The risk matrix shows a scenario where a midwife is faced with a patient seeking information about emergency contraception after a recent unprotected sexual encounter. This situation is professionally challenging because it requires the midwife to balance the patient’s immediate need for reproductive health services with the ethical imperative to provide comprehensive, non-judgmental care and uphold reproductive rights, all within the specific legal and ethical framework governing midwifery practice in Latin America. Careful judgment is required to ensure the patient receives accurate information and appropriate care without coercion or undue influence. The best professional practice involves providing the patient with clear, accurate, and unbiased information about all available emergency contraception options, including their efficacy, potential side effects, and the timeframe for use, as well as discussing other long-term family planning methods. This approach respects the patient’s autonomy and right to make informed decisions about their reproductive health. It aligns with the principles of reproductive rights recognized in many Latin American jurisdictions, which emphasize access to information and services without discrimination or coercion. Ethical guidelines for midwives in the region typically mandate providing evidence-based care and supporting patient self-determination. Providing only information about one specific method of emergency contraception, without exploring other options or discussing long-term family planning, is professionally unacceptable. This approach fails to offer a comprehensive range of choices, potentially limiting the patient’s ability to select the most suitable option for their circumstances and violating the principle of informed consent. It may also reflect an implicit bias or judgment, which is contrary to ethical midwifery practice. Offering emergency contraception only after a lengthy discussion about the moral implications of sexual activity is also professionally unacceptable. This introduces a judgmental element into the consultation, which can shame or deter the patient from seeking necessary care. Midwifery practice in Latin America, as in many regions, emphasizes providing care based on health needs and patient rights, not on the practitioner’s personal moral beliefs. Such an approach undermines the patient’s trust and can lead to delayed or forgone care, with potentially negative reproductive health consequences. Suggesting that the patient wait to see if pregnancy occurs before discussing options is professionally unacceptable. This delays access to time-sensitive emergency contraception, significantly reducing its effectiveness and potentially forcing the patient into a pregnancy they do not wish to carry. It disregards the patient’s immediate concern and the established medical guidelines for emergency contraception, failing to provide timely and appropriate care. Professionals should approach such situations by first actively listening to the patient’s concerns and needs. They should then access and provide evidence-based information about all relevant reproductive health options, including emergency contraception and long-term family planning, ensuring the information is presented in a clear, unbiased, and culturally sensitive manner. The decision-making process should prioritize patient autonomy, informed consent, and adherence to established ethical and legal frameworks governing reproductive healthcare in the specific Latin American jurisdiction.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a nuanced understanding of the purpose and eligibility criteria for advanced midwifery board certification within a specific regional context. Misinterpreting these requirements can lead to wasted resources, applicant frustration, and potentially undermine the integrity of the certification process itself. Careful judgment is required to ensure that the certification program effectively identifies and validates advanced skills and knowledge, thereby upholding the standards of midwifery practice in Latin America. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough review of the official documentation outlining the purpose and eligibility for the Advanced Latin American Midwifery Education and Simulation Board Certification. This documentation, established by the relevant Latin American midwifery bodies and educational consortiums, will clearly define the program’s objectives, such as elevating the standard of midwifery care through advanced education and simulation, and the specific qualifications required for applicants. These qualifications typically include a defined period of licensed midwifery practice, completion of accredited advanced midwifery programs, and demonstrated proficiency in simulation-based learning and teaching. Adhering to these established guidelines ensures that the certification process is fair, transparent, and aligned with the stated goals of enhancing midwifery expertise across the region. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to assume that any midwife with extensive experience is automatically eligible. This fails to recognize that advanced certification often requires specific educational components and demonstrated competencies beyond general practice, as mandated by the certification board’s framework. It overlooks the structured learning and assessment inherent in advanced education and simulation. Another incorrect approach would be to focus solely on the number of years a midwife has been practicing without considering the nature of that practice or any specialized training. Eligibility criteria are designed to assess not just longevity but also the acquisition of advanced skills and knowledge, which may not be present in all long-serving practitioners. This approach neglects the “advanced” aspect of the certification. A further incorrect approach would be to prioritize candidates who have attended numerous workshops or conferences, regardless of whether these events align with the specific educational and simulation competencies defined by the certification board. While continuing education is valuable, it does not automatically equate to meeting the rigorous, often program-specific, eligibility requirements for advanced board certification. This approach misinterprets the intent of advanced education and simulation requirements. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach eligibility assessments by first consulting the definitive source of information: the official guidelines and documentation of the Advanced Latin American Midwifery Education and Simulation Board Certification. This involves understanding the stated purpose of the certification – to advance midwifery practice through specialized education and simulation – and then meticulously cross-referencing applicant qualifications against the explicitly defined eligibility criteria. When in doubt, seeking clarification directly from the certifying body is the most responsible course of action. This systematic and evidence-based approach ensures fairness, upholds professional standards, and maintains the credibility of the certification.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the need for comprehensive and accurate assessment of midwifery education and simulation competencies with the ethical imperative to ensure fairness and transparency in the certification process. Misinterpreting or misapplying the established guidelines for the Advanced Latin American Midwifery Education and Simulation Board Certification can lead to inequitable outcomes for candidates and undermine the credibility of the certification itself. Careful judgment is required to ensure that the evaluation process is both rigorous and just, adhering strictly to the established framework. The best professional practice involves a systematic and documented review of all submitted materials against the defined competency standards, with a clear rationale for any assessment decisions. This approach ensures objectivity and provides a transparent basis for certification. It aligns with the ethical principles of fairness and accountability inherent in professional certification bodies. By adhering to the established rubric and providing detailed feedback, the process upholds the integrity of the certification and supports the professional development of all candidates, regardless of the outcome. This method directly addresses the core purpose of the certification: to validate advanced skills and knowledge in midwifery education and simulation. An approach that focuses solely on the perceived experience of the candidate without rigorous adherence to the defined competency rubric is professionally unacceptable. This failure to apply the standardized evaluation criteria introduces subjectivity and bias, potentially disadvantaging candidates who may possess the required skills but present them differently. It deviates from the established regulatory framework for fair assessment. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to prioritize the ease of the evaluators over the thoroughness of the assessment. This might involve superficial review of submitted materials or making decisions based on assumptions rather than evidence. Such an approach undermines the credibility of the certification process and fails to uphold the commitment to rigorous evaluation mandated by the board. It neglects the ethical obligation to conduct a comprehensive and fair assessment for all candidates. Finally, an approach that involves comparing candidates against each other in a relative manner, rather than evaluating each candidate against the absolute standards of the certification, is also professionally unacceptable. This can lead to a “race to the bottom” or arbitrary distinctions, failing to objectively determine if each individual meets the required level of competence. It violates the principle of independent evaluation against established benchmarks. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes adherence to established protocols and ethical guidelines. This involves: 1) Thoroughly understanding the certification’s competency framework and evaluation rubric. 2) Objectively assessing each candidate’s submission against these defined standards, documenting all findings. 3) Maintaining impartiality and avoiding personal biases or external pressures. 4) Providing clear, constructive, and evidence-based feedback to candidates. 5) Regularly reviewing and updating evaluation processes to ensure continued alignment with best practices and regulatory requirements.

