This scenario presents a common challenge in integrated primary care settings: balancing the need for evidence-based interventions with the unique, often complex, needs of individual patients within a primary care context. The professional challenge lies in navigating the tension between generalized treatment protocols and personalized care, ensuring that interventions are both effective and ethically sound, respecting patient autonomy and the limitations of primary care resources. Careful judgment is required to select and adapt psychotherapies that are supported by robust evidence while remaining practical and accessible within the primary care environment. The approach that represents best professional practice involves a thorough assessment of the patient’s presenting problem, considering their specific cultural background, preferences, and available resources, and then selecting an evidence-based psychotherapy that has demonstrated efficacy for that particular condition. This approach is correct because it prioritizes patient-centered care and adheres to ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence by utilizing treatments proven to be effective. Furthermore, it aligns with the principles of integrated care by ensuring that psychological interventions are delivered in a way that complements and supports the patient’s overall physical health management. The regulatory framework for integrated care emphasizes the importance of evidence-based practice and the need for practitioners to remain within their scope of competence, adapting treatments as necessary while maintaining fidelity to the core principles of the chosen therapy. An incorrect approach would be to solely rely on a single, rigid evidence-based protocol without considering the patient’s individual circumstances. This fails to acknowledge the heterogeneity of patient responses to treatment and can lead to suboptimal outcomes or patient disengagement. Ethically, this approach risks violating the principle of respect for autonomy by not adequately involving the patient in treatment decisions and can be seen as a failure to provide tailored care. Another incorrect approach would be to prioritize readily available, but less evidence-based, interventions simply due to ease of implementation or familiarity. While accessibility is important, it should not supersede the mandate to provide the most effective care. This approach risks providing ineffective treatment, which is ethically problematic as it may lead to prolonged suffering or the progression of the condition, and potentially violates the principle of beneficence. A further incorrect approach would be to adopt a “one-size-fits-all” model of psychotherapy that is not grounded in empirical evidence, even if it is perceived as being holistic or supportive. While a supportive therapeutic relationship is crucial, the core intervention must have demonstrated efficacy for the specific presenting problem. Relying on unvalidated approaches can lead to wasted resources, false hope, and a failure to address the underlying psychological distress effectively, which is ethically unsound and professionally irresponsible. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a systematic approach: first, conduct a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment. Second, identify evidence-based psychotherapies that have demonstrated efficacy for the identified condition. Third, critically evaluate the patient’s individual factors, including preferences, cultural context, co-morbidities, and available resources, to determine the most appropriate and feasible intervention. Fourth, engage in shared decision-making with the patient, explaining the rationale for the chosen treatment and potential alternatives. Fifth, monitor treatment progress closely and be prepared to adapt the intervention or consider alternative approaches if the initial plan is not yielding satisfactory results, always within the bounds of evidence-based practice and professional competence.

The audit findings indicate a need to clarify the foundational principles of the Advanced Mediterranean Integrated Primary Care Psychology Practice Qualification. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a precise understanding of the qualification’s purpose and eligibility criteria to ensure that only suitable candidates are admitted, thereby upholding the integrity and standards of the qualification. Misinterpreting these criteria could lead to the admission of unqualified individuals, potentially impacting the quality of integrated primary care psychology services offered within the Mediterranean region. Careful judgment is required to differentiate between genuine alignment with the qualification’s objectives and tangential or insufficient qualifications. The approach that represents best professional practice involves a thorough review of the qualification’s stated purpose, which is to equip psychologists with advanced skills in integrated primary care settings across the Mediterranean, focusing on culturally sensitive and evidence-based interventions. Eligibility is determined by a combination of foundational psychology qualifications, demonstrable experience in primary care or closely related fields, and a commitment to interdisciplinary collaboration within the specified regional context. This approach is correct because it directly aligns with the qualification’s mandate to foster specialized expertise for the unique demands of Mediterranean primary care. Adherence to these specific criteria ensures that candidates possess the requisite knowledge base, practical experience, and regional awareness necessary to excel in the program and contribute effectively to the field. An incorrect approach involves focusing solely on general postgraduate psychology qualifications without considering the specific requirements for integrated primary care or the Mediterranean context. This fails to acknowledge the qualification’s specialized nature and its emphasis on practical application within a particular healthcare system and cultural landscape. Another incorrect approach is to prioritize extensive research experience in unrelated psychological sub-disciplines over direct experience in primary care or community mental health. While research is valuable, it does not inherently equip a psychologist with the skills needed for integrated primary care, which demands strong clinical, collaborative, and systemic competencies. Finally, an approach that emphasizes a broad interest in international psychology without a clear connection to the Mediterranean region or primary care settings is also flawed. This overlooks the qualification’s specific geographical and sectoral focus, leading to the potential admission of candidates who lack the targeted expertise and understanding required. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a clear articulation of the qualification’s objectives and target audience. This involves dissecting the official documentation outlining the purpose and eligibility. Subsequently, each candidate’s application should be evaluated against these defined criteria, looking for evidence of relevant experience, specific skills, and a demonstrated understanding of the integrated primary care model and the Mediterranean context. When in doubt, seeking clarification from the qualification’s governing body or consulting with experienced practitioners in the field is advisable. This systematic and criteria-driven approach ensures fairness, transparency, and the selection of candidates who are most likely to benefit from and contribute to the Advanced Mediterranean Integrated Primary Care Psychology Practice Qualification.

