This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a sonographer’s duty to accurately report findings and the potential for that information to cause distress to expectant parents, especially when the findings are unexpected or potentially concerning. The sonographer must navigate the ethical imperative of patient well-being and autonomy with the professional obligation to provide comprehensive and accurate diagnostic information. Careful judgment is required to balance these competing interests, ensuring that communication is handled with sensitivity and professionalism. The best professional approach involves immediately and accurately documenting the MCA Doppler findings in the official report, including all relevant measurements and interpretations. This documented information should then be communicated to the referring physician or the supervising obstetrician in a timely manner. This approach is correct because it adheres to the fundamental ethical principle of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest by providing accurate diagnostic data for appropriate management) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm by ensuring the medical team has the necessary information to make informed decisions). It also upholds professional integrity and accountability by ensuring that all findings are recorded and communicated through the proper channels, allowing the physician to then discuss the implications with the patient in a controlled and supportive environment. This aligns with professional guidelines that emphasize accurate reporting and physician-led patient communication for sensitive findings. An incorrect approach would be to omit the MCA Doppler findings from the official report, or to downplay their significance in the written documentation. This failure constitutes a breach of professional duty and potentially violates ethical principles by withholding crucial diagnostic information. The referring physician would be deprived of vital data necessary for patient management, potentially leading to delayed or inappropriate care. This also undermines the integrity of the diagnostic process. Another incorrect approach would be to discuss the MCA Doppler findings directly with the patient in detail, offering personal interpretations or prognoses without the presence or prior consultation of the referring physician. While well-intentioned, this bypasses the established communication pathway and can lead to misinterpretation, undue anxiety, or premature conclusions before a comprehensive medical assessment can be made. It infringes upon the physician’s role in patient counseling and can create an unprofessional dynamic. A further incorrect approach would be to delay reporting the MCA Doppler findings to the referring physician, waiting for further confirmation or until a more convenient time. This delay can compromise patient care by preventing timely intervention or management adjustments based on the Doppler assessment. It also demonstrates a lack of professional urgency and can erode trust between the sonographer and the medical team. Professionals should employ a decision-making process that prioritizes accurate and timely documentation, followed by communication through established medical channels. This involves understanding the clinical significance of the findings, recognizing the importance of the physician’s role in patient communication, and maintaining professional boundaries. When faced with potentially concerning findings, the sonographer’s primary responsibility is to ensure the data is accurately captured and conveyed to the appropriate medical professional who can then interpret and discuss it with the patient in a comprehensive and empathetic manner.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a patient’s expressed wishes and the sonographer’s ethical and professional obligations. The sonographer must navigate the sensitive nature of reproductive anatomy, the patient’s potential vulnerability, and the need to provide accurate diagnostic information while respecting patient autonomy and maintaining professional boundaries. The challenge lies in balancing the desire to be supportive with the imperative to adhere to established medical protocols and ethical guidelines. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves acknowledging the patient’s request, gently but firmly explaining the sonographer’s role and limitations, and offering to document the patient’s statement for the referring physician. This approach respects patient autonomy by acknowledging their feelings and concerns, while simultaneously upholding professional responsibilities. It ensures that the sonographer does not overstep their scope of practice by offering medical advice or diagnoses, and that all patient communications are appropriately relayed to the physician responsible for patient care. This aligns with ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest by ensuring accurate information reaches the physician) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm by not providing unqualified medical opinions). It also adheres to professional guidelines that emphasize clear communication and appropriate referral. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Offering reassurance that the findings are “normal” without a formal diagnosis from the physician is an ethical failure. This constitutes practicing medicine without a license and can lead to patient misunderstanding or false reassurance, potentially delaying necessary medical intervention. It violates the principle of non-maleficence by potentially causing harm through misinformation. Suggesting the patient seek a second opinion from another sonographer without physician referral is also professionally unacceptable. This bypasses the established medical hierarchy and can undermine the referring physician’s role. It also implies a level of diagnostic authority that the sonographer does not possess independently, potentially leading to patient confusion and inappropriate medical management. Directly contradicting the patient’s feelings and stating that their concerns are “unfounded” is dismissive and lacks empathy. While the sonographer may not be qualified to diagnose, dismissing a patient’s subjective experience is ethically problematic and can damage the patient-sonographer relationship, hindering effective communication and care. It fails to uphold the principle of respect for persons. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety, adherence to scope of practice, clear communication, and ethical conduct. This involves: 1) Active listening to understand the patient’s concerns. 2) Clearly defining one’s own professional role and limitations. 3) Communicating findings and patient statements accurately and promptly to the referring physician. 4) Maintaining professional boundaries and avoiding the provision of medical advice or diagnosis. 5) Upholding ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent uncertainty in fetal well-being assessments, particularly in the third trimester. The sonographer is faced with interpreting subtle findings that could indicate potential fetal compromise, requiring a delicate balance between providing accurate information to the patient and the referring physician, and avoiding unnecessary alarm. The ethical imperative is to act in the best interest of the patient and fetus, ensuring timely and appropriate medical intervention if needed, while maintaining patient trust and autonomy. Careful judgment is required to differentiate between normal variations and clinically significant abnormalities. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves meticulously documenting all findings, including measurements and qualitative observations of fetal movement, tone, and breathing efforts, as well as assessing placental morphology and location. This comprehensive documentation should then be communicated promptly and clearly to the referring physician, highlighting any findings that deviate from normal parameters and may warrant further investigation or management. This approach aligns with the ethical principle of beneficence, ensuring the fetus receives appropriate care, and the principle of non-maleficence by avoiding premature or unfounded conclusions. It also upholds professional responsibility to provide accurate diagnostic information to the clinical team responsible for patient care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to dismiss subtle findings as normal variations without thorough documentation and consultation. This fails to uphold the duty of care, as it risks overlooking early signs of fetal distress that could have significant consequences for the fetus. Ethically, this approach could be considered negligent, as it prioritizes expediency over diligent assessment and patient safety. Another incorrect approach would be to overstate the significance of minor findings, causing undue anxiety for the patient and potentially leading to unnecessary medical interventions. This violates the principle of non-maleficence by causing harm through psychological distress and potentially iatrogenic complications from unwarranted procedures. It also erodes patient trust. A third incorrect approach would be to withhold information from the referring physician, making an independent decision about the fetus’s well-being without clinical input. This undermines the collaborative nature of patient care and the physician’s ultimate responsibility for diagnosis and management. It also bypasses established protocols for reporting critical findings. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach such situations by adhering to established protocols for third-trimester fetal well-being assessments. This includes a systematic review of all relevant parameters, meticulous record-keeping, and clear, concise communication with the referring physician. When uncertain, seeking a second opinion from a more experienced sonographer or consulting with the clinical team is paramount. The decision-making process should be guided by the principles of patient-centered care, professional integrity, and adherence to regulatory and ethical standards.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent uncertainty in nuchal translucency (NT) measurements and the potential for significant emotional distress in expectant parents when discussing risk assessments for chromosomal abnormalities. The sonographer must balance the need for accurate data collection with the ethical imperative of providing sensitive and clear communication, respecting patient autonomy and avoiding undue anxiety. The complexity arises from translating sonographic findings into a meaningful risk assessment that parents can understand and act upon, while acknowledging the limitations of the screening process. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive and empathetic approach. This includes performing the NT measurement with meticulous adherence to established protocols and guidelines, ensuring the highest possible accuracy. Following the measurement, the sonographer should clearly explain to the parents that the NT measurement is a screening tool, not a diagnostic test, and that it contributes to a broader risk assessment that also incorporates maternal age and biochemical markers. The sonographer should emphasize that any elevated risk assessment does not equate to a diagnosis and that further diagnostic testing (e.g., CVS or amniocentesis) is available if they wish to pursue a definitive answer. This approach respects patient autonomy by providing them with accurate information to make informed decisions about further steps, while managing expectations and minimizing unnecessary anxiety by framing the NT measurement within its appropriate context as a screening parameter. This aligns with ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest by providing accurate information) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm by not causing undue distress). Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to present the NT measurement in isolation without contextualizing it within the broader risk assessment or explaining its limitations as a screening tool. This can lead parents to misinterpret an elevated NT measurement as a definitive indication of a chromosomal abnormality, causing significant and potentially unwarranted distress. This fails to uphold the principle of informed consent, as parents are not receiving a complete picture of the screening process and its implications. Another incorrect approach is to overstate the certainty of the NT measurement’s predictive value or to use definitive language when discussing potential outcomes. For example, stating that a specific NT measurement “means the baby has a high chance of Down syndrome” is ethically problematic. This is not only inaccurate, as NT is a risk factor and not a diagnosis, but it also violates the principle of non-maleficence by causing undue anxiety and fear. It also undermines patient autonomy by presenting a potentially misleading conclusion that may unduly influence their decisions. A third incorrect approach is to avoid discussing the NT measurement and its implications altogether, deferring all communication to the physician. While the physician has a crucial role in the overall management, the sonographer, as the direct provider of the sonographic data, has an ethical responsibility to communicate findings clearly and empathetically within their scope of practice. Withholding information or failing to provide context can leave parents feeling uninformed and anxious, and it does not fully leverage the sonographer’s expertise in explaining the sonographic findings. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a decision-making process that prioritizes clear, accurate, and empathetic communication. This involves understanding the sonographic findings, their limitations, and their role within the larger context of prenatal screening. Before communicating with patients, professionals should review relevant guidelines and protocols. During the interaction, they should actively listen to patient concerns, use plain language to explain complex concepts, and provide opportunities for questions. The focus should always be on empowering patients with accurate information to make informed choices about their pregnancy care, while simultaneously managing their emotional well-being.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a patient’s expressed wishes and the sonographer’s professional duty to ensure accurate and comprehensive diagnostic information is obtained for optimal patient care. The sonographer must navigate patient autonomy, informed consent, and the ethical imperative to provide a complete and reliable biophysical profile (BPP) assessment, which is crucial for fetal well-being evaluation. The best professional approach involves clearly and empathetically communicating the importance of the full BPP assessment to the patient, explaining how each component contributes to the overall evaluation of fetal health. This approach respects patient autonomy by providing her with the necessary information to make an informed decision, while also upholding the sonographer’s ethical obligation to perform a complete diagnostic study. By explaining the rationale behind each component, such as fetal breathing movements, gross body movements, fetal tone, amniotic fluid volume, and the non-stress test (NST), the sonographer empowers the patient with knowledge, increasing the likelihood of her cooperation. This aligns with ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm by not omitting crucial diagnostic data). An incorrect approach would be to proceed with only the non-stress test without obtaining the patient’s informed consent for the partial assessment or without attempting to educate her on the importance of the full BPP. This fails to uphold the principle of patient autonomy and informed consent, as the patient may not fully understand the implications of omitting parts of the BPP. Ethically, this could be considered a breach of duty by not performing a complete diagnostic evaluation. Another incorrect approach would be to insist on performing the full BPP without addressing the patient’s concerns or attempting to explain the rationale, potentially leading to patient distress or a feeling of coercion. While the intention might be to provide comprehensive care, this method disregards the patient’s emotional state and right to understand and participate in her care decisions. This can erode trust and negatively impact the patient-sonographer relationship. A further incorrect approach would be to immediately terminate the examination and report the patient as non-compliant without further discussion or attempt at education. This demonstrates a lack of professional diligence and empathy, failing to explore alternative solutions or to ensure the patient fully understands the potential risks of an incomplete assessment. It prioritizes a procedural outcome over patient engagement and understanding. Professionals should employ a decision-making process that prioritizes open communication, patient education, and collaborative decision-making. This involves actively listening to patient concerns, explaining the medical necessity and benefits of recommended procedures in clear, understandable language, and seeking to address any anxieties or misunderstandings. When faced with patient reluctance, the focus should be on shared decision-making, ensuring the patient feels respected and informed, rather than simply proceeding with or abandoning a procedure.