The assessment process reveals a scenario that is professionally challenging due to the inherent complexities of interdisciplinary collaboration in high-stakes environments like operating theaters and critical care units. Effective leadership in these settings requires not only clinical expertise but also strong communication, conflict resolution, and the ability to foster a shared understanding of patient care goals among diverse professional groups. The challenge lies in navigating differing perspectives, potential power dynamics, and the urgent need for coordinated action to ensure optimal patient outcomes. Careful judgment is required to balance individual professional autonomy with the collective responsibility for patient safety and efficient resource utilization. The best approach involves proactively establishing clear communication channels and a shared decision-making framework prior to the procedure. This includes a pre-operative briefing where all members of the surgical and critical care team, including nursing staff, anesthesiologists, and surgical assistants, have an opportunity to voice concerns, clarify roles, and agree on the operative plan and potential contingencies. This collaborative planning ensures that all team members are aligned, understand their responsibilities, and feel empowered to contribute to patient care. This aligns with ethical principles of shared responsibility and patient-centered care, and implicitly with professional guidelines that emphasize teamwork and effective communication in healthcare delivery to minimize errors and improve outcomes. An approach that prioritizes the surgeon’s unilateral decision-making without adequate consultation or consideration of input from other team members is professionally unacceptable. This can lead to misunderstandings, missed critical information, and a breakdown in team cohesion, potentially compromising patient safety. It fails to acknowledge the valuable expertise and perspectives that other disciplines bring to the operating room and critical care unit. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to avoid addressing interdisciplinary tensions or conflicts directly, hoping they will resolve themselves. This passive stance can allow underlying issues to fester, negatively impacting team morale and performance. It neglects the leader’s responsibility to foster a positive and productive working environment, which is crucial for effective patient care. Finally, an approach that focuses solely on individual task completion without fostering a sense of collective ownership and accountability for the patient’s overall journey through the perioperative and critical care phases is also flawed. While individual tasks are important, true interdisciplinary leadership requires a holistic view of patient management and a commitment to seamless transitions and coordinated care across different specialties and units. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that emphasizes proactive communication, inclusive planning, and continuous feedback. This involves actively seeking out and valuing diverse perspectives, establishing clear protocols for communication and conflict resolution, and fostering a culture of psychological safety where all team members feel comfortable raising concerns. Regular debriefings and post-operative reviews are also essential for learning and continuous improvement in interdisciplinary collaboration.

The performance metrics show a concerning trend in patient outcomes for a specific complex pelvic reconstructive surgery. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a surgeon to critically evaluate their own practice and potentially acknowledge areas for improvement, which can be emotionally difficult. It also involves balancing patient safety, the pursuit of excellence in surgical care, and the ethical obligation to maintain competence. Careful judgment is required to distinguish between statistical variation and a genuine need for intervention. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive, multi-faceted review of the surgical outcomes. This includes a thorough analysis of the specific cases with suboptimal results, identifying potential contributing factors such as patient selection, surgical technique variations, or post-operative management. Crucially, this approach mandates seeking external validation and peer review, such as consultation with senior colleagues or participation in a morbidity and mortality conference. This aligns with the ethical imperative of continuous professional development and the regulatory requirement to maintain surgical competence and ensure patient safety. It demonstrates a commitment to evidence-based practice and a proactive stance in addressing potential deficiencies. An incorrect approach would be to dismiss the performance metrics as statistical anomalies without further investigation. This fails to acknowledge the potential for systemic issues or individual learning opportunities, thereby compromising patient safety and violating the ethical duty to provide the highest standard of care. Another incorrect approach is to focus solely on blaming external factors, such as referring physicians or nursing staff, without undertaking a rigorous self-assessment of surgical technique or decision-making. This demonstrates a lack of accountability and hinders the identification of personal areas for growth. Finally, an approach that involves avoiding discussion of these metrics with colleagues or supervisors, or attempting to conceal the data, is ethically reprehensible and a direct violation of professional transparency and regulatory oversight requirements. Professionals should approach such situations by first acknowledging the data objectively. The next step is to initiate a structured, evidence-based review process. This involves gathering all relevant data, engaging in open and honest discussion with peers and mentors, and developing a concrete action plan for improvement. The focus should always remain on patient well-being and the continuous enhancement of surgical skills and knowledge.