The monitoring system demonstrates a critical juncture in patient care where immediate, evidence-based intervention is paramount. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the midwife to balance immediate clinical needs with established protocols and ethical considerations, all while working within the specific regulatory framework governing midwifery practice in Latin America. The pressure of a rapidly evolving clinical situation can lead to hasty decisions, underscoring the need for a structured, analytical approach. The best professional practice involves a comprehensive assessment of the fetal heart rate pattern in conjunction with maternal vital signs and clinical presentation, followed by the implementation of immediate corrective measures as per established obstetric emergency protocols. This approach is correct because it prioritizes fetal well-being through a systematic, evidence-based evaluation and intervention strategy. It aligns with the ethical imperative to act in the best interest of both mother and fetus, adhering to the principle of beneficence. Furthermore, it reflects the professional responsibility to utilize all available clinical data to inform decision-making, a cornerstone of safe midwifery practice as outlined in regional professional guidelines and ethical codes that emphasize continuous fetal monitoring and timely, appropriate interventions during labor. An incorrect approach would be to solely focus on the intermittent decelerations without considering the overall pattern or maternal status. This fails to acknowledge the nuanced interpretation of cardiotocography (CTG) tracings, where isolated decelerations may not always indicate significant fetal compromise. Ethically, this could lead to unnecessary interventions or delayed appropriate action if the overall pattern is benign or if other factors are contributing. Another incorrect approach would be to immediately escalate to a surgical intervention without first attempting conservative management strategies. This disregards the established hierarchy of interventions and the potential for non-invasive measures to resolve fetal distress, potentially exposing the mother and fetus to unnecessary risks associated with surgery. Finally, relying solely on the experience of a senior colleague without independently assessing the situation and understanding the rationale behind the proposed actions is also professionally unsound. While consultation is valuable, it does not absolve the attending midwife of their responsibility to critically evaluate the clinical picture and ensure interventions are justified and appropriate according to established protocols and ethical standards. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough, real-time assessment of all available data (fetal monitoring, maternal status, labor progress). This should be followed by an interpretation of the findings based on current evidence-based guidelines and institutional protocols. Next, potential interventions should be considered in a stepwise manner, prioritizing those with the lowest risk and highest likelihood of benefit. Finally, continuous reassessment of the patient’s response to interventions and clear, concise communication with the healthcare team are crucial for ensuring optimal outcomes.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between established Western medical protocols and the deeply ingrained cultural beliefs and practices of indigenous communities regarding childbirth. Navigating this requires a nuanced understanding of cultural safety, which goes beyond mere tolerance to actively respecting and valuing diverse perspectives, ensuring that care is provided in a way that is free from discrimination and promotes the well-being of individuals from all backgrounds. The midwife must balance the imperative to provide evidence-based care with the ethical obligation to respect patient autonomy and cultural identity. The best approach involves actively engaging with community elders and leaders to co-design midwifery care models that integrate traditional practices with contemporary medical knowledge. This collaborative method ensures that continuity of care is maintained within a culturally safe framework, acknowledging the community’s historical context and empowering them in their healthcare decisions. This aligns with the principles of cultural safety, which mandate that healthcare providers understand and address power imbalances, and that services are responsive to the unique needs of diverse populations. It respects the right of indigenous communities to self-determination in healthcare and fosters trust, which is essential for effective continuity of care. An approach that prioritizes solely implementing standardized, Western-centric midwifery protocols without meaningful consultation or adaptation fails to uphold the principles of cultural safety. This can lead to alienation of the community, mistrust, and a breakdown in the continuity of care, as women may feel their cultural identity and beliefs are invalidated or disrespected. It ignores the ethical imperative to provide culturally appropriate care and can perpetuate historical injustices. Another unacceptable approach is to adopt a passive stance, offering standard care and expecting the community to adapt. This demonstrates a lack of proactive engagement and a failure to understand that cultural safety requires active effort to understand and accommodate diverse needs. It places the burden of cultural adaptation on the patient rather than the healthcare provider, which is contrary to the ethical obligations of culturally competent care. Finally, an approach that dismisses traditional birthing practices as unscientific or inferior, without attempting to understand their cultural significance or potential benefits within the community’s context, is ethically unsound and culturally unsafe. This demonstrates a lack of respect and can create significant barriers to effective care and the establishment of trusting relationships. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough understanding of the specific cultural context and the community’s existing healthcare practices and beliefs. This involves active listening, building relationships with community leaders, and engaging in participatory design of care models. The process should prioritize patient and community autonomy, ensuring that all care decisions are made in partnership, and that cultural safety is a foundational element of all interventions.