The scenario presents a common challenge in integrated primary care psychology where a psychologist must navigate the ethical and professional boundaries of providing psychological support to a patient who is also a colleague within the same primary care setting. The inherent power dynamics, potential for blurred professional lines, and the need to maintain patient confidentiality and objectivity make this situation professionally challenging. Careful judgment is required to ensure the patient’s well-being and the integrity of the professional relationship. The best approach involves a clear, proactive, and transparent communication strategy that prioritizes the patient’s care and adheres strictly to professional ethical guidelines and relevant regulations concerning professional boundaries and conflicts of interest. This approach involves acknowledging the professional relationship, assessing the potential impact on the therapeutic alliance and objectivity, and collaboratively determining the most appropriate course of action, which may include referral to another practitioner if the existing relationship poses a significant risk to effective treatment. This aligns with ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and professional integrity, ensuring that the patient receives unbiased and effective care without compromising the psychologist’s professional judgment or the confidentiality of the therapeutic relationship. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with therapy without addressing the colleague relationship, assuming it will not impact the professional dynamic. This fails to acknowledge the potential for unconscious bias, compromised objectivity, and the erosion of patient trust, violating ethical duties to avoid dual relationships that could impair professional judgment or exploit the patient. Another incorrect approach would be to immediately refuse to see the colleague without a thorough assessment of the potential impact, potentially abandoning the patient and failing to explore less restrictive means of managing the dual relationship, which could be seen as a failure to act in the patient’s best interest. Finally, attempting to manage the dual relationship by sharing confidential information about the colleague’s personal life with other primary care staff would be a severe breach of confidentiality and professional ethics. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with identifying potential ethical conflicts and dual relationships. This involves a thorough assessment of the nature of the relationship, the potential risks and benefits of continuing or terminating the therapeutic relationship, and consultation with supervisors or professional bodies when necessary. The paramount consideration should always be the patient’s welfare and the maintenance of professional boundaries and integrity.