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a surgeon to balance the immediate need for efficient patient care with the paramount importance of patient safety and adherence to established surgical protocols. The pressure to reduce operative time, while often a desirable outcome, must never compromise the meticulous application of surgical principles, the correct use of instrumentation, or the safe deployment of energy devices. Misjudgments in this area can lead to significant patient harm, including thermal injury, unintended tissue damage, and prolonged recovery. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic and deliberate approach to instrumentation and energy device selection and utilization, prioritizing patient safety and procedural integrity over speed. This includes thorough pre-operative planning, confirming the availability and functionality of all necessary instruments and energy devices, and ensuring the surgical team is proficient in their use. During the procedure, the surgeon must maintain constant vigilance, employing energy devices only when indicated, at appropriate settings, and with precise application to minimize collateral thermal spread and unintended tissue injury. This aligns with the fundamental ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm), as well as the implicit professional duty to uphold the highest standards of surgical care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves prioritizing speed by using a single energy device for multiple, disparate tasks without reassessing its suitability or settings for each specific application. This fails to acknowledge that different tissues and surgical maneuvers require tailored energy delivery to prevent thermal injury to adjacent structures, nerve damage, or incomplete hemostasis. It violates the principle of non-maleficence by increasing the risk of unintended harm. Another incorrect approach is to delegate the selection and management of energy device settings to less experienced team members without direct surgeon oversight or confirmation. While teamwork is crucial, the ultimate responsibility for patient safety rests with the operating surgeon. This abdication of responsibility can lead to inappropriate energy application, potentially causing significant complications and failing to meet the standard of care. A third incorrect approach is to proceed with a procedure when instrumentation or energy devices are not functioning optimally or are not the most appropriate for the specific surgical step, simply to avoid delays. This demonstrates a disregard for patient safety and a failure to adhere to the principles of sound surgical practice. It prioritizes expediency over the patient’s well-being, directly contravening the ethical obligation to provide the best possible care. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough pre-operative assessment of the surgical plan and required resources. During the procedure, a continuous loop of assessment, execution, and re-assessment is vital. This involves actively monitoring the surgical field, the patient’s physiological status, and the performance of all instruments and energy devices. When faced with a situation where efficiency might be compromised by adhering to best practices, the professional must always default to the approach that maximizes patient safety and surgical integrity, even if it means a slightly longer operative time. Open communication within the surgical team is also paramount to identify and address any potential issues proactively.

This scenario presents a significant professional challenge due to the inherent unpredictability and rapid deterioration often seen in critical care settings, particularly when dealing with trauma impacting pelvic structures. The need for immediate, decisive action, while simultaneously adhering to established protocols and ethical considerations, requires a high degree of clinical acumen and judgment. The complexity is amplified by the potential for severe hemorrhage, organ damage, and the need for multidisciplinary coordination. The correct approach involves immediate, systematic assessment and resuscitation guided by ATLS (Advanced Trauma Life Support) principles, prioritizing airway, breathing, circulation, and disability (neurological status). This includes rapid fluid resuscitation, blood product administration if indicated by signs of shock, and prompt surgical consultation for definitive management of pelvic trauma. This aligns with established best practices in trauma care, emphasizing the ABCDE approach to identify and manage life-threatening injuries swiftly. Ethically, this approach prioritizes patient survival and minimizes harm by addressing immediate physiological derangements before irreversible damage occurs. Regulatory frameworks governing emergency medical care and surgical practice mandate adherence to evidence-based protocols designed to optimize patient outcomes in critical situations. An incorrect approach would be to delay definitive resuscitation efforts to conduct a more exhaustive, non-emergent diagnostic workup, such as a lengthy, detailed physical examination of all organ systems before initiating fluid resuscitation or blood product transfusion. This delays critical interventions and can lead to further physiological compromise, violating the principle of “do no harm” and failing to meet the standard of care in trauma resuscitation. Another incorrect approach would be to solely rely on pain management and observation without addressing potential hemodynamic instability or internal bleeding. This neglects the immediate life-threatening potential of pelvic trauma and fails to adhere to established resuscitation protocols, potentially leading to preventable morbidity and mortality. A further incorrect approach would be to proceed with extensive imaging studies, such as a CT scan, before stabilizing the patient’s airway and circulation. While imaging is crucial, it should not supersede the immediate life-saving measures required in the initial resuscitation phase of severe trauma. Delaying critical interventions for imaging can exacerbate shock and worsen outcomes. Professionals should employ a structured, protocol-driven decision-making process, starting with a rapid primary survey (ABCDE) to identify and manage immediate threats. This is followed by a secondary survey and appropriate investigations, always prioritizing interventions that directly address life-threatening conditions. Continuous reassessment and adaptation of the management plan based on the patient’s response are paramount. Consultation with relevant specialists should be initiated early.