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it pits the immediate need for diagnostic information against the potential for patient discomfort and the ethical obligation to obtain informed consent. The sonographer must balance technical proficiency with patient autonomy and well-being, recognizing that even seemingly minor deviations from standard practice can have significant ethical and potentially legal ramifications. The pressure to obtain a clear image for a potentially urgent diagnosis adds another layer of complexity, requiring careful judgment and adherence to established protocols. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves clearly and concisely explaining the procedure, including the rationale for the specific transducer choice and the potential for discomfort, to the patient. This approach ensures that the patient understands what will happen and can provide informed consent. It respects patient autonomy and aligns with ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence by prioritizing patient understanding and comfort while still pursuing diagnostic goals. This aligns with the fundamental ethical duty to inform and obtain consent before any medical procedure. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Proceeding with the examination without fully explaining the transducer choice and potential discomfort to the patient is ethically problematic. It bypasses the informed consent process, potentially violating the patient’s right to self-determination and their right to be informed about their medical care. This could lead to a breach of trust and potential legal repercussions if the patient experiences unexpected discomfort or distress. Suggesting a different, less optimal transducer without a clear clinical justification, even if it might reduce discomfort, undermines the diagnostic integrity of the examination. This approach prioritizes patient comfort over diagnostic accuracy, which is not the primary ethical responsibility of the sonographer in this context. It could lead to suboptimal imaging and potentially delayed or incorrect diagnoses, failing the principle of beneficence. Ignoring the patient’s expressed concern about discomfort and proceeding with the original transducer without further discussion or reassurance is dismissive of the patient’s feelings and autonomy. While the chosen transducer may be clinically indicated, failing to acknowledge and address the patient’s concerns erodes the patient-sonographer relationship and can lead to anxiety and a negative patient experience. It neglects the ethical consideration of minimizing patient distress. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should always prioritize obtaining informed consent. This involves a clear, understandable explanation of the procedure, including any potential discomfort or risks, and the rationale behind specific choices, such as transducer selection. When a patient expresses concern, it is crucial to acknowledge it, provide reassurance, and explore alternatives if clinically feasible without compromising diagnostic quality. If the indicated transducer is the best option for diagnosis, explaining why and offering strategies to mitigate discomfort (e.g., slow application, gentle movements) is essential. Adherence to professional ethical codes and institutional policies regarding patient consent and care is paramount.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because the sonographer is faced with a situation where the standard transducer, typically used for routine obstetric and gynecological imaging, may not provide optimal visualization due to patient factors. The ethical dilemma lies in balancing the need for accurate diagnostic imaging with patient comfort and the potential for discomfort or even harm if an inappropriate transducer is used or if the examination is compromised. Careful judgment is required to select the most appropriate transducer that maximizes diagnostic yield while minimizing patient distress and adhering to professional standards of care. The best professional approach involves a thorough assessment of the patient’s individual circumstances, including body habitus, previous surgical history, and any reported discomfort, to determine the most suitable transducer. This approach prioritizes patient well-being and diagnostic accuracy by selecting a transducer that is both effective for imaging and comfortable for the patient. This aligns with ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm). It also adheres to professional guidelines that mandate providing the highest quality diagnostic imaging possible within the constraints of patient safety and comfort. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with the standard transducer without considering alternatives, even if visualization is suboptimal. This could lead to incomplete or inaccurate diagnostic information, potentially delaying appropriate patient management. Ethically, this fails to uphold the duty to provide the best possible care. Another incorrect approach would be to unilaterally decide to use a different transducer without adequate justification or patient consultation, especially if it is known to be significantly more uncomfortable or carries a higher risk of adverse effects. This could violate the principle of patient autonomy and potentially lead to unnecessary patient distress. A further incorrect approach would be to abandon the examination altogether due to perceived difficulty with the standard transducer, without exploring all reasonable alternatives or seeking assistance. This would fail to meet the professional obligation to provide diagnostic services when indicated. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive patient assessment. This includes understanding the clinical indication for the scan, reviewing the patient’s history, and engaging in open communication with the patient about their comfort and any concerns. Based on this assessment, the sonographer should consider the available transducer options, weighing their diagnostic capabilities against potential patient discomfort and risks. Consultation with a supervisor or physician should be sought if there is uncertainty or if the situation presents significant challenges. The ultimate goal is to achieve the best diagnostic outcome while ensuring patient safety and comfort.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge rooted in the inherent conflict between patient comfort and the stringent requirements of diagnostic imaging quality assurance. The sonographer is faced with a situation where a deviation from standard protocol, while seemingly minor and aimed at alleviating patient discomfort, could compromise the diagnostic integrity of the ultrasound examination. This requires careful judgment to balance patient-centered care with the ethical and regulatory obligations to provide accurate and reliable diagnostic information. The pressure to maintain patient satisfaction can sometimes create tension with the need for meticulous adherence to quality control measures. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves prioritizing the diagnostic quality of the ultrasound examination while exploring all avenues to ensure patient comfort within acceptable parameters. This means the sonographer should first attempt to complete the examination according to established quality assurance protocols, even if it causes some discomfort. If the discomfort is significant and hindering the examination, the sonographer should communicate with the patient, explain the necessity of the current positioning or technique for diagnostic accuracy, and explore alternative, less invasive methods or adjustments that can still achieve the required image quality. If, after these attempts, the patient’s discomfort remains a significant barrier to obtaining diagnostic images, the sonographer should consult with the supervising physician or radiologist to discuss the situation and determine the best course of action, which might involve modifying the examination or rescheduling. This approach upholds the sonographer’s duty to provide accurate diagnostic information, adheres to quality assurance standards, and demonstrates a commitment to patient well-being by seeking solutions collaboratively. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Proceeding with the examination without attempting to adjust positioning or technique, despite the patient’s expressed significant discomfort, fails to adequately address patient comfort and can lead to patient dissatisfaction and potential complaints, undermining the patient-provider relationship. While diagnostic quality is paramount, a complete disregard for patient comfort can be seen as a failure in compassionate care. Modifying the examination protocol significantly to eliminate all patient discomfort, even if it means compromising image quality and potentially missing crucial diagnostic information, is a direct violation of quality assurance standards and the sonographer’s professional responsibility to provide accurate diagnostic data. This approach prioritizes immediate patient comfort over long-term diagnostic necessity. Immediately stopping the examination and rescheduling without attempting any modifications or seeking further guidance from a supervisor fails to demonstrate due diligence in attempting to complete the diagnostic task and can be seen as an abdication of responsibility. It does not explore potential solutions to the discomfort that would allow for a complete and diagnostic study. Professional Reasoning: Professionals in diagnostic imaging must employ a decision-making framework that integrates ethical principles with regulatory requirements. This involves a systematic approach: 1) Assess the situation: Understand the patient’s complaint and its potential impact on the examination. 2) Prioritize: Recognize that diagnostic accuracy is the primary goal, but patient well-being is also critical. 3) Explore options: Consider all possible adjustments to technique or positioning that can maintain image quality while mitigating discomfort. 4) Communicate: Engage with the patient to explain the rationale and involve them in finding solutions. 5) Escalate: If a resolution cannot be reached independently, consult with a supervisor or physician to ensure the best outcome for both the patient and the diagnostic process. This iterative process ensures that decisions are well-considered and aligned with professional standards.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent uncertainty in early pregnancy ultrasound findings and the potential for misinterpretation, which can have significant emotional and medical consequences for the patient. The sonographer must balance the need for accurate dating and viability assessment with the patient’s emotional state and the potential for anxiety arising from ambiguous results. Careful judgment is required to communicate findings appropriately and ethically. The best professional approach involves a thorough and systematic ultrasound examination to obtain the most accurate measurements possible for dating and to assess for definitive signs of viability. This includes measuring the crown-rump length (CRL) for dating and observing cardiac activity. If findings are equivocal, the sonographer should document all observations meticulously and communicate these findings to the referring physician, recommending follow-up as clinically indicated. This