Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between the desire to advance shelter medicine through innovation and the ethical and regulatory obligations to protect animal welfare and ensure responsible data handling. Translational research, while promising, requires careful navigation of ethical considerations, stakeholder engagement, and adherence to established protocols for data collection and dissemination. The pressure to innovate can sometimes lead to shortcuts that compromise these fundamental principles. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves establishing a formal, multi-stakeholder research committee to oversee the development and implementation of a translational research initiative. This committee should include veterinarians, shelter staff, animal welfare advocates, and potentially a data privacy expert. This approach ensures that ethical considerations, animal welfare standards, and data integrity are prioritized from the outset. Regulatory compliance is achieved by developing protocols that align with established animal research guidelines and data protection principles relevant to the Caribbean region, focusing on informed consent for any human involvement and ensuring anonymized data for animal subjects. This collaborative framework fosters transparency, accountability, and a robust ethical foundation for innovation. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Initiating a novel treatment protocol based solely on anecdotal evidence from a few shelters without rigorous ethical review or data standardization poses significant risks. This approach fails to meet the ethical imperative of evidence-based practice and could lead to ineffective or even harmful treatments for animals. It also bypasses crucial regulatory steps for research, potentially violating animal welfare laws and data privacy regulations if any identifying information is collected. Implementing a registry for tracking treatment outcomes without a clear protocol for data collection, validation, and anonymization is problematic. This can lead to unreliable data, making it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions for translational research. Ethically, it risks misrepresenting findings and potentially misinforming future treatment decisions. Regulatory failures would include potential breaches of data privacy if personal information of owners or staff is inadvertently collected and not properly secured. Relying solely on external funding to drive innovation without internal ethical oversight or a clear translational research plan is also a flawed approach. While funding is important, it should not dictate the ethical or scientific rigor of the research. This approach risks prioritizing the funder’s agenda over the welfare of the animals or the scientific validity of the initiative, potentially leading to research that is not ethically sound or scientifically robust, and may not comply with local animal welfare or research regulations. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing such situations should adopt a structured decision-making process. First, identify the core objective: advancing shelter medicine through innovation. Second, assess the ethical and regulatory landscape relevant to the Caribbean context, including animal welfare laws and data protection principles. Third, consider the potential impact on animal welfare and the integrity of research data. Fourth, prioritize collaborative approaches that involve diverse stakeholders to ensure comprehensive ethical and practical considerations are addressed. Finally, develop clear, documented protocols that align with established best practices and regulatory requirements before initiating any new research or data collection efforts.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves balancing the immediate welfare of an animal with the legal and ethical obligations of a veterinary professional in a cross-border context. The veterinarian must navigate differing regulations, potential import/export requirements, and the owner’s emotional state, all while ensuring the animal receives appropriate care and that all parties act within the law. The core conflict lies in the potential for the animal to be denied re-entry or face quarantine, impacting its welfare and the owner’s ability to care for it. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves proactively identifying and addressing the regulatory requirements for re-entry into the original jurisdiction. This entails consulting with the relevant veterinary authorities in the country of origin to understand specific import regulations, vaccination histories, microchip requirements, and any necessary health certificates or permits. This approach is correct because it prioritizes the animal’s long-term welfare by ensuring a smooth and legal re-entry, preventing potential complications such as quarantine, refusal of entry, or even euthanasia due to non-compliance. It upholds the veterinarian’s ethical duty of care by acting in the animal’s best interest and adhering to legal frameworks governing animal movement. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves proceeding with the return without verifying the import requirements of the original jurisdiction. This is professionally unacceptable as it disregards the legal framework governing animal re-entry. Failure to comply with these regulations could result in the animal being denied entry, placed in lengthy and stressful quarantine, or even euthanized, directly contravening the veterinarian’s duty of care. It also exposes the owner to significant legal and financial burdens. Another incorrect approach is to rely solely on the owner’s recollection of past requirements or assurances from unofficial sources. This is ethically and legally flawed because it bypasses official channels and established protocols. Veterinary regulations are subject to change, and unofficial information is unreliable. This could lead to the animal being turned away at the border due to outdated or incorrect documentation, causing distress to both the animal and the owner, and potentially violating import laws. A further incorrect approach is to advise the owner to attempt re-entry without any official documentation or consultation, hoping for leniency. This is irresponsible and unethical. It places the animal at significant risk of being detained, quarantined, or refused entry, all of which are detrimental to its welfare. It also undermines the integrity of animal health regulations designed to prevent the spread of disease and ensure responsible pet ownership. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a proactive and information-gathering approach. When faced with cross-border animal movement, the first step should always be to identify and confirm the specific regulatory requirements of the destination jurisdiction. This involves direct communication with the relevant governmental veterinary authorities. A checklist of required documents, vaccinations, and health statuses should be compiled and discussed with the owner. If there are any discrepancies or missing elements, a plan should be developed to address them before travel. This systematic process ensures compliance, minimizes risk to the animal, and provides the owner with clear guidance.