Governance review demonstrates a need to refine the examination process for the Advanced Latin American Midwifery Education and Simulation Board Certification. The current blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies are under scrutiny for their alignment with best practices in professional certification and educational fairness. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the integrity of the certification process with the need to provide equitable opportunities for candidates to demonstrate their competency. Misaligned policies can lead to undue stress on candidates, questions about the validity of the certification, and potential legal challenges. Careful judgment is required to ensure policies are transparent, fair, and effectively measure the intended competencies. The best approach involves a comprehensive review of the examination blueprint’s weighting to ensure it accurately reflects the importance and scope of competencies tested in advanced Latin American midwifery practice. Scoring should be based on established psychometric principles that allow for consistent and objective evaluation of candidate performance, with clear criteria for passing. Retake policies should be designed to support candidate remediation and re-assessment without compromising the rigor of the certification, perhaps by offering targeted feedback and opportunities for further education before re-examination. This approach is correct because it prioritizes the validity and reliability of the certification, ensuring that certified individuals possess the necessary advanced skills and knowledge. It aligns with ethical principles of fairness and professional accountability by providing a clear, objective, and supportive pathway for candidates. An approach that prioritizes a high pass rate through lenient scoring or frequent retakes without mandatory remediation fails to uphold the integrity of the certification. This would be ethically problematic as it could lead to the certification of individuals who do not meet the required standards of advanced practice, potentially endangering patient safety. It also undermines the credibility of the board certification. Another incorrect approach would be to implement overly restrictive retake policies, such as limiting retakes to a single attempt or imposing excessively long waiting periods between attempts without providing clear pathways for improvement. This fails to acknowledge that learning is a process and can be punitive, potentially excluding competent individuals who may have had an off day or require more time to master specific areas. It also lacks a supportive framework for professional development. A third incorrect approach might involve a blueprint weighting that disproportionately emphasizes less critical or outdated aspects of midwifery practice, or conversely, neglects emerging and essential advanced skills. This would result in a certification that does not accurately reflect current best practices in Latin American midwifery, rendering it less relevant and potentially misleading to employers and the public. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with clearly defining the purpose and scope of the certification. This involves consulting with subject matter experts to develop a robust examination blueprint that accurately reflects the required competencies. Psychometricians should be involved in designing scoring mechanisms that are valid and reliable. Retake policies should be developed with a focus on candidate support and remediation, ensuring that opportunities for re-assessment are fair and contribute to professional growth. Transparency in all policies is paramount, ensuring candidates understand the expectations and pathways for achieving certification.

The evaluation methodology shows that assessing holistic care and shared decision-making in Latin American midwifery education requires a nuanced approach that respects cultural contexts and individual autonomy. This scenario is professionally challenging because it demands the midwife to balance evidence-based practice with the birthing person’s deeply held beliefs, values, and social determinants of health, all within a framework that may have varying levels of established patient rights legislation across different Latin American countries. Effective judgment requires cultural humility, strong communication skills, and a commitment to ethical principles. The best approach involves actively engaging the birthing person in a comprehensive discussion about their preferences, concerns, and understanding of the birth process, while simultaneously providing clear, culturally sensitive information about available options and their implications. This collaborative process, grounded in mutual respect and informed consent, aligns with the ethical imperative to uphold the birthing person’s autonomy and dignity. It acknowledges that “holistic” care extends beyond the purely physiological to encompass the emotional, social, and spiritual well-being of the individual and their family. This method directly supports the principles of shared decision-making, ensuring that the birthing person is an equal partner in all care choices, which is increasingly recognized as a cornerstone of quality maternal healthcare globally and is implicitly supported by ethical codes governing professional conduct in midwifery. An approach that prioritizes the midwife’s professional opinion without thorough exploration of the birthing person’s perspective fails to uphold the principle of autonomy. This can lead to care that is not aligned with the birthing person’s values, potentially causing distress and undermining trust in the healthcare provider. It also risks overlooking crucial social or cultural factors that might influence the birthing person’s decisions or their ability to adhere to a care plan. Another unacceptable approach is to present a limited set of options, assuming the birthing person will choose from them without understanding the full spectrum of possibilities or the rationale behind each. This can be paternalistic and does not facilitate genuine shared decision-making. It may also inadvertently exclude culturally relevant practices or