Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the veterinary technician specialist to critically evaluate emerging imaging research and its practical application within the existing regulatory and ethical framework governing veterinary practice. The rapid pace of technological advancement and the constant influx of new research findings necessitate a discerning approach to ensure that adopted practices are not only scientifically sound but also compliant with established standards of care and animal welfare. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough, evidence-based evaluation of new research findings, prioritizing those that have undergone rigorous peer review and demonstrated clear benefits for diagnostic accuracy, patient outcomes, or efficiency, while also considering their ethical implications and feasibility within the practice’s resources. This approach aligns with the core principles of veterinary medicine, which emphasize providing the highest standard of care based on current scientific knowledge and ethical considerations. Specifically, it adheres to the implicit regulatory expectation that veterinary professionals remain current in their field and adopt practices that are demonstrably beneficial and safe, without introducing undue risk or cost. This proactive and critical engagement with research ensures that the practice remains at the forefront of veterinary diagnostics while upholding professional integrity and animal welfare. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately adopting new imaging techniques or protocols solely based on anecdotal evidence or marketing claims without independent verification or critical appraisal of the underlying research. This fails to meet the professional obligation to base practice on sound scientific evidence and could lead to the implementation of ineffective or even harmful procedures, potentially violating standards of care and animal welfare regulations. Another incorrect approach is to dismiss all new research findings that are not yet widely adopted or have not been extensively published in the most prominent journals. While caution is warranted, this can lead to a failure to embrace potentially significant advancements that could improve patient care, thereby falling short of the professional duty to stay abreast of relevant scientific progress and offer the best available diagnostic options. A third incorrect approach is to prioritize cost-effectiveness or ease of implementation over the scientific validity and potential patient benefit of new imaging research. While financial considerations are important, they should not supersede the primary ethical and regulatory imperative to provide optimal diagnostic services for animal patients. Adopting technologies or techniques based solely on economic factors without a thorough understanding of their efficacy and safety is professionally irresponsible. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic approach to evaluating new research. This involves identifying reputable sources of information, critically appraising study methodologies, considering the potential impact on patient care and animal welfare, and assessing the ethical and practical implications for the practice. A commitment to continuous learning and a balanced perspective, weighing innovation against established standards and ethical responsibilities, are crucial for making informed decisions that benefit both patients and the profession.

The audit findings indicate a need to evaluate the best practices in administering contrast media for diagnostic imaging procedures. This scenario is professionally challenging because the administration of contrast agents, while crucial for diagnostic accuracy, carries inherent risks to the patient. Ensuring patient safety, achieving optimal diagnostic yield, and adhering to established protocols are paramount. Careful judgment is required to balance these competing priorities. The correct approach involves a thorough pre-procedure assessment of the patient’s history, including any known allergies, renal function, and concurrent medications, followed by the administration of the appropriate contrast agent at the correct dose and rate, with continuous patient monitoring and immediate recognition and management of potential adverse reactions. This aligns with veterinary professional ethics and best practices, which mandate a duty of care to the patient, requiring practitioners to act in the patient’s best interest and to employ knowledge and skills to minimize harm and maximize benefit. Regulatory guidelines for veterinary practice emphasize the importance of informed consent, risk assessment, and the use of appropriate techniques and agents to ensure patient welfare. An incorrect approach would be to administer a positive contrast agent without first assessing the patient’s renal function, potentially leading to nephrotoxicity, especially in patients with pre-existing renal compromise. This fails to uphold the duty of care and could result in iatrogenic harm, violating ethical principles and potentially contravening regulatory requirements for patient safety. Another incorrect approach would be to use a negative contrast agent for a study where positive contrast is indicated for optimal visualization of luminal structures, such as a gastrointestinal study to evaluate for intraluminal lesions. This would result in suboptimal diagnostic imaging, failing to achieve the intended diagnostic purpose and potentially leading to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis, which is a failure in professional competence and a disservice to the patient. A further incorrect approach would be to administer contrast media without adequate patient preparation or monitoring, such as failing to ensure intravenous access is secure or not observing for signs of adverse reactions during or immediately after administration. This demonstrates a lack of diligence and adherence to established safety protocols, increasing the risk of complications and failing to meet the standards of care expected in diagnostic imaging. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety through comprehensive pre-procedure assessment, selection of the most appropriate contrast agent and technique based on the specific diagnostic question and patient factors, meticulous administration, and vigilant post-procedure monitoring. This framework should be informed by current scientific literature, professional guidelines, and regulatory requirements.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the veterinary technician specialist to accurately identify subtle anatomical variations that could mimic pathology. Misinterpretation can lead to incorrect diagnoses, inappropriate treatment plans, and potentially compromised patient welfare. The pressure to deliver timely and accurate imaging results, coupled with the need for meticulous anatomical knowledge, demands a high level of diagnostic acumen. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic, multi-planar evaluation of the radiographic images, comparing findings against established anatomical landmarks for the specific species and breed. This approach ensures that all relevant structures are visualized and assessed for normal morphology and position. For example, when evaluating a canine thoracic radiograph, the technician would systematically assess the trachea, esophagus, heart silhouette, pulmonary vasculature, and lung fields in lateral and ventrodorsal/dorsoventral views, looking for deviations from the expected anatomy. This methodical process, grounded in a thorough understanding of normal radiographic anatomy, is ethically mandated to ensure diagnostic accuracy and patient safety. It aligns with the professional responsibility to provide competent care and uphold the standards of veterinary diagnostic imaging. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves focusing solely on the area of suspected abnormality without a comprehensive review of the entire image. This can lead to overlooking incidental findings or misinterpreting normal anatomical variations as pathology, potentially resulting in a missed diagnosis or an unnecessary workup. This failure to conduct a complete survey violates the professional duty of care to thoroughly evaluate all diagnostic information. Another unacceptable approach is to rely on subjective interpretation without referencing established anatomical atlases or consulting with a supervising veterinarian when uncertain. This can introduce personal bias and lead to consistent errors in interpretation, particularly when encountering less common anatomical presentations. This disregard for objective resources and collaborative consultation undermines the integrity of the diagnostic process and patient care. A further incorrect approach is to assume that anatomical variations seen in one patient will be identical in another, even within the same species and breed. While general anatomical principles apply, individual variations exist. Failing to acknowledge and account for these individual differences can lead to misidentification of normal structures as abnormal. This demonstrates a lack of critical thinking and a superficial understanding of radiographic anatomy. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic approach to image interpretation, beginning with a quality assessment of the radiograph. This is followed by a thorough, multi-planar evaluation of all anatomical structures, comparing findings to known normal variations for the species and breed. When encountering any ambiguity or suspected abnormality, the professional should consult relevant anatomical references and, if necessary, seek guidance from a supervising veterinarian. This iterative process of observation, comparison, and consultation ensures the highest level of diagnostic accuracy and ethical practice.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the veterinary technician specialist to interpret complex pathophysiological changes evident on diagnostic imaging, directly impacting patient prognosis and treatment planning. The challenge lies in accurately correlating imaging findings with underlying disease processes and communicating these findings effectively to the veterinarian, ensuring that diagnostic and therapeutic decisions are based on sound, evidence-based interpretation rather than assumption or incomplete data. The potential for misinterpretation carries significant ethical and professional weight, as it can lead to delayed or inappropriate treatment, affecting patient welfare and potentially leading to adverse outcomes. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic and thorough evaluation of all imaging modalities, integrating the observed radiographic or sonographic findings with the patient’s clinical history, signalment, and laboratory data. This approach ensures that the interpretation is comprehensive and contextually relevant. Specifically, identifying and characterizing lesions (e.g., size, shape, margins, density/echogenicity, internal architecture, surrounding tissue involvement) and then correlating these with known pathophysiological processes of suspected diseases is paramount. For instance, recognizing a hypoechoic, irregular mass with associated vascularity on ultrasound, and correlating this with clinical signs of lethargy and weight loss, strongly suggests a neoplastic process, requiring further investigation and specific management. This integrated approach aligns with the ethical imperative to provide competent and diligent care, as outlined by veterinary professional standards, which emphasize the importance of accurate diagnosis for effective patient management. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to focus solely on identifying gross abnormalities without attempting to understand the underlying pathophysiological basis. For example, simply noting the presence of a “shadow” on a radiograph without considering what pathological process (e.g., consolidation, effusion, neoplasia) is causing that opacity, and how that process manifests at a cellular or tissue level, leads to a superficial interpretation. This fails to provide the veterinarian with the necessary depth of information for informed decision-making and neglects the professional responsibility to contribute meaningfully to the diagnostic process. Another unacceptable approach is to make definitive diagnoses based on imaging alone, without considering the clinical context or the limitations of the imaging modality. For instance, stating that a discrete nodule seen on a radiograph is definitively a benign granuloma without further investigation or correlation with clinical signs and potential differentials would be professionally unsound. This oversteps the role of diagnostic imaging interpretation and can lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment, violating the principle of acting in the best interest of the animal. A further flawed approach is to dismiss subtle or ambiguous imaging findings as insignificant without further investigation or consultation. Pathophysiological changes can be insidious, and early imaging signs may be easily overlooked. Failing to flag or investigate these subtle findings, which could represent early stages of disease, means missing opportunities for early intervention, which is ethically problematic as it compromises the potential for a better patient outcome. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a structured diagnostic reasoning process. This begins with a thorough review of the patient’s signalment and clinical history to formulate a differential diagnosis list. Next, critically evaluate all available diagnostic imaging, meticulously documenting all findings and their characteristics. Crucially, correlate these imaging findings with the suspected pathophysiological processes that could explain them, considering how disease alters tissue appearance. Finally, integrate this comprehensive interpretation with the clinical data to provide the veterinarian with a well-reasoned assessment that supports informed decision-making, always prioritizing patient welfare and adhering to professional ethical standards.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the potential conflict between immediate financial pressures and the long-term ethical and regulatory obligations regarding equipment maintenance and patient care. The veterinary technician specialist is faced with a decision that could impact the diagnostic quality, patient safety, and the clinic’s compliance with professional standards. Careful judgment is required to balance operational efficiency with the commitment to providing the highest standard of care. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves prioritizing the integrity of diagnostic imaging equipment through scheduled maintenance and adherence to manufacturer guidelines. This approach ensures that the X-ray machine and digital radiography system are functioning optimally, producing accurate and reliable images. This aligns with the ethical responsibility to provide competent care and the implicit regulatory expectation that veterinary facilities will utilize equipment in a manner that supports accurate diagnosis and patient well-being. Regular calibration and maintenance are fundamental to achieving diagnostic quality and avoiding misdiagnosis, which directly impacts patient outcomes and the veterinarian’s ability to make informed treatment decisions. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Delaying essential maintenance on the X-ray machine and digital radiography system to save immediate costs is professionally unacceptable. This approach compromises diagnostic accuracy, potentially leading to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis, which directly harms patients. It also violates the implicit professional duty to maintain equipment in a condition that supports effective veterinary practice. Furthermore, it could lead to more significant repair costs down the line if minor issues are not addressed promptly. Using outdated or uncalibrated equipment without proper justification or a plan for remediation is also professionally unsound. While the prompt specifies avoiding mathematical calculations, the concept of diagnostic quality is intrinsically linked to equipment performance. If the equipment is not performing to standard, the images produced may be of insufficient quality for accurate interpretation, regardless of the technician’s skill. This undermines the diagnostic process and patient care. Ignoring the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule for the digital radiography system, even if the machine appears to be functioning, is a failure to adhere to best practices. Digital systems have specific calibration and quality control requirements that, if neglected, can lead to subtle degradation in image quality or system performance over time. This can impact the longevity of the equipment and the reliability of the diagnostic data it produces. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient welfare and ethical obligations. This involves: 1) Identifying the core issue: the need for equipment maintenance versus cost savings. 2) Consulting relevant guidelines: manufacturer recommendations for equipment maintenance and professional standards for diagnostic imaging. 3) Evaluating risks and benefits: assessing the potential negative impacts of neglecting maintenance (patient harm, inaccurate diagnosis, increased future costs) against the short-term financial benefit. 4) Seeking appropriate solutions: advocating for necessary maintenance, exploring cost-effective maintenance plans, or discussing the implications with practice management to secure the resources needed for proper equipment upkeep.