The efficiency study reveals a need to refine the examination process for advanced Caribbean shelter medicine practitioners. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the need for rigorous assessment of competency with the ethical considerations of candidate fairness and the practicalities of program administration. Decisions regarding blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies directly impact the perceived validity and fairness of the certification, potentially affecting practitioners’ careers and the quality of animal welfare services. Careful judgment is required to ensure these policies are transparent, equitable, and aligned with the overarching goals of advancing shelter medicine standards in the Caribbean. The best approach involves a comprehensive review of the current blueprint by a diverse committee of subject matter experts and experienced practitioners. This committee should analyze the weighting of different knowledge domains based on their current relevance and complexity in Caribbean shelter medicine practice. Scoring should be calibrated to ensure consistent application of standards across all candidates, with clear rubrics that define acceptable performance levels. Retake policies should be designed to offer opportunities for remediation and re-assessment for those who narrowly miss passing, while also maintaining the integrity of the certification by setting reasonable limits on retakes and requiring evidence of further learning. This approach is correct because it prioritizes evidence-based decision-making, expert consensus, and a commitment to both rigor and fairness, which are fundamental ethical principles in professional certification. It ensures that the examination accurately reflects the demands of advanced practice and provides a clear, justifiable pathway for candidates. An approach that solely relies on historical weighting without considering current practice trends is professionally unacceptable. This fails to ensure the blueprint remains relevant and may unfairly disadvantage candidates who have focused their development on emerging or more critical areas of Caribbean shelter medicine. Similarly, implementing a scoring system that is subjective or lacks clear performance benchmarks is ethically flawed, as it introduces bias and undermines the reliability of the examination. A retake policy that is overly punitive, offering no opportunity for candidates who are close to passing to demonstrate improvement, or conversely, one that is too lenient and allows unlimited retakes without requiring further study, compromises the integrity of the certification and devalues the achievement of those who pass on their first or second attempt. Professionals should approach such decisions by first establishing clear objectives for the examination and certification program. This involves consulting with stakeholders, including practitioners, educators, and regulatory bodies, to understand current needs and future directions in Caribbean shelter medicine. A systematic review process, involving expert panels and data analysis (where applicable, e.g., pass/fail rates, candidate feedback), should guide policy development. Transparency in all policies, from blueprint weighting to retake procedures, is paramount to maintaining trust and ensuring fairness. Finally, a commitment to ongoing evaluation and revision of these policies based on feedback and evolving professional standards is essential for maintaining the credibility and effectiveness of the certification.