approach aligns with professional standards of care, emphasizing accuracy, thoroughness, and appropriate communication within the healthcare team. The ethical principle of beneficence guides this approach, ensuring the patient receives the most accurate diagnostic information to guide their care, while non-maleficence is upheld by avoiding premature or definitive pronouncements based on uncertain data. An incorrect approach would be to provide a definitive dating or viability assessment based on incomplete or borderline measurements without further investigation or consultation with the referring physician. This could lead to incorrect management decisions, unnecessary patient anxiety, or a delay in appropriate care if the initial assessment is inaccurate. Ethically, this fails to uphold the duty of care and could be considered a breach of professional responsibility. Another incorrect approach would be to withhold all information from the patient, even when asked direct questions about the findings, and to simply state that the results will be discussed with the physician. While it is crucial to involve the referring physician, a complete lack of communication can erode patient trust and increase anxiety. Patients have a right to understand what is being assessed and to have their questions addressed within the scope of the sonographer’s role, which includes explaining the process and general findings, while deferring definitive interpretation and management to the physician. This approach fails to respect patient autonomy and the principle of open communication. A further incorrect approach would be to offer speculative interpretations or to reassure the patient definitively when the ultrasound findings are not conclusive for viability. This can create false hope or unnecessary distress if subsequent assessments reveal a different outcome. It is ethically imperative to remain objective and to communicate findings accurately, acknowledging any limitations or uncertainties in the current assessment. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety and well-being. This involves a systematic review of established protocols for first-trimester dating and viability, a thorough and accurate ultrasound examination, objective documentation of all findings, and clear, concise communication with the referring physician. When faced with ambiguous findings, the professional should consider the potential impact on the patient and communicate findings in a manner that is both informative and sensitive, always deferring definitive interpretation and management plans to the physician.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves a direct conflict between the sonographer’s duty to accurately assess fetal development and the potential for misinterpretation or premature disclosure of sensitive information to expectant parents. The second trimester anatomy scan is a critical diagnostic tool, and deviations from expected growth patterns can cause significant parental anxiety. The sonographer must navigate this delicate situation with utmost professionalism, adhering to established protocols and ethical guidelines to ensure both accurate reporting and compassionate patient care. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves meticulously documenting all findings, including any deviations from expected fetal growth parameters, and communicating these observations to the supervising physician or radiologist. This approach is correct because it upholds the sonographer’s primary responsibility to provide objective, accurate diagnostic data. Regulatory frameworks and professional ethics emphasize that sonographers are part of a healthcare team and their role is to gather and report findings for interpretation by a qualified medical professional. This ensures that parents receive information from a physician who can provide context, discuss implications, and offer appropriate guidance and support, thereby preventing undue stress from potentially incomplete or misinterpreted information. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Communicating concerns about fetal growth directly to the parents before physician review is professionally unacceptable. This bypasses the established medical hierarchy and can lead to parental distress based on preliminary findings that may be subject to change or require further investigation. It violates the principle of informed consent and can undermine the physician-patient relationship. Suggesting specific diagnoses or prognoses to the parents based on observed growth deviations is also professionally unacceptable. Sonographers are trained in imaging techniques and anatomical identification, not in medical diagnosis or prognosis. Making such suggestions constitutes practicing medicine without a license and can lead to significant harm if the information is inaccurate or incomplete. Ignoring or downplaying any observed deviations from expected fetal growth to avoid causing parental concern is professionally unacceptable. This constitutes a failure to adhere to professional standards of care and diagnostic accuracy. It is a dereliction of duty to withhold potentially important clinical information that could impact fetal well-being and management. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that prioritizes patient safety and ethical conduct. This involves: 1) Adhering strictly to established protocols for the anatomy scan and documentation. 2) Recognizing the limits of one’s professional scope of practice. 3) Communicating all findings objectively to the supervising physician or radiologist. 4) Understanding that parental communication regarding diagnoses and prognoses is the responsibility of the physician. 5) Maintaining patient confidentiality and providing compassionate care throughout the examination.