coach to navigate the boundaries of their expertise and ethical obligations when faced with a client exhibiting symptoms that may indicate a serious medical condition. The coach must balance their desire to support the client with the imperative to avoid overstepping their scope of practice, which could lead to harm or a delay in appropriate medical care. Careful judgment is required to ensure the client receives the most effective and safe support. The best approach involves acknowledging the client’s distress and symptoms, clearly stating the limitations of wellness coaching in diagnosing or treating medical conditions, and strongly recommending that the client seek professional medical evaluation from a qualified healthcare provider. This approach is correct because it upholds the core ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the client’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm). It aligns with the governance of scope-of-practice by recognizing that medical diagnosis and treatment fall outside the purview of a wellness coach. By facilitating a referral to appropriate medical professionals, the coach ensures the client receives the necessary care without engaging in practices for which they are not qualified. This also respects the client’s autonomy by empowering them to make informed decisions about their health. An incorrect approach would be to attempt to provide advice or interventions for the client’s physical symptoms, such as suggesting specific dietary changes or relaxation techniques to alleviate what might be a symptom of a serious underlying illness. This is professionally unacceptable because it constitutes practicing outside the established scope of wellness coaching and could be interpreted as providing medical advice without proper qualification. Such actions violate the principle of non-maleficence, as they could delay or interfere with the client receiving a proper medical diagnosis and treatment, potentially exacerbating their condition. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the client’s symptoms or minimize their concerns, suggesting they are simply experiencing stress. This is professionally unacceptable as it fails to acknowledge the client’s subjective experience and could lead to the client feeling unheard or invalidated. Ethically, it breaches the duty of care and could result in the client not seeking necessary medical attention, thereby causing harm. A third incorrect approach would be to refer the client to another wellness coach or practitioner without first advising them to consult a medical doctor. While referrals can be appropriate, failing to prioritize medical evaluation for potentially serious physical symptoms is a failure of professional responsibility. It risks perpetuating the idea that wellness coaching can address all health concerns, potentially delaying critical medical intervention. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes client safety and well-being. This involves first assessing the nature of the client’s concerns. If there are indications of physical symptoms that could be indicative of a medical condition, the immediate professional responsibility is to guide the client towards appropriate medical assessment. This means clearly communicating the boundaries of the coaching relationship and the coach’s scope of practice, and then making a strong recommendation for consultation with a qualified healthcare provider. The coach can then offer support within their scope of practice once the client has received medical clearance or guidance.

The review process indicates a scenario where a wellness coach is presented with client data that suggests a potential chronic condition requiring medical intervention. This situation is professionally challenging because it sits at the intersection of wellness coaching scope of practice and the necessity for medical diagnosis and treatment. The coach must navigate the ethical imperative to support client well-being without overstepping professional boundaries or providing medical advice, which could lead to harm or regulatory non-compliance. Careful judgment is required to ensure the client receives appropriate care while maintaining professional integrity. The best approach involves recognizing the limitations of wellness coaching and prioritizing the client’s safety and access to appropriate medical care. This entails clearly identifying the data as indicative of a potential medical issue that falls outside the coach’s expertise and scope. The coach should then facilitate the client’s connection with qualified healthcare professionals for diagnosis and treatment. This aligns with ethical guidelines that emphasize client safety, professional competence, and the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. Specifically, in jurisdictions like the UK, wellness coaches are expected to operate within their defined scope, which does not include medical diagnosis. They are ethically bound to refer clients to medical practitioners when signs or symptoms suggest a condition requiring medical attention. This respects the regulatory framework governing healthcare and wellness professions, ensuring clients receive the correct level of care. An incorrect approach would be to attempt to interpret the data as a wellness coach and provide recommendations for managing what appears to be a chronic condition without medical consultation. This oversteps the coach’s scope of practice and could lead to delayed or incorrect medical treatment, potentially exacerbating the client’s condition. Ethically, this is a failure to act in the client’s best interest and a breach of professional responsibility. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the data entirely, assuming it is within the realm of normal wellness fluctuations, and continue with standard coaching protocols. This demonstrates a lack of due diligence and a failure to recognize potential red flags that warrant further investigation by a medical professional. It neglects the coach’s responsibility to be aware of and respond appropriately to client health indicators. A further incorrect approach would be to share the data with other non-medical professionals without explicit client consent, even with the intention of seeking advice. This would violate client confidentiality and data protection regulations, such as GDPR if applicable, and is an unethical use of sensitive personal information. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a clear understanding of their scope of practice and the regulatory landscape governing their profession. When presented with client data that suggests a potential medical issue, the primary consideration must be client safety and well-being. This involves a systematic process of identifying potential risks, assessing whether the situation falls within their expertise, and if not, determining the most appropriate referral pathway. Ethical guidelines and professional codes of conduct should be consulted to ensure actions are both legally compliant and morally sound. The principle of “do no harm” is paramount, guiding the decision to defer to medical professionals when medical expertise is clearly required.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing client autonomy with the imperative to ensure safety and prevent harm, particularly in the context of chronic care where vulnerabilities may be heightened. The wellness coach must navigate potential conflicts between a client’s expressed wishes and established best practices for infection prevention, all while adhering to regulatory standards that prioritize client well-being and data integrity. Careful judgment is required to uphold professional ethics and legal obligations. The best approach involves a proactive, documented, and collaborative strategy. This includes clearly communicating the rationale behind recommended infection prevention measures, explaining their importance in the context of the client’s chronic condition, and offering alternative, equally effective methods if the client has specific concerns or limitations. Crucially, this approach emphasizes obtaining informed consent for any agreed-upon actions and meticulously documenting all discussions, decisions, and implemented strategies. This aligns with the principles of client-centered care, ethical practice, and regulatory requirements for maintaining accurate client records and ensuring safe service delivery. The focus is on education, shared decision-making, and transparent documentation, which are cornerstones of responsible professional conduct in health and wellness. An approach that dismisses the client’s concerns and unilaterally imposes infection prevention protocols without adequate explanation or consideration of alternatives is ethically flawed. It undermines client autonomy and can lead to distrust and non-compliance, potentially compromising the effectiveness of the care plan. This fails to meet the standard of informed consent and can be seen as a disregard for the client’s individual circumstances and preferences. Another incorrect approach involves accepting the client’s refusal of all infection prevention measures without further investigation or discussion. This is a significant ethical and regulatory failure, as it places the client at undue risk of infection, which is particularly concerning given their chronic condition. Professional responsibility dictates that the coach must advocate for the client’s safety and well-being, even when faced with resistance, and explore the underlying reasons for such refusal. Finally, an approach that involves documenting the client’s refusal without attempting to educate, explore alternatives, or seek further professional guidance (if necessary) is insufficient. While documentation is important, it should reflect a comprehensive effort to address the safety concern, not merely record a passive observation of risk. This approach fails to demonstrate due diligence in protecting the client and upholding professional standards of care. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes client safety, respects autonomy, and ensures regulatory compliance. This involves active listening to understand client concerns, clear and empathetic communication of risks and benefits, collaborative problem-solving to find mutually agreeable solutions, and thorough documentation of all interactions and decisions. When faced with complex ethical dilemmas, seeking supervision or consultation with peers or regulatory bodies is also a critical component of professional reasoning.