The scenario presents a common challenge for advanced practitioners: balancing the need for comprehensive preparation with the practical constraints of time and available resources. The professional challenge lies in identifying and prioritizing the most effective and efficient preparation strategies to ensure readiness for a high-stakes examination, while also managing personal and professional commitments. Careful judgment is required to discern between superficial or time-consuming methods and those that offer genuine depth of understanding aligned with the examination’s advanced nature. The best approach involves a structured, multi-faceted preparation strategy that prioritizes official examination blueprints, regulatory frameworks, and established professional guidelines. This includes dedicating specific time blocks for reviewing core principles of Caribbean shelter medicine, engaging with relevant legislation and ethical codes governing animal welfare and veterinary practice in the Caribbean region, and utilizing practice questions that simulate the examination’s format and difficulty. This method is correct because it directly addresses the examination’s stated objectives and content areas, ensuring that preparation is targeted and relevant. It aligns with the ethical imperative for practitioners to maintain competence and uphold professional standards, as often mandated by veterinary regulatory bodies and professional associations within the Caribbean. Furthermore, it acknowledges the advanced nature of the examination by focusing on deep understanding rather than rote memorization. An incorrect approach would be to solely rely on general veterinary textbooks or anecdotal advice from colleagues without cross-referencing official examination materials. This fails to ensure that preparation is aligned with the specific scope and depth expected by the examination board, potentially leading to gaps in knowledge or an overemphasis on irrelevant topics. Ethically, this could be seen as a failure to adequately prepare, potentially compromising the practitioner’s ability to provide competent care if successful. Another incorrect approach is to focus exclusively on practice questions without a foundational review of the underlying principles and regulations. While practice questions are valuable for assessment, they are insufficient as a sole preparation method for an advanced examination. This approach risks developing a superficial understanding or the ability to recognize answers without truly comprehending the ‘why’ behind them, which is crucial for advanced practice. It neglects the regulatory requirement for a comprehensive understanding of the field. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to adopt a highly unstructured and reactive preparation schedule, cramming information shortly before the examination. This method is unlikely to foster deep learning or long-term retention, increasing the risk of errors and demonstrating a lack of professional diligence. It fails to meet the implicit expectation of advanced practitioners to engage in systematic and thorough professional development. Professionals should adopt a decision-making process that begins with a thorough review of the examination’s official syllabus or blueprint. This should be followed by identifying key regulatory documents, professional guidelines, and authoritative texts relevant to Caribbean shelter medicine. A realistic timeline should then be established, allocating sufficient time for both theoretical review and practical application through targeted practice. Regular self-assessment and adjustment of the study plan based on performance in practice exercises are also critical components of effective preparation.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate welfare of an animal with the financial and emotional constraints of its owner, all within the framework of veterinary professional ethics and potentially local animal welfare legislation. The veterinarian must navigate a situation where the owner’s capacity or willingness to provide necessary care is limited, necessitating a careful and ethical decision-making process. The best professional approach involves a thorough assessment of the animal’s condition and prognosis, followed by a compassionate and transparent discussion with the owner about all available options. This includes exploring financial assistance programs, discussing humane euthanasia if the prognosis is poor and treatment is unaffordable, and, as a last resort, considering relinquishment to a rescue organization or shelter if the owner is unable to provide adequate care and the animal’s welfare is compromised. This approach prioritizes the animal’s welfare while respecting the owner’s situation and adhering to ethical guidelines that mandate providing the best possible care or, when that is not feasible, ensuring a humane end or alternative placement. It also aligns with the general principles of veterinary practice to act in the best interest of the animal patient. An approach that immediately suggests relinquishment without a comprehensive discussion of alternatives fails to explore all avenues to keep the pet with its owner, potentially causing unnecessary distress to both. This overlooks the ethical obligation to support owners in providing care when possible. Suggesting that the owner simply “do their best” without offering concrete solutions or exploring financial aid options is insufficient and potentially neglects the animal’s welfare if the owner’s “best” is demonstrably inadequate. Furthermore, pressuring the owner into euthanasia without fully exploring all treatment possibilities or financial support mechanisms is ethically questionable and may not be in the animal’s best interest if treatable conditions exist. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive clinical assessment. This is followed by open communication with the owner, exploring their resources and limitations. Based on this, a range of options should be presented, including treatment plans with cost estimates, potential for financial assistance, humane euthanasia as a compassionate option for suffering or untreatable conditions, and, if necessary, referral to animal welfare organizations. The ultimate decision should be a collaborative one, prioritizing the animal’s welfare and the owner’s capacity to provide care.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate economic pressures of a farm with the long-term health and sustainability of the animal population and the wider community. The veterinarian must navigate potential conflicts between the owner’s financial interests and the ethical and regulatory obligations to prevent disease spread and ensure animal welfare. Effective communication and a thorough understanding of preventive medicine principles are crucial for building trust and achieving compliance. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of the farm’s current biosecurity measures, vaccination protocols, and parasite control programs, directly addressing the identified risks on the matrix. This approach prioritizes proactive disease prevention and herd health management, aligning with the core principles of veterinary practice and the ethical duty to promote animal welfare and public health. It involves collaborating with the owner to develop and implement tailored, practical strategies that are both effective and economically feasible, ensuring compliance with relevant animal health regulations and best practice guidelines for the Caribbean region. This method emphasizes education and partnership, fostering a sustainable approach to disease management. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to solely focus on treating existing clinical cases without a systematic evaluation of the underlying causes or preventive measures. This reactive strategy fails to address the root issues contributing to disease outbreaks, leading to recurring problems and increased costs in the long run. It neglects the veterinarian’s ethical responsibility to promote animal health and prevent suffering through proactive measures and potentially violates regulations requiring disease surveillance and control. Another incorrect approach would be to implement a generic, one-size-fits-all vaccination and deworming schedule without considering the specific epidemiological profile of the farm, the species housed, or the local disease prevalence. This lacks scientific rigor and may result in under- or over-vaccination, ineffective parasite control, and unnecessary expense for the owner. It fails to meet the standard of care expected in veterinary practice and may not comply with guidelines that mandate tailored health plans. A third incorrect approach would be to dismiss the owner’s concerns about the cost of preventive measures and insist on expensive, potentially impractical interventions without exploring more affordable, yet effective, alternatives. This approach can alienate the client, damage the veterinarian-client relationship, and lead to non-compliance. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the economic realities faced by producers and fails to uphold the ethical principle of providing cost-effective care where possible, while still meeting professional standards. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach such situations by first conducting a thorough risk assessment, as indicated by the risk matrix. This assessment should inform the development of a tailored preventive medicine and biosecurity plan in collaboration with the farm owner. Key considerations include the specific species, their production system, local disease risks, and the owner’s resources. The veterinarian’s role is to educate the owner on the benefits of preventive strategies, explain the scientific rationale behind recommendations, and work together to implement practical, cost-effective solutions that align with regulatory requirements and ethical obligations. Continuous monitoring and adaptation of the plan based on farm performance and evolving risks are essential for long-term success.

This scenario is professionally challenging due to the inherent complexities of comparative species medicine and the ethical imperative to provide appropriate care within resource limitations. The veterinarian must balance the scientific understanding of species-specific physiology and pathology with the practical realities of shelter operations and the welfare of diverse animal populations. Careful judgment is required to ensure that diagnostic and treatment decisions are both medically sound and ethically justifiable, avoiding both over-treatment and under-treatment. The best approach involves a systematic, evidence-based assessment that prioritizes species-specific needs and potential zoonotic risks. This entails leveraging existing knowledge of comparative anatomy, physiology, and pathology to inform diagnostic pathways and treatment plans. It requires consulting relevant veterinary literature and potentially seeking expert advice when faced with novel or complex presentations. This approach is