This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a patient’s expressed wishes and the perceived best interests of their respiratory health, potentially influenced by family dynamics. Navigating this requires a delicate balance of respecting patient autonomy, upholding professional ethical standards, and adhering to regulatory guidelines for respiratory care. Careful judgment is essential to avoid coercion, ensure informed consent, and maintain the patient’s dignity. The best professional practice involves a comprehensive, patient-centered approach that prioritizes open communication and shared decision-making. This includes thoroughly assessing the patient’s understanding of their condition and treatment options, exploring the underlying reasons for their reluctance, and collaboratively developing a care plan that aligns with their values and goals, while still addressing their respiratory needs. This approach is correct because it upholds the fundamental ethical principle of patient autonomy, which is enshrined in professional codes of conduct and often reflected in healthcare regulations that mandate informed consent and patient-centered care. It also promotes therapeutic alliance and adherence to treatment. An approach that focuses solely on implementing the family’s preferred treatment plan without adequate patient engagement is professionally unacceptable. This fails to respect the patient’s right to self-determination and can lead to a breakdown in trust and potential non-adherence. Ethically, it violates the principle of autonomy and could be seen as a form of paternalism. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to dismiss the patient’s concerns as uninformed or irrational and proceed with a treatment they have not consented to. This disregards the patient’s lived experience and their right to make decisions about their own body, even if those decisions differ from what healthcare professionals deem optimal. It also risks alienating the patient and their family, hindering future care. Finally, an approach that involves pressuring the patient into accepting a treatment they are hesitant about, even with the intention of improving their respiratory status, is ethically flawed. While the intent may be good, the method undermines informed consent and can create undue stress and anxiety for the patient, potentially exacerbating their condition. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with active listening and empathetic understanding of the patient’s perspective. This should be followed by a thorough assessment of their clinical status and understanding, followed by a collaborative discussion of all available options, including the risks and benefits of each, and the potential consequences of no treatment. The goal is to reach a mutually agreed-upon plan that respects the patient’s autonomy while addressing their respiratory health needs to the greatest extent possible.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent variability in diagnostic instrumentation and the critical need for accurate imaging interpretation in advanced respiratory therapy. Professionals must navigate the complexities of different device capabilities, potential for error, and the ethical imperative to provide the highest standard of patient care based on reliable data. The challenge lies in selecting and interpreting diagnostic information in a way that is both clinically effective and compliant with professional standards, ensuring patient safety and optimal therapeutic outcomes. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic approach to diagnostic instrumentation and imaging interpretation. This includes a thorough understanding of the specific device’s operating principles, calibration requirements, and known limitations. It necessitates cross-referencing findings with the patient’s clinical presentation and history, and critically evaluating the quality and interpretability of the imaging data. When discrepancies or uncertainties arise, seeking consultation with experienced colleagues or specialists, and documenting all findings and decisions meticulously, are paramount. This approach aligns with the ethical duty of competence and diligence, ensuring that patient care is based on the most accurate and reliable information available, thereby minimizing the risk of misdiagnosis or inappropriate treatment. Professional guidelines emphasize the importance of evidence-based practice and continuous professional development, which includes staying abreast of advancements in diagnostic technology and interpretation techniques. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on the most advanced or newest instrumentation without a comprehensive understanding of its specific performance characteristics and potential artifacts is professionally unacceptable. This can lead to misinterpretation of data, potentially resulting in incorrect diagnoses or treatment plans, which violates the ethical principle of non-maleficence. Similarly, accepting imaging findings at face value without critical evaluation or correlation with the patient’s clinical status is a failure of due diligence. This can overlook subtle but significant abnormalities or misattribute findings, compromising patient safety and the quality of care. Furthermore, failing to consult with peers or specialists when faced with ambiguous or complex imaging results demonstrates a lack of professional responsibility and can lead to diagnostic errors. The ethical obligation to provide competent care requires acknowledging limitations and seeking assistance when necessary. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety and diagnostic accuracy. This involves: 1) Understanding the technology: Thoroughly familiarize yourself with the capabilities, limitations, and calibration needs of all diagnostic equipment used. 2) Clinical correlation: Always interpret diagnostic findings in the context of the patient’s overall clinical picture, including history, symptoms, and other relevant data. 3) Critical evaluation: Actively assess the quality of imaging and diagnostic data, looking for artifacts or inconsistencies. 4) Collaboration and consultation: Do not hesitate to seek advice from colleagues or specialists when encountering complex or uncertain cases. 5) Documentation: Maintain detailed and accurate records of all diagnostic procedures, findings, interpretations, and decisions. 6) Continuous learning: Stay updated on advancements in respiratory diagnostics and imaging interpretation through ongoing education and professional development.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between optimizing patient care outcomes and managing resource allocation within an allied health setting. Allied health professionals are ethically bound to provide the highest standard of care, yet they must also operate within budgetary constraints and demonstrate the value of their services. The decision-making process requires a nuanced understanding of evidence-based practice, patient needs, and the economic realities of healthcare delivery, demanding careful judgment to balance these competing priorities. Correct Approach Analysis: The approach that represents best professional practice involves a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence supporting the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of different respiratory therapy interventions for the specific patient population. This includes systematically reviewing current research, clinical guidelines, and outcome data to identify therapies that offer the greatest benefit relative to their cost. This approach aligns with the ethical imperative to provide evidence-based care and the professional responsibility to ensure efficient use of healthcare resources. It also supports the justification of allied health services by demonstrating their value and impact on patient well-being and system efficiency. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves prioritizing interventions solely based on their perceived technological sophistication or novelty, without rigorous assessment of their proven clinical benefit or cost-effectiveness. This can lead to the adoption of expensive treatments that offer marginal improvements over less costly alternatives, thereby misallocating resources and potentially compromising care for other patients. This fails to adhere to principles of evidence-based practice and responsible stewardship of healthcare funds. Another incorrect approach is to select interventions based primarily on historical practice or tradition, without critically examining whether these methods remain the most effective or efficient in light of current knowledge and available technologies. This can perpetuate suboptimal care and hinder the adoption of more beneficial or cost-effective strategies, violating the professional duty to continuously improve patient outcomes. A further incorrect approach is to base decisions on the lowest upfront cost of equipment or services, without considering the total cost of ownership, including maintenance, consumables, and potential for improved patient outcomes that reduce long-term healthcare expenditures. This short-sighted financial perspective can lead to higher overall costs and poorer patient results, neglecting the broader economic and clinical implications of therapeutic choices. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a structured decision-making framework that begins with clearly defining the patient population and their specific respiratory needs. This should be followed by a thorough literature review and analysis of clinical guidelines to identify evidence-based treatment options. A critical component is the comparative analysis of these options, considering not only clinical efficacy but also cost-effectiveness, patient safety, and feasibility within the existing healthcare infrastructure. Engaging in shared decision-making with patients and interdisciplinary teams is also crucial. Finally, continuous monitoring and evaluation of implemented interventions are necessary to ensure ongoing effectiveness and identify opportunities for further optimization.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent variability in patient responses to advanced respiratory therapies and the critical need for evidence-based practice within a regulated healthcare environment. Professionals must navigate the tension between individual patient needs and established protocols, ensuring patient safety and optimal outcomes while adhering to professional standards and regulatory expectations. Careful judgment is required to interpret data, adapt treatment plans, and communicate effectively with the healthcare team and patients. The best approach involves a systematic and evidence-based evaluation of the patient’s response to the new therapy, integrating objective data with clinical assessment and considering established guidelines. This approach prioritizes patient safety and efficacy by ensuring that any deviation from standard practice is justified by a thorough understanding of the patient’s