This scenario is professionally challenging due to the inherent risks associated with complex pelvic medicine procedures and the critical need for timely, evidence-based management of unexpected complications. The surgeon must balance immediate patient safety with the long-term implications of their decisions, all while adhering to established standards of care and professional ethics. The pressure to act decisively in a high-stakes situation requires a systematic approach grounded in knowledge and ethical principles. The best professional approach involves immediate, direct communication with the patient and their family regarding the intraoperative complication, its immediate management, and the revised surgical plan. This approach is correct because it upholds the ethical principle of patient autonomy and informed consent, even in an emergent context. Transparency about the complication and the necessary adjustments to the procedure is paramount. Furthermore, prompt and clear communication facilitates ongoing shared decision-making and builds trust, which is essential for patient well-being and recovery. This aligns with professional guidelines emphasizing open disclosure and patient-centered care in all circumstances, including unexpected surgical events. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with the revised surgical plan without informing the patient or their family about the complication and the change in strategy. This fails to respect patient autonomy and violates the principle of informed consent, as the patient did not agree to the modified procedure under these circumstances. Ethically, this constitutes a significant breach of trust and professional responsibility. Another incorrect approach would be to delay informing the patient and their family until after the procedure is completed and the patient is recovering. While the intention might be to avoid causing undue immediate distress, this still deprives the patient of their right to know what happened during their surgery and to participate in decisions about their care as soon as reasonably possible. This delay can also hinder effective post-operative management and patient engagement in their recovery. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to delegate the communication of the complication and revised plan to a junior member of the surgical team without direct surgeon oversight or involvement. While team collaboration is important, the primary responsibility for communicating significant intraoperative events and their management rests with the attending surgeon. This delegation can lead to incomplete or inaccurate information being conveyed and undermines the surgeon’s accountability to the patient. The professional reasoning process for such situations should involve: 1. Prioritizing immediate patient safety and stabilizing the patient. 2. Rapidly assessing the nature and extent of the complication. 3. Formulating a clear, evidence-based management plan. 4. Immediately communicating the complication and the revised plan to the patient and/or their designated representative, ensuring they understand the situation and the proposed course of action. 5. Documenting the complication, the communication, and the management plan thoroughly.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves a candidate who has narrowly failed a critical competency assessment, impacting their career progression and potentially patient safety if they are not adequately prepared for independent practice. The assessment body faces the dual responsibility of maintaining high standards of patient care and providing a fair and transparent process for candidates. Balancing these requires careful adherence to established policies regarding scoring, blueprint weighting, and retake procedures. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a thorough review of the candidate’s performance against the established blueprint weighting and scoring rubric, followed by a clear communication of the results and the specific areas of deficiency. This approach is correct because it directly aligns with the principles of fair assessment and professional accountability. The blueprint weighting ensures that the assessment accurately reflects the relative importance of different knowledge and skill domains, and the scoring rubric provides objective criteria for evaluation. Transparently communicating the results and areas for improvement is ethically mandated to support the candidate’s development and ensure they meet the required standards before re-assessment. This upholds the integrity of the competency assessment process and prioritizes patient safety by ensuring only adequately prepared individuals are certified. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to immediately grant a pass based on the candidate’s perceived effort or the subjective impression of their overall competence, without rigorous adherence to the blueprint weighting and scoring. This fails to uphold the objective standards of the assessment, potentially compromising patient safety by certifying an individual who has not demonstrated mastery in all critical areas. It also undermines the fairness of the process for other candidates. Another incorrect approach is to deny a retake opportunity solely based on the initial failure, without considering the established retake policies or offering a structured pathway for remediation. This is ethically problematic as it can be punitive and does not support professional development, potentially hindering a candidate’s ability to achieve competency. Furthermore, it may violate the stated policies of the assessment body regarding retakes and appeals. A third incorrect approach is to arbitrarily change the blueprint weighting or scoring for the candidate’s retake without a clear, documented rationale and without informing the candidate of the revised criteria. This introduces bias and lacks transparency, violating principles of fairness and due process. Professional Reasoning: Professionals involved in competency assessments must prioritize adherence to established policies and ethical guidelines. This involves a systematic process: first, understanding and applying the assessment blueprint and scoring rubric consistently. Second, ensuring transparent communication of results, including detailed feedback on areas of weakness. Third, following established retake and remediation policies fairly and consistently for all candidates. Finally, maintaining a commitment to continuous improvement of assessment processes based on evidence and feedback, while always prioritizing patient safety.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a significant professional challenge due to the inherent complexities of managing a rare and aggressive oncological condition in a patient with multiple comorbidities. The challenge lies in balancing the aggressive surgical intervention required for optimal oncological control with the substantial risks posed by the patient’s pre-existing conditions, including severe cardiac and renal impairment. The need for rapid decision-making under pressure, coupled with the ethical imperative to respect patient autonomy while ensuring their safety, demands a highly nuanced and collaborative approach. The rarity of the condition further complicates matters, as established protocols may be less defined, requiring reliance on expert judgment and evidence-based principles. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach that prioritizes comprehensive pre-operative risk assessment and optimization, followed by a tailored surgical plan developed collaboratively with the patient and their family. This approach begins with a thorough evaluation by specialists in pelvic medicine, oncology, cardiology, nephrology, and anesthesiology. The MDT would then convene to discuss all available treatment options, including the risks and benefits of aggressive surgery versus less invasive or palliative measures, considering the patient’s specific comorbidities. Crucially, this information would be communicated clearly and empathetically to the patient and their family, allowing for informed consent and shared decision-making. The surgical plan would then be meticulously designed to minimize operative stress and duration, potentially involving staged procedures or minimally invasive techniques where feasible, with robust post-operative critical care arrangements in place. This approach is correct because it adheres to the fundamental ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), and respect for autonomy. It also aligns with best practice guidelines for managing complex surgical cases, emphasizing collaboration, thorough assessment, and patient-centered care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Proceeding with immediate, aggressive surgical intervention without a comprehensive pre-operative optimization of the patient’s cardiac and renal conditions would be professionally unacceptable. This approach fails to adequately address the significant peri-operative risks, potentially leading to severe morbidity or mortality, thus violating the principle of non-maleficence. It also bypasses the crucial step of informed consent regarding the heightened risks associated with surgery in a compromised patient. Opting for a less aggressive surgical approach solely based on the patient’s comorbidities, without a thorough discussion of the oncological implications and alternative management strategies with the patient and MDT, would also be professionally unsound. This could lead to suboptimal oncological outcomes and a failure to provide the patient with the best chance for disease control, potentially violating the principle of beneficence. Delaying surgery indefinitely due to the patient’s comorbidities, without exploring all avenues for risk mitigation and optimization, would be ethically problematic. This could allow the malignancy to progress, potentially to an unresectable stage, thereby compromising the patient’s long-term prognosis and failing to act in their best interest. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing such complex scenarios should employ a structured decision-making process that begins with a comprehensive understanding of the clinical problem and the patient’s overall health status. This involves gathering all relevant diagnostic information and consulting with appropriate specialists to form a multidisciplinary team. The team should then collaboratively assess the risks and benefits of all potential treatment pathways, considering both oncological efficacy and patient safety. Open and honest communication with the patient and their family is paramount, ensuring they understand the complexities, uncertainties, and potential outcomes of each option. Shared decision-making, where the patient’s values and preferences are integrated into the final treatment plan, is essential. Finally, a robust plan for peri-operative management and post-operative care, tailored to the individual patient’s needs and risks, must be established.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge centered on ensuring that only appropriately qualified and experienced surgeons are recognized for elite female pelvic medicine surgery. The core difficulty lies in balancing the need for rigorous, standardized assessment to protect patient safety and maintain public trust with the potential for subjective interpretation of “elite” status and the practicalities of assessing complex surgical skills. Misjudging the purpose or eligibility criteria could lead to either excluding highly competent surgeons or, conversely, allowing less qualified individuals to be recognized, both of which have significant ethical and professional ramifications. Careful judgment is required to uphold the integrity of the assessment process. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach is to meticulously align the assessment’s purpose and eligibility criteria with the established regulatory framework and professional guidelines for advanced surgical competencies in female pelvic medicine. This involves clearly defining what constitutes “elite” performance based on objective metrics such as surgical outcomes, peer review, specialized training completion, and demonstrated expertise in complex reconstructive procedures, all within the scope of recognized medical practice. Eligibility should be strictly tied to verifiable qualifications, extensive experience in the specific subspecialty, and a proven track record of patient care excellence as defined by relevant professional bodies. This ensures that the assessment serves its intended purpose of identifying and credentialing surgeons who meet the highest standards of competence, thereby safeguarding patient welfare and upholding professional integrity. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves prioritizing a surgeon’s reputation or years of general surgical practice over specific, demonstrable expertise in female pelvic medicine surgery. This fails to acknowledge that broad experience does not automatically translate to specialized competence in a highly intricate field. It risks overlooking surgeons who may have dedicated their careers to this subspecialty and possess the most relevant skills, while potentially including those whose general experience is not directly applicable. Another incorrect approach is to base eligibility solely on the number of procedures performed, without considering the complexity, outcomes, or the specific nature of those procedures within female pelvic medicine. This metric alone can be misleading, as a high volume of routine cases does not equate to the advanced skills required for complex reconstructive surgeries or management of challenging pelvic floor disorders. It neglects the qualitative aspects of surgical proficiency essential for an “elite” assessment. A further incorrect approach is to allow for subjective nominations or endorsements from colleagues without a robust, standardized framework for evaluating the basis of those endorsements. While peer recognition is valuable, it must be supported by objective evidence of competence. Relying solely on subjective opinions can introduce bias and undermine the fairness and reliability of the assessment process, potentially leading to the inclusion of individuals who do not meet the rigorous standards expected for elite practitioners. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach such assessments by first thoroughly understanding the governing regulatory framework and professional body guidelines that define advanced competencies in female pelvic medicine surgery. This involves identifying the specific objectives of the assessment – is it for credentialing, advanced training recognition, or public information? Next, they must establish clear, objective, and measurable eligibility criteria that directly reflect these objectives and the required level of expertise. This includes defining acceptable evidence of training, experience, surgical outcomes, and peer validation. A structured application and review process, incorporating both objective data and rigorous peer assessment against defined standards, is crucial. Professionals must remain vigilant against subjective biases and ensure that the process is transparent, fair, and consistently applied to all candidates, ultimately prioritizing patient safety and the integrity of the subspecialty.