correct because it upholds the veterinarian’s duty of care to all animals, respects the principles of comparative medicine, and aligns with ethical guidelines that mandate providing appropriate veterinary services based on scientific understanding and the animal’s best interests, while also considering the practical constraints of a shelter environment. An incorrect approach would be to apply a generalized treatment protocol without considering species-specific differences. This fails to acknowledge the fundamental variations in anatomy, physiology, and disease susceptibility across species, potentially leading to ineffective treatments, adverse drug reactions, or missed diagnoses. Ethically, this demonstrates a lack of due diligence in providing species-appropriate care. Another incorrect approach would be to prioritize cost-effectiveness over appropriate medical intervention, leading to the withholding of necessary diagnostics or treatments based solely on financial considerations, without a thorough assessment of the animal’s prognosis and welfare. This violates the ethical obligation to provide care that is in the animal’s best interest and can be seen as a failure to uphold professional standards. A further incorrect approach would be to rely solely on anecdotal evidence or personal experience without consulting current scientific literature or seeking expert opinion for less common species or conditions. While experience is valuable, it must be grounded in scientific evidence, especially when dealing with the comparative aspects of shelter medicine where a wide range of species may be encountered. This can lead to outdated or inappropriate medical decisions. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough history and physical examination, followed by a differential diagnosis that explicitly considers species-specific factors. This should then guide the selection of diagnostic tests and treatment options, always prioritizing the animal’s welfare and prognosis. Consultation with colleagues, specialists, and relevant literature should be an integral part of the process, especially when faced with unfamiliar presentations or species. Ethical considerations, including resource limitations, should be weighed against the medical necessity and potential benefit to the animal, ensuring transparency and justification for all decisions.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent unpredictability of emergency situations in shelter medicine, particularly when dealing with large animals where the cost of advanced interventions can be significant and the prognosis may be guarded. The veterinarian must balance the animal’s welfare with the shelter’s limited resources and ethical obligations. Careful judgment is required to determine the most appropriate course of action that aligns with professional standards and the shelter’s mission. The best professional approach involves a thorough assessment of the large animal’s condition, including a realistic prognosis and an evaluation of the potential for successful recovery and adoption, coupled with a transparent discussion with shelter management regarding the financial implications and resource allocation. This approach is correct because it prioritizes the animal’s welfare by seeking the most beneficial outcome, while also adhering to the ethical responsibility of responsible resource management within a shelter setting. The veterinarian’s duty of care extends to making informed decisions that consider the animal’s quality of life and the practical realities of shelter operations. This aligns with the principles of veterinary ethics that advocate for the humane treatment of animals and the judicious use of resources. An approach that immediately proceeds with aggressive, costly surgical intervention without a comprehensive prognosis and discussion with management is professionally unacceptable. This fails to consider the potential for prolonged suffering if the prognosis is poor, and it disregards the shelter’s financial constraints, potentially diverting funds from other animals in need. It also bypasses the necessary collaborative decision-making process with the entity responsible for the animal’s care and ultimate placement. Another professionally unacceptable approach would be to euthanize the animal solely based on the high cost of potential treatment, without first exploring all viable medical options and assessing the animal’s potential for recovery and a good quality of life. This prioritizes financial considerations over the animal’s welfare and may be seen as a failure to uphold the veterinarian’s primary duty to the patient. Finally, an approach that delays necessary emergency interventions due to the perceived inconvenience or workload, without a clear medical justification for the delay, is also professionally unsound. This can lead to the animal’s condition deteriorating, increasing suffering and potentially reducing the chances of a positive outcome, thereby failing to meet the standard of care expected in emergency situations. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a rapid, accurate assessment of the patient’s condition and prognosis. This should be followed by a clear, objective communication of findings and potential treatment pathways, including associated risks, benefits, and costs, to the relevant stakeholders (in this case, shelter management). The decision should then be a collaborative one, prioritizing the animal’s welfare while remaining within the ethical and practical boundaries of the shelter’s capacity.