The control framework reveals a complex scenario where a primary care psychologist must navigate the interplay of biopsychosocial factors, psychopathology, and developmental considerations in a young adolescent presenting with significant behavioral and emotional difficulties. The challenge lies in accurately assessing the root causes of the presenting problems, which may stem from a combination of biological predispositions, psychological distress, social environmental influences, and developmental stage-specific challenges. Misinterpreting these factors can lead to ineffective or even harmful interventions. Careful judgment is required to ensure that the chosen therapeutic approach is evidence-based, developmentally appropriate, and ethically sound, respecting the autonomy and well-being of the child and their family. The best professional practice involves a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment that explicitly integrates developmental psychology principles. This approach acknowledges that the adolescent’s current presentation is a product of their biological makeup, their internal psychological state (thoughts, feelings, coping mechanisms), their social environment (family dynamics, peer relationships, school context), and their specific developmental stage (e.g., identity formation, peer influence, cognitive maturation). By systematically evaluating each of these domains and their interactions, the psychologist can develop a nuanced understanding of the psychopathology, moving beyond a purely symptom-focused diagnosis to identify underlying vulnerabilities and strengths. This integrated perspective is crucial for tailoring interventions that address the multifaceted nature of the adolescent’s difficulties, aligning with ethical guidelines that mandate client-centered, evidence-based care and a holistic understanding of the individual within their context. An approach that solely focuses on diagnosing and treating the identified psychopathology without adequately considering the developmental stage or the broader biopsychosocial context is professionally unacceptable. This narrow focus risks overlooking critical developmental tasks or environmental stressors that may be contributing to or exacerbating the presenting issues. For instance, attributing all behavioral problems to a specific disorder without exploring the impact of adolescent identity exploration or family conflict would be a significant ethical and clinical failing. Similarly, an approach that prioritizes only the social environment, neglecting potential biological factors or the individual’s internal psychological experience, would also be incomplete and potentially lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment. Focusing exclusively on biological factors without considering the psychological and social impact of a condition, or the developmental implications of the illness, would also be a failure to provide holistic care. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with a thorough assessment phase. This assessment must be multi-dimensional, incorporating information from the individual, their family, and relevant collateral sources. The psychologist should then conceptualize the case through a biopsychosocial-developmental lens, actively seeking to understand the interplay of these factors. Treatment planning should be a collaborative process, informed by this conceptualization and grounded in evidence-based practices that are tailored to the individual’s developmental stage and specific needs. Regular review and re-evaluation of the assessment and treatment plan are essential to ensure ongoing appropriateness and effectiveness.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because the psychologist must select and design assessment tools that are not only psychometrically sound but also culturally relevant and appropriate for the specific population being served within the Mediterranean integrated primary care setting. The integrated nature of primary care means that assessments need to be efficient, informative for a range of presenting issues, and usable by a multidisciplinary team. The psychometric properties of a test (reliability, validity, standardization) are crucial for accurate diagnosis and treatment planning, but these must be considered in the context of the target population’s linguistic, cultural, and educational background. Failure to do so can lead to misdiagnosis, inappropriate interventions, and a breach of ethical obligations to provide competent and culturally sensitive care. The best approach involves a systematic evaluation of existing, validated assessment tools, prioritizing those with established psychometric properties that have been demonstrated to be reliable and valid within similar cultural and linguistic contexts. This includes critically examining the standardization samples of any chosen test to ensure they are representative of the Mediterranean population being assessed. If no suitable existing tools are available, the psychologist should consider adapting existing instruments with rigorous pilot testing and psychometric validation procedures, or designing novel assessments with a strong theoretical basis and thorough validation, always ensuring these processes are transparent and ethically sound. This aligns with the ethical imperative to use the most accurate and appropriate tools available, and to ensure that any assessment is fair and equitable for the individuals being evaluated. The focus on established psychometric properties and, where necessary, rigorous validation of adaptations or new designs, directly addresses the need for accurate and reliable psychological data in a primary care setting. An incorrect approach would be to select a widely used assessment tool solely based on its popularity or ease of administration, without critically examining its psychometric properties or its suitability for the specific Mediterranean cultural context. This overlooks the fundamental ethical and professional requirement for competence and the potential for significant diagnostic error if the test is not valid or reliable for the population. Another incorrect approach is to rely on anecdotal evidence or the opinions of colleagues regarding a test’s effectiveness without consulting empirical data on its psychometric properties. This bypasses the scientific basis of psychological assessment and can lead to the use of unreliable or invalid instruments. Finally, using a tool that has not been translated or culturally adapted and validated for the target population, assuming it will yield meaningful results, is a significant ethical failure. This demonstrates a lack of cultural competence and a disregard for the potential for measurement bias, leading to inaccurate interpretations and potentially harmful clinical decisions. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a clear understanding of the referral question and the presenting problem. This should be followed by a thorough review of the literature for assessment tools with known psychometric properties relevant to the presenting issues. Crucially, the cultural and linguistic appropriateness of these tools for the specific Mediterranean population must be a primary consideration. If existing tools are inadequate, the psychologist must engage in a process of adaptation or development that adheres to rigorous psychometric and ethical standards, prioritizing the well-being and accurate assessment of the individuals served.