The audit findings indicate a recurring theme of candidates for the Elite Female Pelvic Medicine Surgery Competency Assessment not adequately preparing for the practical application of their knowledge, particularly concerning the timeline for acquiring necessary procedural experience and accessing relevant preparatory resources. This scenario is professionally challenging because it directly impacts patient safety and the integrity of the competency assessment process. A surgeon who is not adequately prepared in terms of practical experience and resource utilization poses a risk to patients and undermines the credibility of the certification. Careful judgment is required to ensure that candidates meet not just theoretical benchmarks but also demonstrate practical readiness. The best approach involves a structured, proactive engagement with the assessment requirements, emphasizing early identification of resource needs and a realistic timeline for skill acquisition. This includes consulting the official assessment guidelines for recommended preparatory resources and timelines, engaging with mentors or senior colleagues for guidance on practical experience, and developing a personalized study and practice plan well in advance of the assessment date. This aligns with ethical principles of professional responsibility and patient welfare, ensuring that candidates are not only knowledgeable but also practically competent and safe to practice independently. It also reflects a commitment to continuous professional development, a cornerstone of medical practice. An approach that relies solely on last-minute cramming of theoretical knowledge without sufficient practical experience is professionally unacceptable. This fails to address the core competency requirement of hands-on skill and judgment, which is paramount in surgical fields. It also disregards the implicit ethical obligation to ensure readiness for patient care, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to assume that prior general surgical training is sufficient without specific preparation for the nuances of female pelvic medicine surgery. Competency assessments are designed to evaluate specialized knowledge and skills. Failing to tailor preparation to the specific demands of the assessment, including understanding the recommended resources and timelines for acquiring relevant experience, demonstrates a lack of diligence and respect for the assessment process and the specialty. Finally, an approach that neglects to seek guidance from experienced practitioners or mentors regarding the acquisition of practical experience and the interpretation of preparatory resource recommendations is also flawed. This isolationist strategy can lead to misinterpretations of requirements, inefficient use of preparation time, and a failure to develop the practical skills and judgment that are crucial for success in the assessment and for safe patient care. The professional reasoning framework for such situations should involve a systematic evaluation of assessment requirements, a realistic self-assessment of current capabilities, proactive engagement with available resources and mentors, and the development of a structured, time-bound preparation plan. This iterative process ensures that candidates are not only meeting the minimum requirements but are truly prepared to excel and, most importantly, to provide safe and effective patient care.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexity of applied surgical anatomy in pelvic medicine, particularly when dealing with potential anatomical variations or unexpected findings during a procedure. The need for precise knowledge of neurovascular structures, fascial planes, and organ relationships is paramount to patient safety and optimal surgical outcomes. Careful judgment is required to adapt surgical strategy in real-time based on anatomical understanding and to ensure that all perioperative considerations are addressed proactively. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive preoperative assessment that includes detailed review of imaging, consideration of patient-specific anatomical factors, and meticulous planning of the surgical approach. This includes anticipating potential anatomical variations and having contingency plans. Intraoperatively, continuous anatomical correlation with preoperative planning and judicious use of intraoperative imaging or consultation when anatomical landmarks are unclear is essential. This approach is correct because it prioritizes patient safety by minimizing the risk of iatrogenic injury to critical structures, adhering to the fundamental ethical principle of non-maleficence. It also aligns with professional standards of care that mandate thorough preparation and intraoperative vigilance. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with surgery without a thorough review of preoperative imaging, assuming standard anatomical presentation. This fails to acknowledge the potential for anatomical variations, increasing the risk of intraoperative complications such as inadvertent injury to nerves, blood vessels, or adjacent organs. This demonstrates a lapse in due diligence and a disregard for the principle of beneficence, as it does not maximize the potential for a positive outcome. Another incorrect approach is to rely solely on a standard surgical atlas without considering the individual patient’s anatomy or potential deviations. While atlases are valuable resources, they represent generalized anatomy and do not account for the unique variations that can exist in any given patient. This approach risks misinterpreting anatomical findings and can lead to suboptimal surgical dissection or unintended damage. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to ignore or downplay unexpected anatomical findings during surgery, proceeding with the planned steps without re-evaluating the surgical strategy. This demonstrates a lack of adaptability and a failure to engage in critical intraoperative decision-making. It prioritizes adherence to a preconceived plan over the patient’s immediate anatomical reality, potentially leading to significant complications and compromising the integrity of the surgical procedure. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a robust preoperative assessment, integrating all available patient data. This should be followed by a dynamic intraoperative approach that emphasizes continuous anatomical correlation, critical thinking, and the willingness to adapt the surgical plan based on real-time findings. When in doubt, seeking intraoperative consultation or utilizing advanced imaging techniques should be considered standard practice to ensure the highest level of patient care and safety.