preferences that are not part of the pre-defined options. Finally, an approach that relies solely on the birthing person’s stated preferences without providing adequate, understandable information about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of each option is also ethically problematic. While respecting preferences is vital, it must be coupled with the midwife’s professional responsibility to ensure the birthing person is making truly informed choices, which requires clear and comprehensive education. Professionals should employ a decision-making process that begins with active listening and building rapport. This involves asking open-ended questions to understand the birthing person’s background, beliefs, and expectations. Following this, the midwife should provide information in a clear, accessible, and culturally appropriate manner, using language that avoids jargon. The process should then move to a collaborative discussion where preferences are weighed against clinical recommendations, ensuring that the birthing person feels empowered to make choices that are best for them, with the midwife acting as a knowledgeable guide and advocate.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a candidate to balance the demands of intensive preparation with personal and professional commitments, all while adhering to the standards set by the Advanced Latin American Midwifery Education and Simulation Board Certification. The pressure to perform well on a high-stakes certification exam, coupled with the need for effective learning and skill development through simulation, necessitates a strategic and well-timed approach to preparation. Misjudging the timeline or relying on suboptimal resources can lead to inadequate preparation, increased stress, and ultimately, failure to achieve certification, impacting the candidate’s career progression and the quality of midwifery care they can provide. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a structured, phased approach to candidate preparation, beginning at least six months prior to the examination. This approach prioritizes a comprehensive review of the core curriculum, integrating theoretical knowledge with practical application through simulation exercises that mirror exam conditions. It involves identifying specific knowledge gaps through self-assessment or mock exams and dedicating focused study time to these areas. Furthermore, it includes actively seeking out and utilizing official study guides, recommended readings, and accredited simulation training programs endorsed by the certification board. This proactive, systematic, and resource-informed strategy ensures thorough coverage of all examination domains, builds confidence, and allows for iterative refinement of skills, aligning with the ethical imperative to maintain high standards of professional competence in midwifery. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves delaying intensive preparation until two months before the examination. This significantly limits the time available for in-depth learning, skill consolidation, and addressing complex topics. It often leads to superficial memorization rather than deep understanding and can result in increased anxiety and burnout. Such a rushed approach fails to meet the implicit expectation of thorough preparation for a board certification, potentially compromising the candidate’s ability to demonstrate mastery of essential midwifery knowledge and simulation skills. Another unacceptable approach is relying solely on informal study groups and unverified online resources without cross-referencing with official board materials. While peer learning can be beneficial, informal groups may perpetuate inaccuracies or focus on less critical areas. Unverified online resources lack the credibility and comprehensiveness of board-approved materials, increasing the risk of learning outdated or incorrect information. This approach deviates from the professional responsibility to prepare using authoritative and validated resources, potentially leading to a flawed understanding of the subject matter. A third flawed approach is focusing exclusively on theoretical knowledge without incorporating practical simulation exercises. The Advanced Latin American Midwifery Education and Simulation Board Certification explicitly emphasizes simulation as a key assessment modality. Neglecting simulation practice means candidates will not develop the necessary psychomotor skills, decision-making abilities under pressure, or familiarity with simulation equipment and protocols required for the exam. This oversight directly undermines the purpose of the certification and the candidate’s readiness to apply knowledge in realistic clinical scenarios. Professional Reasoning: Professionals preparing for board certification should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes a proactive, evidence-based, and holistic approach. This involves: 1) Understanding the full scope of the examination and its requirements, including the role of simulation. 2) Developing a realistic, long-term study plan that allocates sufficient time for both theoretical review and practical skill development. 3) Prioritizing the use of official and board-endorsed preparation resources. 4) Regularly assessing progress and identifying areas needing further attention, adjusting the study plan as necessary. 5) Seeking feedback and engaging in practice scenarios that simulate exam conditions. This systematic process ensures comprehensive preparation, builds confidence, and upholds the professional standards expected of certified practitioners.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the midwife to balance immediate clinical needs with the long-term implications for both mother and neonate, all within the context of evolving physiological states. The midwife must accurately assess deviations from normal physiology in both the antenatal and intrapartum periods, recognizing subtle signs that may indicate a developing complication. This requires a deep understanding of normal physiological adaptations and the ability to differentiate them from pathological processes, ensuring timely and appropriate intervention without unnecessary medicalization. The pressure to act quickly while maintaining a holistic and evidence-based approach is paramount. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive and continuous assessment of both maternal and fetal well-being, integrating knowledge of normal physiological changes with vigilance for deviations. This approach prioritizes early identification of potential complications through careful observation, accurate interpretation of clinical signs and symptoms, and appropriate use of diagnostic tools, all within the framework of established midwifery protocols and ethical guidelines. It emphasizes a proactive stance, anticipating potential issues based on the evolving physiology and intervening judiciously to support a normal physiological process or manage deviations effectively, ensuring the safety and optimal outcome for both mother and baby. This aligns with the ethical imperative to provide competent and compassionate care, acting in the best interests of the patient. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves relying solely on the absence of overt distress signals, assuming that normal physiology will persist without active monitoring. This fails to acknowledge the dynamic nature of pregnancy and labor, where subtle physiological shifts can precede significant complications. It neglects the professional responsibility to proactively assess and anticipate, potentially leading to delayed recognition and management of emergent issues, thereby violating the duty of care. Another incorrect approach is to immediately escalate to invasive interventions or medical management at the first sign of any deviation from a strictly defined “normal,” without a thorough assessment of the physiological context. This can lead to unnecessary medicalization, disrupting the natural physiological processes of labor and birth, and potentially increasing risks for both mother and neonate. It demonstrates a lack of confidence in the body’s innate ability to manage labor and birth and may not be supported by evidence for all deviations. A third incorrect approach is to focus exclusively on one aspect of the maternal-fetal dyad, such as maternal comfort, while neglecting critical indicators of fetal well-being or vice versa. This fragmented approach fails to recognize the interconnectedness of maternal and fetal physiology and can lead to missed diagnoses or incomplete management plans, compromising the overall care provided. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic and holistic approach to assessment, continuously evaluating the interplay between maternal and fetal physiology. This involves active listening to the patient’s concerns, performing thorough physical assessments, and interpreting findings within the context of normal physiological adaptations and potential deviations. Decision-making should be guided by evidence-based practice, established protocols, and ethical principles, always prioritizing the safety and well-being of both mother and neonate. When deviations occur, a tiered approach to intervention, starting with the least invasive measures and escalating as necessary based on ongoing assessment, is crucial.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires the midwife to balance the immediate needs of a patient with the ethical imperative of informed consent and the professional responsibility to maintain accurate and complete documentation. The midwife must exercise sound judgment to ensure patient safety and uphold professional standards without compromising the patient’s autonomy or the integrity of the medical record. The best approach involves prioritizing clear, empathetic communication with the patient and her family, ensuring they fully understand the proposed intervention and its implications. This includes explaining the rationale for the simulation, the procedure itself, potential risks and benefits, and alternative options, even if those alternatives are limited in the context of a simulation. Obtaining explicit verbal consent, followed by thorough documentation of the discussion and consent in the patient’s chart, is paramount. This upholds the ethical principle of patient autonomy and aligns with professional guidelines that mandate informed consent for all procedures, including educational simulations that involve patient interaction or data. Furthermore, accurate documentation serves as a legal and professional record of the care provided and the patient’s participation. An incorrect approach involves proceeding with the simulation without obtaining explicit consent from the patient or her family, even if they are present and appear agreeable. This violates the fundamental ethical principle of patient autonomy and can lead to legal repercussions and a breach of professional trust. It disregards the patient’s right to make informed decisions about their care and participation in educational activities. Another incorrect approach is to document that consent was obtained without actually having a thorough discussion and receiving explicit agreement. This constitutes falsification of the medical record, a serious ethical and professional misconduct. It undermines the integrity of the documentation and fails to protect the patient or the healthcare provider. A further incorrect approach is to assume that because the patient is in a simulated learning environment, standard consent procedures are not required. While the context is educational, the interaction still involves a patient and potentially sensitive information or procedures. Professional standards and ethical considerations for patient care and participation in educational activities remain applicable. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with identifying the core ethical principles at play: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. In this case, autonomy is central. The framework then involves assessing the situation, identifying potential risks and benefits, considering the relevant professional standards and regulations, and communicating openly and honestly with the patient and their family. The process should always prioritize obtaining informed consent and ensuring accurate, transparent documentation.