The analysis reveals a common challenge in integrated primary care psychology practice: ensuring fair and transparent assessment processes, particularly concerning blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies for professional qualifications. Professionals must navigate the tension between maintaining rigorous standards and providing equitable opportunities for candidates to demonstrate their competence. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a nuanced understanding of how assessment blueprints translate into actual scoring, the ethical implications of retake policies, and the importance of clear communication to candidates. Careful judgment is required to balance the need for objective evaluation with the principles of fairness and professional development. The best approach involves a comprehensive review of the qualification’s blueprint, ensuring that the weighting of different domains accurately reflects their importance in Mediterranean integrated primary care psychology practice. This approach prioritizes transparency by making the scoring methodology clear and accessible to candidates. It also advocates for a retake policy that is clearly defined, justifiable based on competency demonstration, and applied consistently, with provisions for feedback and support for candidates who do not initially pass. This aligns with ethical principles of fairness, validity, and reliability in assessment, ensuring that the qualification truly measures the required competencies for practice in the specified region. An incorrect approach would be to assume that the initial blueprint weighting is inherently perfect and unchangeable, without considering its alignment with current practice realities or candidate feedback. This fails to acknowledge the dynamic nature of professional practice and the need for periodic review and potential adjustment of assessment tools. Another incorrect approach is to implement a retake policy that is punitive or lacks clear criteria for eligibility or success on a subsequent attempt. This could unfairly disadvantage candidates and undermine the principle of providing opportunities for remediation and re-evaluation. Furthermore, failing to communicate the scoring methodology and retake policies clearly and in advance to candidates is a significant ethical and professional failing, as it deprives them of the information necessary to prepare effectively and understand the assessment process. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with understanding the specific regulatory and professional body guidelines governing the qualification. This involves critically evaluating the assessment blueprint for its validity and reliability, considering whether the weighting reflects the core competencies required for Mediterranean integrated primary care psychology practice. Transparency should be a guiding principle, ensuring that all assessment criteria, scoring mechanisms, and retake policies are clearly articulated to candidates well in advance. When considering retake policies, the focus should be on providing opportunities for candidates to demonstrate mastery after receiving constructive feedback and support, rather than simply allowing repeated attempts without a clear path to improvement. Regular review and potential revision of assessment components based on feedback and evolving practice standards are also crucial for maintaining the integrity and fairness of the qualification process.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexity of assessing risk in a primary care setting, particularly when dealing with individuals who may present with a range of psychological distress and potential safety concerns. The need for a nuanced, evidence-based approach is paramount to ensure client safety, uphold ethical standards, and comply with relevant professional guidelines. Careful judgment is required to balance the need for thorough assessment with the importance of maintaining therapeutic rapport and avoiding unnecessary alarm. The best approach involves a comprehensive, multi-faceted risk formulation that integrates information from direct clinical interviewing, collateral information where appropriate and consented, and an understanding of the client’s presenting issues within their broader context. This approach prioritizes a collaborative process, actively involving the client in understanding their own risk factors and protective factors. It emphasizes the use of validated risk assessment tools and frameworks, interpreted through the lens of clinical expertise and an understanding of the specific cultural and social determinants of health relevant to the Mediterranean context. This method is ethically sound as it respects client autonomy, promotes transparency, and ensures that interventions are tailored to individual needs and risks. It aligns with professional guidelines that advocate for systematic, evidence-based risk assessment and management in integrated care settings. An incorrect approach would be to rely solely on a superficial interview that focuses only on immediate suicidal ideation without exploring underlying contributing factors, coping mechanisms, or support systems. This failure to conduct a thorough risk formulation neglects the complexity of risk, potentially leading to an underestimation of danger and inadequate safety planning. It breaches ethical obligations to conduct a comprehensive assessment and may contravene professional standards for risk management. Another incorrect approach would be to over-emphasize diagnostic labels without a corresponding assessment of immediate risk. While diagnosis is important, a sole focus on classification without a dynamic formulation of risk can lead to a static view of the client’s situation, failing to capture the fluidity of risk and the need for ongoing monitoring and intervention. This can result in a failure to implement appropriate safety measures when they are most needed. A further incorrect approach would be to adopt a purely mechanistic application of risk assessment tools without integrating clinical judgment or considering the client’s unique circumstances and cultural background. This can lead to a decontextualized assessment that may not accurately reflect the individual’s actual risk, potentially causing distress or failing to identify critical warning signs. It overlooks the ethical imperative to provide person-centered care. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with establishing a safe and trusting therapeutic alliance. This is followed by a systematic gathering of information, including the client’s presenting problem, history, mental state, coping strategies, and social support. Risk factors and protective factors are then identified and analyzed. The formulation of risk should be dynamic, acknowledging that risk can change over time. Interventions should be collaboratively developed, focusing on mitigating identified risks and enhancing protective factors, with clear plans for ongoing review and escalation if necessary.