The assessment process reveals a scenario that is professionally challenging due to the inherent conflict between client financial constraints and the veterinarian’s ethical obligation to provide the best possible diagnostic care. The veterinarian must navigate the client’s expressed financial limitations while ensuring the animal receives appropriate diagnostic imaging, particularly when advanced techniques like arthrography are indicated for a definitive diagnosis. This requires careful communication, exploration of all viable options, and a commitment to animal welfare above all else. The best professional approach involves a thorough discussion with the client about the diagnostic necessity of arthrography, explaining the potential benefits and risks, and exploring all available financial assistance options. This includes discussing payment plans, pet insurance, and potentially seeking pro bono or reduced-cost services from specialty hospitals if feasible and appropriate. The veterinarian should also clearly outline the diagnostic limitations of less invasive or less expensive imaging modalities in this specific case, ensuring the client understands the trade-offs. This approach prioritizes informed consent, animal welfare, and ethical financial stewardship, aligning with the core principles of veterinary practice and the ethical guidelines that govern the profession, which emphasize acting in the best interest of the animal and maintaining client trust through transparent communication. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with a less definitive imaging technique without fully informing the client of the diagnostic limitations and potential for further investigation or treatment delays. This fails to uphold the principle of informed consent and could lead to suboptimal patient care if the initial imaging is insufficient. Another incorrect approach is to insist on the most expensive diagnostic option without exploring any alternatives or financial accommodations, which can alienate the client and potentially compromise the animal’s access to care due to financial barriers. Finally, deferring the decision solely to the client without providing professional guidance on the diagnostic necessity and available options would be a dereliction of professional duty, as the veterinarian possesses the expertise to guide the client towards the most appropriate course of action for the animal’s health. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a clear understanding of the animal’s medical needs. This is followed by open and honest communication with the client, exploring all diagnostic and financial avenues. Ethical guidelines and professional standards should inform every step, ensuring that animal welfare remains the paramount consideration while respecting the client’s circumstances.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between client financial constraints and the ethical imperative to provide optimal diagnostic imaging for animal welfare. The veterinary technician specialist must balance the client’s stated budget with the potential for missed diagnoses or suboptimal imaging quality that could negatively impact the patient’s outcome. This requires careful communication, ethical reasoning, and a thorough understanding of positioning principles and their impact on diagnostic accuracy across different species. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves clearly communicating to the client the diagnostic limitations and potential risks associated with compromising standard positioning techniques due to budget constraints. This includes explaining how specific positioning adjustments might obscure critical anatomical structures or introduce artifacts, thereby reducing the diagnostic yield of the imaging study. The technician should then offer alternative, cost-effective imaging protocols or sedation options that still aim to achieve diagnostic quality while respecting the client’s financial limitations, always prioritizing the patient’s welfare and the ability to obtain a meaningful diagnosis. This aligns with the ethical principles of veterinary practice, which emphasize providing the best possible care within reasonable limits, informed consent, and transparent communication with clients. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves proceeding with significantly altered positioning techniques without adequately informing the client of the potential diagnostic compromises. This failure to obtain informed consent regarding the reduced quality of the imaging study is ethically problematic and could lead to a missed diagnosis, resulting in delayed or inappropriate treatment, which is a breach of the duty of care. Another unacceptable approach is to refuse to perform the imaging study altogether due to the client’s budget, without exploring any potential compromises or alternative solutions. While patient welfare is paramount, a complete refusal without attempting to find a workable solution can be seen as a failure to explore all reasonable avenues to assist the client and their pet, potentially leading to a situation where no diagnostic imaging is obtained, which is also detrimental to the animal’s care. A further incorrect approach is to perform the imaging with standard positioning but without adequate sedation or restraint, leading to motion artifacts that render the images non-diagnostic. While this might adhere to a strict interpretation of positioning, the resulting poor image quality negates the purpose of the diagnostic study and is a waste of resources, failing to provide any benefit to the patient or client. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach such situations by first understanding the client’s financial limitations and then clearly articulating the diagnostic implications of any proposed compromises. A tiered approach to imaging protocols, offering options that range from ideal to budget-conscious while explaining the trade-offs, is crucial. Open and honest communication, focusing on patient welfare and diagnostic efficacy, should guide all decisions. When in doubt, consulting with the supervising veterinarian to discuss the best course of action that balances ethical obligations with client needs is always recommended.