unique condition and response. It aligns with the ethical imperative to provide competent care and the regulatory requirement to practice within one’s scope and according to accepted standards. This method ensures that decisions are data-driven, patient-centered, and defensible. An approach that relies solely on anecdotal evidence or personal experience without rigorous objective assessment is professionally unacceptable. This fails to meet the standard of care expected in advanced respiratory therapy and could lead to inappropriate treatment decisions, potentially harming the patient. It disregards the importance of objective data collection and analysis, which are fundamental to evidence-based practice and regulatory compliance. Another unacceptable approach is to rigidly adhere to a protocol without considering the individual patient’s response or potential contraindications. While protocols provide a framework, they are not absolute and must be applied with clinical judgment. Failing to adapt a protocol when a patient is not responding as expected or is experiencing adverse effects can lead to suboptimal outcomes and potential harm, violating ethical obligations to the patient. Finally, an approach that prioritizes patient comfort over clinical efficacy without a clear rationale or discussion with the healthcare team is also problematic. While patient comfort is important, advanced respiratory therapies are typically implemented to achieve specific clinical goals. Deviating from these goals without a clear, documented, and agreed-upon reason can undermine the therapeutic intent of the intervention and may not be in the patient’s best long-term interest. Professionals should employ a decision-making process that begins with a thorough understanding of the patient’s condition and the rationale for the chosen therapy. This involves actively collecting and analyzing objective data, comparing it against expected outcomes and established benchmarks, and critically evaluating the patient’s subjective experience. When deviations from expected responses occur, the professional should consult relevant literature, seek input from colleagues or supervisors, and document all assessments and decisions meticulously. This iterative process ensures that care is both evidence-based and responsive to the individual patient’s needs within the regulatory framework.

Scenario Analysis: The scenario presents a common challenge for aspiring Global Advanced Respiratory Therapy Specialists: efficiently and effectively preparing for a comprehensive certification exam while balancing professional responsibilities and personal commitments. The critical element is identifying the most strategic and compliant approach to resource utilization and time management, ensuring that preparation aligns with the established standards and ethical considerations of the certification body. The pressure to perform well on the exam, coupled with the need to maintain current work performance, necessitates a well-thought-out preparation strategy. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a structured, multi-modal preparation strategy that prioritizes official certification materials and reputable, evidence-based resources. This includes diligently reviewing the official syllabus and recommended reading lists provided by the Global Advanced Respiratory Therapy Specialist Certification body. Supplementing this with high-quality, peer-reviewed literature and engaging in practice questions that mirror the exam’s format and difficulty are crucial. This method is correct because it directly addresses the knowledge domains and skill sets assessed by the certification. It adheres to the implicit ethical obligation to prepare thoroughly and competently, ensuring that the specialist’s knowledge is current and aligned with best practices as defined by the certifying authority. This approach minimizes the risk of relying on outdated or inaccurate information, which could lead to a failure to meet certification standards. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on informal study groups and anecdotal advice from colleagues, without cross-referencing with official materials or peer-reviewed literature, is an incorrect approach. This method risks propagating misinformation or focusing on less critical topics, failing to meet the comprehensive scope of the certification. It lacks the rigor required for professional validation and could lead to a superficial understanding of advanced respiratory therapy principles. Focusing exclusively on memorizing answers to practice questions from a single, unverified online source, without understanding the underlying concepts, is also an incorrect approach. This strategy promotes rote learning rather than deep comprehension, which is essential for applying knowledge in real-world clinical scenarios. It fails to address the analytical and critical thinking skills the certification aims to assess and could lead to a misapplication of knowledge. Prioritizing preparation only in the immediate weeks before the exam, cramming information without consistent engagement, is an ineffective and potentially detrimental approach. This method often leads to burnout and poor retention of complex information. It does not allow for the assimilation and integration of knowledge required for advanced practice and can result in a superficial grasp of the subject matter, failing to meet the depth of understanding expected of a certified specialist. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing certification preparation should adopt a systematic and evidence-based approach. This involves: 1) Understanding the Scope: Thoroughly reviewing the official syllabus and exam blueprint to identify all knowledge domains. 2) Resource Curation: Selecting preparation materials that are directly aligned with the certification body’s recommendations and are supported by peer-reviewed evidence. 3) Strategic Scheduling: Developing a realistic study timeline that allows for consistent, spaced learning and incorporates regular review and practice assessments. 4) Active Learning: Engaging with the material through methods that promote understanding and application, such as concept mapping, case study analysis, and practice questions that require critical thinking. 5) Self-Assessment: Regularly evaluating progress through practice exams and identifying areas needing further attention. This methodical process ensures comprehensive preparation, ethical compliance, and a higher likelihood of successful certification.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge related to understanding and adhering to the Global Advanced Respiratory Therapy Specialist Certification’s blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies. Misinterpreting these policies can lead to significant professional consequences, including wasted time and resources, potential delays in career advancement, and a lack of confidence in one’s preparedness. Careful judgment is required to ensure accurate comprehension and application of these critical examination guidelines. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves proactively and thoroughly reviewing the official certification body’s documentation regarding blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies. This includes consulting the candidate handbook, the official certification website, and any provided study guides. This approach is correct because it ensures that the information is sourced directly from the authoritative body, minimizing the risk of misinformation or outdated policies. Adhering to these official guidelines is ethically imperative for maintaining professional integrity and demonstrating due diligence in pursuing certification. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on anecdotal advice from colleagues or study groups, without independent verification from official sources, is professionally unacceptable. This approach risks propagating inaccurate or outdated information, leading to a misunderstanding of the examination’s structure, scoring mechanisms, or retake procedures. Such a failure could result in inadequate preparation or incorrect assumptions about the examination process. Similarly, assuming that the policies remain unchanged from previous certification cycles without explicit confirmation is a flawed strategy. Certification bodies may update their policies, and failing to verify current regulations constitutes a lapse in professional responsibility. Finally, focusing exclusively on the content areas weighted most heavily in the blueprint, while neglecting the scoring and retake policies, demonstrates an incomplete understanding of the examination requirements. All aspects of the certification process are important for successful attainment. Professional Reasoning: Professionals pursuing certification should adopt a systematic approach to understanding examination requirements. This involves prioritizing official documentation, cross-referencing information where necessary, and seeking clarification from the certifying body if any aspect remains unclear. A commitment to accuracy and adherence to established guidelines is fundamental to ethical professional practice.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a respiratory therapist to balance the immediate physiological needs of a patient with the long-term implications of therapeutic interventions, all while adhering to established best practices and potentially evolving clinical guidelines. The therapist must critically evaluate different mechanical ventilation strategies, considering not just immediate oxygenation and ventilation but also the potential for ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and the patient’s underlying respiratory mechanics. This necessitates a deep understanding of how different ventilator settings interact with the patient’s specific lung conditions and biomechanics to optimize outcomes and minimize harm. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive assessment of the patient’s respiratory mechanics, including static and dynamic compliance, airway resistance, and intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). This assessment informs the selection of lung-protective ventilation strategies, such as low tidal volumes, appropriate PEEP levels, and inspiratory flow patterns, tailored to the individual patient’s pathophysiology. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the principles of applied biomechanics and physiology to minimize VILI, optimize gas exchange, and promote lung recovery, aligning with established evidence-based guidelines for mechanical ventilation and the ethical imperative to provide patient-centered care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves prioritizing rapid weaning from mechanical ventilation solely based on achieving target oxygen saturation levels, without a thorough evaluation of the patient’s respiratory muscle strength, lung compliance, and the underlying biomechanical factors contributing to their respiratory failure. This approach fails to consider the potential for premature extubation, leading to reintubation and increased morbidity, and neglects the importance of optimizing lung mechanics to support spontaneous breathing efforts. Another incorrect approach is to consistently apply a single, standardized ventilation mode and set of parameters to all patients experiencing acute respiratory distress, regardless of their individual lung characteristics or the specific etiology of their respiratory failure. This ignores the fundamental principle that respiratory physiology and biomechanics vary significantly between individuals and disease states, potentially leading to suboptimal gas exchange, increased VILI, and prolonged mechanical ventilation. A further incorrect approach is to focus exclusively on achieving specific arterial blood gas values (e.g., PaCO2) without considering the impact of the chosen ventilation strategy on lung stress and strain. While achieving target gas exchange is important, doing so at the expense of excessive alveolar pressure or tidal volumes can cause significant lung injury, negating the benefits of improved gas exchange and potentially worsening the patient’s long-term prognosis. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with a thorough physiological and biomechanical assessment of the patient. This assessment should guide the selection of ventilation strategies that are lung-protective and tailored to the individual’s condition. Continuous monitoring of respiratory mechanics and gas exchange, coupled with regular reassessment of the patient’s response to therapy, is crucial for making timely adjustments and ensuring optimal outcomes. Ethical considerations, including beneficence and non-maleficence, mandate that interventions are chosen to maximize benefit and minimize harm, which is best achieved through a personalized, evidence-based approach.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a therapist to balance patient safety, equipment efficacy, and resource management. The core conflict lies in deciding whether to proceed with a potentially suboptimal but available therapy or to delay treatment for a more ideal, but currently unavailable, calibration. This decision directly impacts patient outcomes and the efficient use of healthcare resources. Careful judgment is required to navigate the ethical imperative of patient well-being against the practical constraints of equipment maintenance and availability. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves prioritizing patient safety and immediate therapeutic need while acknowledging the limitations. This means proceeding with the therapy using the current, albeit not optimally calibrated, equipment, but with heightened vigilance and a clear plan for follow-up calibration. This approach is correct because it adheres to the principle of “do no harm” by not unnecessarily delaying critical treatment, while simultaneously mitigating risks through increased monitoring. Regulatory frameworks and ethical guidelines for respiratory therapy emphasize patient well-being as paramount. Furthermore, professional standards often permit the use of equipment within acceptable, albeit not ideal, parameters when the alternative is to withhold necessary care, provided that risks are managed. This approach demonstrates responsible clinical judgment by balancing immediate patient needs with long-term equipment integrity and patient safety. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Proceeding with therapy without any acknowledgment of the suboptimal calibration and without a plan for immediate follow-up is professionally unacceptable. This approach fails to uphold the duty of care by knowingly using equipment that may not be delivering optimal therapy, thereby potentially compromising patient outcomes and increasing the risk of adverse events. It disregards the importance of accurate device function, which is a cornerstone of safe and effective respiratory care. Delaying therapy until the equipment is perfectly calibrated, even if the patient is experiencing significant distress, is also professionally unacceptable. While ideal calibration is desirable, withholding essential respiratory support when a patient is in need, based solely on a non-critical calibration deviation, can lead to patient deterioration and is contrary to the ethical obligation to provide timely care. This approach prioritizes equipment perfection over immediate patient well-being. Using the equipment without recalibration and without any increased monitoring or documentation of the deviation is a failure to adhere to professional standards of practice. This approach creates a significant risk of undetected therapeutic errors and can lead to a lack of accountability if patient outcomes are negatively affected. It demonstrates a lack of diligence in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the therapeutic intervention. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a risk-benefit assessment framework. This involves evaluating the immediate risks to the patient of receiving therapy with suboptimal equipment versus the risks of delaying therapy. It also requires considering the potential impact on long-term equipment performance and patient outcomes. Documentation of the deviation, the decision-making process, and the implemented mitigation strategies (e.g., increased monitoring) is crucial for accountability and continuous quality improvement. Communication with the patient and the healthcare team about the situation is also a vital component of ethical practice.