The investigation demonstrates the critical need for candidates preparing for the Advanced Mediterranean Integrated Primary Care Psychology Practice Qualification to adopt a structured and resource-informed approach to their study. The challenge lies in balancing the breadth of the curriculum with the depth of understanding required for advanced practice, all within a finite preparation timeline. Professionals must carefully consider the most effective and compliant methods for acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills. The best approach involves a systematic review of the official qualification syllabus, cross-referenced with recommended reading lists and guidance from the awarding body. This method ensures that study efforts are directly aligned with the learning outcomes and assessment criteria. Regulatory and ethical justification for this approach stems from the principle of professional competence, which mandates that practitioners engage in learning that is relevant to their scope of practice and meets established standards. The awarding body’s materials are the definitive source for understanding these standards, thereby ensuring compliance with the qualification’s specific requirements and promoting ethical practice by avoiding misinterpretation or omission of key content. An approach that relies solely on general psychology textbooks without specific reference to the qualification’s syllabus is professionally unsound. This fails to meet the regulatory requirement of demonstrating competence in the specific context of Mediterranean integrated primary care psychology, potentially leading to gaps in knowledge relevant to local cultural nuances, healthcare systems, and ethical considerations unique to the region. It also risks an inefficient use of study time, focusing on material that may not be assessed. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to prioritize informal learning networks or anecdotal advice over official resources. While peer discussion can be valuable, it cannot substitute for the structured curriculum and authoritative guidance provided by the qualification setters. This method carries a significant risk of misinformation, incomplete understanding, and a failure to address the precise learning objectives, thereby contravening the ethical duty to prepare adequately and competently. Furthermore, an approach that focuses exclusively on past examination papers without understanding the underlying principles and syllabus content is inadequate. While practice papers are useful for assessment familiarization, they do not guarantee a comprehensive grasp of the subject matter. This can lead to rote learning rather than deep understanding, which is essential for advanced practice and ethical decision-making in complex clinical scenarios. The professional decision-making process for candidates should involve: 1) Thoroughly understanding the qualification’s objectives and scope. 2) Identifying and prioritizing official learning resources (syllabus, recommended readings, guidance documents). 3) Developing a study plan that systematically covers all syllabus areas. 4) Supplementing with other resources judiciously, ensuring they align with the core curriculum. 5) Regularly assessing understanding against learning outcomes.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between respecting patient autonomy and cultural beliefs, and upholding ethical standards of care and legal obligations within the Mediterranean region’s integrated primary care psychology practice. The psychologist must navigate differing cultural understandings of mental health, family involvement, and decision-making processes, while ensuring the patient’s well-being and adhering to professional codes of conduct. Careful judgment is required to balance these competing demands without imposing external values or compromising the integrity of the therapeutic relationship. The best professional approach involves a culturally sensitive and collaborative formulation process. This entails actively engaging the patient and their family, where appropriate and with the patient’s consent, to understand their worldview, beliefs about illness, and preferred treatment modalities. The psychologist should seek to integrate these cultural elements into a shared understanding of the patient’s difficulties and treatment goals, ensuring that interventions are respectful and relevant to the patient’s context. This approach aligns with ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, respect for autonomy, and justice, as well as jurisprudence that emphasizes culturally competent care and patient-centered practice. It acknowledges that effective psychological care is not a one-size-fits-all model but must be adapted to the unique cultural tapestry of each individual and community. An incorrect approach would be to dismiss or override the family’s concerns due to a belief that only the patient’s direct wishes should be considered, without first attempting to understand the cultural significance of family involvement in decision-making within that specific Mediterranean context. This fails to acknowledge the collectivist aspects prevalent in many Mediterranean cultures, where family harmony and collective well-being are often prioritized. Ethically, this could lead to alienating the patient and their support system, potentially hindering treatment adherence and exacerbating distress. Legally, it might