The evaluation methodology shows that a veterinary technician specialist in diagnostic imaging must balance image quality with patient safety and radiation dose reduction. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the technician to interpret subtle radiographic findings while simultaneously managing exposure parameters that directly impact diagnostic efficacy and potential harm to the patient. The inherent variability in patient anatomy, condition, and cooperation necessitates a nuanced approach to exposure factor selection, moving beyond simple adherence to a protocol. The best professional practice involves a systematic, patient-centered approach to exposure factor selection. This begins with a thorough assessment of the patient’s size, body condition, and the specific anatomical region being imaged. The technician should then consult established radiographic technique charts as a starting point, but critically, they must be prepared to adjust kVp, mA, and time based on their professional judgment and the specific diagnostic goals. For instance, if a subtle lesion is suspected, a higher kVp might be considered to increase penetration and contrast, even if it slightly increases scatter radiation, provided appropriate collimation and shielding are employed. Conversely, for a young animal or a patient with a suspected fracture, a lower kVp might be preferred to enhance soft tissue detail and minimize potential bone over-penetration, adjusting mA or time to compensate for the reduced penetration. This adaptive, informed decision-making process prioritizes obtaining a diagnostically adequate image while minimizing radiation dose, aligning with the principles of ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) and ethical veterinary practice. An incorrect approach would be to rigidly adhere to a pre-set technique chart without considering patient-specific factors or the diagnostic intent. This could lead to underexposed images, obscuring critical diagnostic information, or overexposed images, unnecessarily increasing radiation dose without improving diagnostic quality. Another unacceptable approach is to prioritize speed over accuracy, making hasty decisions about exposure factors without proper patient assessment or consideration of the potential impact on image quality and radiation safety. This demonstrates a lack of professional diligence and a failure to uphold the responsibilities inherent in advanced diagnostic imaging. Finally, an approach that solely focuses on achieving a specific density without regard for the underlying anatomical structures or the potential for radiation-induced harm is also professionally unsound. This overlooks the fundamental purpose of diagnostic imaging, which is to provide accurate diagnostic information with minimal risk. Professional reasoning in such situations requires a strong foundation in radiographic principles, an understanding of radiation physics, and a commitment to patient welfare. Technicians should develop a mental checklist that includes patient assessment, diagnostic objective, initial technique selection, and critical evaluation of the resulting image. They must be prepared to justify their exposure factor choices based on these considerations and be able to adapt their techniques when initial results are suboptimal. Continuous learning and staying abreast of advancements in imaging technology and radiation safety protocols are also crucial components of professional decision-making.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the veterinary technician specialist (VTS) in diagnostic imaging to interpret radiographic findings in the context of a patient’s clinical presentation and a veterinarian’s diagnostic goals. The challenge lies in synthesizing information from multiple sources (radiographs, clinical history, veterinarian’s request) to provide accurate and relevant diagnostic insights, while understanding the boundaries of their professional scope of practice. Misinterpretation or overstepping professional boundaries can lead to delayed or incorrect diagnoses, impacting patient care and potentially leading to regulatory issues. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic approach to radiographic interpretation, beginning with a thorough review of the submitted radiographs for technical quality. This is followed by a systematic evaluation of all anatomical structures within the image, comparing them to normal radiographic anatomy. The VTS should then correlate these findings with the provided clinical history and the specific diagnostic questions posed by the veterinarian. This approach ensures that all relevant information is considered, potential abnormalities are identified, and the interpretation is directly applicable to the patient’s case. This aligns with the ethical responsibility to provide competent and accurate diagnostic support, as expected within the VTS role, and adheres to the principles of good veterinary practice which emphasize thoroughness and clinical correlation. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves focusing solely on identifying obvious abnormalities without a systematic review of all anatomical structures. This can lead to overlooking subtle but significant findings, as the interpreter might be biased by the most prominent abnormality. This failure to conduct a comprehensive assessment is a breach of professional diligence and can compromise diagnostic accuracy. Another incorrect approach is to interpret the radiographs in isolation, without considering the clinical history or the veterinarian’s specific diagnostic questions. Radiographic findings must be interpreted within the clinical context of the patient. Without this correlation, the interpretation may be technically accurate but clinically irrelevant or misleading, failing to assist the veterinarian in reaching a diagnosis. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the collaborative nature of veterinary diagnostics. A further incorrect approach is to provide a definitive diagnosis based solely on radiographic findings, without consultation with or input from the veterinarian. While VTS in diagnostic imaging are skilled interpreters, the ultimate diagnosis rests with the veterinarian. Overstepping this boundary is a violation of professional scope of practice and ethical guidelines, potentially leading to misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a structured decision-making process that prioritizes patient welfare and adheres to regulatory and ethical standards. This involves: 1) Understanding the request and gathering all relevant information (clinical history, diagnostic questions). 2) Evaluating the technical quality of the diagnostic images. 3) Conducting a systematic and thorough interpretation of all anatomical structures. 4) Correlating radiographic findings with clinical information. 5) Communicating findings clearly and concisely to the veterinarian, within the scope of their professional role, and seeking clarification or further discussion as needed.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the veterinary technician specialist (VTS) in diagnostic imaging to interpret complex radiographic findings under pressure, potentially impacting patient diagnosis and treatment. The need for a systematic approach is paramount to ensure thoroughness and accuracy, minimizing the risk of overlooking critical details. The VTS must balance speed with precision, adhering to established protocols to provide reliable information to the veterinarian. The best approach involves a structured, systematic review of the entire radiograph, starting with the most basic elements and progressing to more complex interpretations. This method ensures that no anatomical structures are missed and that subtle abnormalities are identified. This systematic process aligns with professional standards of care and ethical obligations to provide accurate diagnostic information. It minimizes the risk of cognitive biases, such as anchoring on initial findings or confirmation bias, by forcing a comprehensive evaluation of all radiographic components. This methodical review is essential for upholding the VTS’s role as a trusted diagnostic imaging professional. An approach that prioritizes identifying the most obvious abnormality first, without a systematic review of all anatomical regions, is professionally unacceptable. This can lead to overlooking other significant findings in different areas of the radiograph, potentially resulting in a delayed or incorrect diagnosis. It fails to meet the standard of care expected of a VTS in diagnostic imaging. Another unacceptable approach is to focus solely on the area of clinical concern indicated by the referring veterinarian, neglecting a full survey of the remaining anatomy. While the clinical history is important, it should guide the focus, not replace a comprehensive radiographic assessment. This can result in missing incidental findings or unrelated pathologies that may still be clinically relevant. Finally, an approach that relies on subjective interpretation without a defined checklist or systematic method is also professionally unsound. Radiographic interpretation requires objectivity and reproducibility. Without a systematic framework, the interpretation becomes susceptible to individual bias and inconsistency, failing to provide a reliable diagnostic service. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that emphasizes a systematic, protocol-driven approach to radiographic interpretation. This involves developing and consistently applying a checklist that covers all anatomical regions and radiographic parameters (e.g., positioning, exposure, contrast). This framework should be reinforced through ongoing education, peer review, and adherence to professional guidelines. When faced with complex cases, the VTS should not hesitate to consult with colleagues or the referring veterinarian to ensure the most accurate and comprehensive interpretation.