This scenario presents a common challenge in respiratory therapy: balancing the immediate need for patient care with the imperative of preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The professional challenge lies in the potential for rapid transmission of pathogens in a critical care environment, where patients are often immunocompromised and require invasive procedures. Careful judgment is required to implement effective infection control measures without unduly compromising patient comfort, treatment efficacy, or resource allocation. The best approach involves a comprehensive, multi-faceted strategy that integrates evidence-based practices for infection prevention with robust quality control mechanisms. This includes rigorous adherence to hand hygiene protocols, meticulous cleaning and disinfection of equipment, appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and consistent environmental monitoring. Furthermore, it necessitates ongoing staff education and competency assessment, as well as a system for tracking infection rates and identifying trends. This approach is correct because it aligns with fundamental principles of patient safety and infection control, as mandated by regulatory bodies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and professional organizations like the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC). These guidelines emphasize a proactive, systematic approach to preventing HAIs, recognizing that multiple layers of protection are most effective. An approach that prioritizes only the immediate treatment needs of patients, neglecting consistent infection control practices, is ethically and regulatorily unacceptable. This failure to implement standard precautions and environmental cleaning protocols directly increases the risk of pathogen transmission, violating the ethical duty to “do no harm” and contravening regulatory requirements for patient safety. Another incorrect approach involves implementing infection control measures inconsistently, based on perceived risk rather than established protocols. This ad hoc method is problematic because it creates gaps in protection, potentially allowing infections to spread. It fails to meet the regulatory expectation for standardized, evidence-based infection prevention strategies and undermines the reliability of quality control efforts. Finally, an approach that focuses solely on cleaning equipment after an outbreak has been identified, rather than on routine preventative measures, is reactive and insufficient. This approach is ethically deficient as it fails to proactively protect patients and regulatorily unsound, as it does not meet the standards for ongoing infection surveillance and prevention programs. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with understanding the established evidence-based guidelines for infection prevention and control. This framework should then incorporate a continuous quality improvement cycle, involving assessment, implementation, monitoring, and refinement of practices. Regular training, open communication about infection risks, and a culture that supports adherence to protocols are crucial for effective decision-making in these situations.

This scenario presents a common challenge in advanced respiratory therapy: ensuring accurate and compliant documentation for reimbursement and regulatory oversight, particularly when dealing with complex treatment protocols and varying payer requirements. The professional challenge lies in balancing the need for detailed clinical justification with the specific coding and documentation mandates of different regulatory bodies and insurance providers, all while maintaining patient confidentiality and ethical practice. Missteps in this area can lead to claim denials, audits, and potential penalties. The most effective approach involves meticulously documenting the clinical necessity for each component of the respiratory therapy intervention, aligning it directly with established coding guidelines and payer policies. This includes detailing the patient’s condition, the rationale for the specific therapy, the parameters used, the patient’s response, and any adjustments made. This method ensures that the documentation provides a clear, defensible record that meets the stringent requirements of regulatory bodies like CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) and satisfies the specific evidence-based criteria of private payers. It directly addresses the need for proof of medical necessity and adherence to accepted standards of care, which are fundamental to compliant billing and regulatory approval. An approach that focuses solely on the patient’s subjective report of improvement without correlating it to objective clinical findings or specific therapy parameters is insufficient. This fails to provide the objective evidence required by payers and regulators to justify the services rendered, potentially leading to claims being flagged for insufficient medical necessity. Another inadequate approach is to rely on generic documentation templates that do not specifically address the nuances of advanced respiratory therapies or the unique needs of the patient. While templates can offer structure, they must be personalized and augmented with specific details that demonstrate the clinical rationale and effectiveness of the intervention, otherwise, they may not meet the detailed evidentiary requirements for complex treatments. Finally, prioritizing speed over accuracy by using vague or incomplete documentation, assuming that the therapy itself implies medical necessity, is a significant regulatory and ethical failure. This practice undermines the integrity of the healthcare system, can lead to fraudulent claims, and exposes the practitioner and institution to severe repercussions. It neglects the fundamental principle that all billed services must be demonstrably necessary and accurately coded according to established guidelines. Professionals should adopt a systematic decision-making process that begins with understanding the specific documentation and coding requirements of the relevant regulatory bodies and payers. This involves staying current with updates to coding manuals (e.g., ICD-10, CPT) and payer policies. Before initiating or continuing therapy, practitioners should consider what objective data and clinical rationale will be needed to support the service. Documentation should be contemporaneous, specific, and clearly linked to the patient’s condition and treatment plan. Regular internal audits and peer reviews can help identify and correct documentation deficiencies before they become major compliance issues.