also contravene guidelines that encourage family involvement in care when culturally appropriate and beneficial. Another incorrect approach would be to unilaterally impose Western biomedical models of mental health and individualistic decision-making onto the patient and their family, disregarding their existing cultural frameworks and beliefs about mental well-being. This demonstrates a lack of cultural humility and competence, potentially leading to misdiagnosis, ineffective treatment, and a breach of trust. Ethically, it violates the principle of respect for persons and their cultural identity. Jurisprudence in integrated care settings often mandates culturally responsive practices, and this approach would fall short of those requirements. A further incorrect approach would be to avoid engaging with the family altogether, citing patient confidentiality as an absolute barrier, even when the patient expresses a desire for family involvement or when cultural norms strongly suggest family participation is integral to the patient’s support system and recovery. While confidentiality is paramount, ethical practice and jurisprudence in integrated care often advocate for a nuanced approach that balances confidentiality with the potential benefits of involving key support figures, especially when the patient consents or when cultural context makes it a vital component of care. This rigid adherence to confidentiality without considering the cultural context and patient’s wishes could inadvertently isolate the patient and undermine the therapeutic alliance. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with cultural self-awareness, followed by active listening and information gathering about the patient’s and family’s cultural beliefs and practices. This should be followed by a collaborative formulation process, where the psychologist and patient/family work together to understand the presenting issues and develop culturally congruent goals and interventions. Ongoing reflection and adaptation based on feedback and observed outcomes are crucial.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexities of integrated primary care psychology within a multidisciplinary team. The psychologist must navigate differing professional perspectives, communication styles, and potential power dynamics while ensuring patient-centered care and maintaining professional boundaries. Careful judgment is required to foster collaboration, respect diverse expertise, and advocate for psychological well-being within the broader healthcare context. The best approach involves proactively establishing clear communication channels and shared understanding of roles and responsibilities from the outset. This includes actively seeking input from all team members, clearly articulating the psychological perspective and its relevance to patient care, and demonstrating a willingness to integrate psychological insights with medical and social care plans. This approach aligns with ethical principles of collaboration, respect for persons, and professional responsibility to contribute effectively to patient outcomes. It also reflects best practice guidelines for integrated care models, which emphasize interprofessional communication and shared decision-making to optimize patient care. An incorrect approach would be to operate in isolation, providing psychological assessments or interventions without adequate consultation or integration with the broader team’s understanding of the patient’s needs. This failure to communicate and collaborate undermines the multidisciplinary nature of the team and can lead to fragmented care, missed opportunities for holistic support, and potential patient confusion or dissatisfaction. It neglects the ethical imperative to work collaboratively and can be seen as a failure to uphold professional duties within a team setting. Another incorrect approach would be to defer entirely to the medical professionals without asserting the unique and valuable contribution of psychological expertise. This can result in psychological needs being overlooked or inadequately addressed, as the psychologist fails to advocate for the patient’s mental health within the overall care plan. This approach compromises the psychologist’s professional role and can lead to suboptimal patient outcomes by not fully leveraging the benefits of integrated psychological care. A further incorrect approach involves imposing psychological recommendations without sufficient consideration of the medical or social context, or without engaging in a dialogue with other team members. This can create friction within the team, lead to resistance, and ultimately hinder effective patient care. It demonstrates a lack of respect for the expertise of other disciplines and a failure to engage in the collaborative problem-solving essential for integrated care. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a commitment to open and continuous communication, a clear understanding of one’s own professional scope and limitations, and a willingness to learn from and respect the expertise of other team members. It requires actively seeking opportunities for consultation, being prepared to articulate the rationale behind psychological interventions, and being flexible in adapting approaches to best serve the patient within the team’s collective goals. Prioritizing patient well-being through collaborative and integrated care should always be the guiding principle.