The risk matrix shows a potential outbreak of a novel zoonotic disease in a coastal community heavily reliant on artisanal fishing. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires immediate, coordinated action across multiple sectors, balancing public health protection with the economic and social well-being of the community. The veterinarian must navigate complex public health interfaces, understand zoonotic disease transmission dynamics, and adhere to relevant regulatory frameworks, all while facing potential resource limitations and public apprehension. Careful judgment is required to prioritize interventions and ensure effective communication. The best approach involves establishing a multi-agency task force comprising public health officials, veterinary services, environmental agencies, and community leaders. This task force would immediately initiate a joint epidemiological investigation to confirm the pathogen, identify transmission routes (including potential links to seafood or environmental factors), and assess the extent of the outbreak. Simultaneously, it would implement targeted public health messaging regarding safe food handling practices, personal hygiene, and reporting of unusual animal or human health events. This collaborative, evidence-based strategy aligns with principles of integrated disease surveillance and response, as mandated by public health legislation that emphasizes inter-agency cooperation for emerging infectious diseases. It prioritizes a comprehensive understanding of the zoonotic threat and a coordinated, multi-sectoral response to mitigate public health risks while minimizing socio-economic disruption. An incorrect approach would be for the veterinarian to solely focus on animal health diagnostics and treatment without engaging public health authorities. This fails to acknowledge the zoonotic nature of the disease and the critical need for human health surveillance and intervention. It neglects the regulatory requirement for reporting suspected zoonotic outbreaks to public health bodies, potentially delaying essential human health measures and increasing the risk of wider community transmission. Another incorrect approach would be to immediately implement broad, unconfirmed restrictions on fishing activities based on preliminary, unverified information. While precautionary measures are sometimes necessary, such drastic actions without a thorough investigation and clear evidence of risk to seafood safety could cause undue economic hardship and erode community trust. This approach bypasses the need for scientific validation and regulatory due process in imposing significant trade or livelihood restrictions. A further incorrect approach would be to rely solely on anecdotal reports and community rumors to guide the response. While community input is valuable, official decision-making must be grounded in scientific evidence and established public health protocols. Acting solely on rumors without verification could lead to misallocation of resources, ineffective interventions, and a failure to meet regulatory obligations for disease investigation and control. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with rapid risk assessment, followed by immediate engagement with relevant public health and regulatory bodies. This involves activating established emergency response plans, prioritizing evidence-based data collection, and fostering inter-agency collaboration. Clear, transparent communication with stakeholders, including the public, is paramount throughout the response.

The risk matrix shows a moderate likelihood of zoonotic disease transmission from a rescued stray dog presenting with neurological signs and a history of unknown origin. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate need for diagnostic intervention to determine the dog’s prognosis and treatment plan with the paramount responsibility to protect public health and prevent potential disease spread within the veterinary practice and the wider community. The veterinarian must make critical decisions regarding diagnostic pathways, isolation protocols, and client communication under conditions of uncertainty. The best approach involves a multi-faceted strategy that prioritizes public health and animal welfare through cautious diagnostic interpretation and appropriate biosecurity measures. This includes initiating a broad differential diagnosis list that explicitly considers zoonotic agents, implementing strict isolation protocols for the patient from the moment of presentation, and utilizing a combination of in-house and referral laboratory diagnostics tailored to the suspected zoonotic differentials. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the identified risk of zoonotic transmission by taking proactive steps to contain potential pathogens and gather definitive diagnostic information. It aligns with ethical obligations to prevent harm to both human and animal populations, as well as regulatory expectations for veterinary professionals to manage infectious disease risks. The emphasis on a comprehensive diagnostic workup, including consideration of less common but serious zoonotic diseases, ensures that the animal receives appropriate care while minimizing exposure risks. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with standard diagnostic imaging and bloodwork without explicitly considering or prioritizing zoonotic differentials, and without implementing enhanced biosecurity measures beyond routine cleaning. This fails to acknowledge the moderate risk identified in the matrix and could lead to inadvertent exposure of staff, other clients, and their animals to a potentially contagious zoonotic agent. Ethically, this demonstrates a lapse in due diligence regarding public health. Another incorrect approach would be to immediately recommend euthanasia based solely on the neurological signs and the potential for zoonotic disease, without attempting any diagnostic investigation. While euthanasia may be a consideration in severe, untreatable neurological conditions, it should not be the first resort when diagnostic avenues exist to confirm or rule out treatable conditions or to definitively identify a zoonotic risk. This approach prematurely ends the animal’s life and deprives the owner of the opportunity for informed decision-making based on diagnostic findings, and it fails to fulfill the veterinarian’s duty to provide care within the bounds of professional judgment and available resources. A further incorrect approach would be to perform extensive diagnostic imaging and laboratory tests without adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) or appropriate waste disposal protocols for potentially infectious materials. This creates a direct risk of occupational exposure and environmental contamination, violating fundamental principles of biosecurity and public health. The professional reasoning process should involve a systematic evaluation of the risk matrix, followed by the development of a diagnostic and biosecurity plan that addresses the identified risks. This plan should be communicated clearly to the owner, outlining the rationale for each step, potential outcomes, and associated costs. The veterinarian must remain adaptable, revising the plan as new diagnostic information becomes available.