This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between efficient workflow and the critical need for timely identification and communication of potentially serious findings in medical imaging. The pressure to process a high volume of studies can inadvertently lead to delays in recognizing and escalating urgent results, potentially impacting patient care and contravening regulatory expectations for prompt reporting and communication. Careful judgment is required to balance these competing demands. The best professional approach involves a proactive and systematic process for identifying and escalating urgent findings during image review. This includes having clear, pre-defined criteria for what constitutes an urgent finding, integrating these criteria into the reporting template, and establishing a robust communication protocol for immediate notification to the referring physician or appropriate clinical team. This approach ensures that critical information is disseminated without undue delay, aligning with the ethical imperative to prioritize patient well-being and adhering to regulatory guidelines that mandate timely reporting of significant results. Such a system minimizes the risk of missed diagnoses or delayed treatment initiation. An incorrect approach would be to rely solely on the radiologist’s subjective assessment of urgency during the review process without a structured reporting system to flag or escalate these findings. This introduces variability and increases the likelihood of urgent findings being overlooked or delayed in communication, potentially violating professional standards and regulatory requirements for prompt reporting. Another incorrect approach is to delegate the responsibility of identifying and escalating urgent findings to administrative staff without direct clinical oversight or a clear protocol. While administrative support is valuable, the initial identification and assessment of clinical urgency must be performed by a qualified medical professional. This failure to maintain clinical responsibility for urgent findings can lead to misinterpretation of findings or missed escalations, posing a significant risk to patient safety and contravening professional and regulatory obligations. A further incorrect approach is to delay reporting of potentially urgent findings until the end of the workday or the next scheduled reporting cycle, even if the finding is recognized during the review. This practice prioritizes administrative convenience over patient care and directly violates the principle of timely communication of critical medical information, which is a cornerstone of safe and effective medical practice and a common regulatory expectation. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety and regulatory compliance. This involves understanding and internalizing the institution’s protocols for urgent findings, utilizing structured reporting tools that facilitate the flagging and escalation of critical results, and maintaining open communication channels with referring clinicians. Regular review and refinement of these protocols, along with ongoing professional development in image interpretation and reporting, are essential for ensuring consistent and high-quality patient care.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires navigating the initial stages of establishing a radiation dose management program within a new regulatory environment. The primary challenge lies in interpreting and applying the newly introduced “Applied Caribbean Radiation Dose Management Licensure Examination” framework to a practical operational setting. Professionals must balance the need for immediate compliance with the understanding that the framework is still being implemented and may require ongoing clarification. Careful judgment is required to ensure that the chosen approach is both compliant with the spirit and letter of the regulations and practical for the organization’s operational needs. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves proactively engaging with the regulatory body responsible for the Applied Caribbean Radiation Dose Management Licensure Examination to seek official guidance on the interpretation and implementation of the new framework. This approach is correct because it prioritizes direct, authoritative clarification, minimizing the risk of misinterpretation and non-compliance. It demonstrates a commitment to understanding and adhering to the specific requirements of the Caribbean jurisdiction, ensuring that the dose management program is built on a solid foundation of regulatory understanding. This proactive engagement aligns with ethical obligations to operate safely and in accordance with established standards. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to rely solely on general industry best practices or guidelines from other jurisdictions without seeking specific clarification from the Caribbean regulatory authority. This is professionally unacceptable because it risks applying standards that may not be relevant or sufficient for the specific requirements of the Applied Caribbean Radiation Dose Management Licensure Examination framework. Regulations are jurisdiction-specific, and assuming equivalence can lead to significant compliance gaps. Another incorrect approach is to implement a dose management program based on internal assumptions about the framework’s intent without any external validation or consultation. This is professionally unacceptable as it introduces a high degree of uncertainty and potential for error. Without seeking clarification, the organization could inadvertently create a program that does not meet the licensing requirements, leading to potential penalties or the need for costly remediation. A third incorrect approach is to delay the implementation of any dose management program until the framework is fully clarified through widespread industry adoption or case studies. This is professionally unacceptable because it creates an unacceptable period of non-compliance. The regulatory framework is in place, and a proactive approach to establishing a compliant program is expected, even if initial implementation requires seeking guidance. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes regulatory compliance and ethical practice. This involves: 1) Identifying the relevant regulatory framework (Applied Caribbean Radiation Dose Management Licensure Examination). 2) Understanding the specific requirements and any ambiguities within that framework. 3) Proactively seeking clarification from the designated regulatory authority. 4) Developing an implementation plan based on confirmed understanding. 5) Regularly reviewing and updating the program in light of any further guidance or amendments to the framework. This systematic approach ensures that operational decisions are grounded in accurate regulatory interpretation and ethical responsibility.

The analysis reveals a scenario where a seasoned radiation dose management professional, Ms. Anya Sharma, is seeking to renew her licensure. She has been practicing for over a decade and has a strong record. However, she recently completed a specialized course in advanced pediatric radiation safety, which she believes significantly enhances her expertise and should be recognized. The challenge lies in understanding the precise purpose and eligibility criteria for the Applied Caribbean Radiation Dose Management Licensure Examination, particularly concerning how continuing education and specialized training are factored into the renewal process and whether a new examination is mandated or if her existing licensure is sufficient with updated credentials. This requires careful judgment to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements while also acknowledging professional development. The best approach is to directly consult the official regulatory body responsible for radiation dose management licensure in the Caribbean region to clarify the specific requirements for license renewal and the role of continuing education or specialized training. This involves understanding whether the examination is a one-time eligibility requirement for initial licensure, a periodic renewal requirement, or if specific advanced training can substitute for or supplement examination requirements. The regulatory body’s guidance will definitively outline whether Ms. Sharma’s current licensure is valid for renewal based on her experience and continuing education, or if she needs to undertake the examination again. This direct consultation ensures adherence to the established legal and professional standards governing radiation dose management practice, upholding patient safety and professional integrity. An incorrect approach would be to assume that completing any advanced training automatically fulfills renewal requirements without official verification. This overlooks the possibility that the examination might be a mandatory component of renewal, regardless of additional training, or that the training might not align with the specific competencies assessed by the examination. Another incorrect approach would be to rely on informal advice from colleagues or outdated information. Professional licensure is governed by strict regulations, and informal advice can be inaccurate or incomplete, leading to potential non-compliance and jeopardizing her professional standing. Furthermore, assuming that her extensive experience alone exempts her from any examination requirements for renewal, without confirming this with the regulatory body, is a risky assumption. Experience is valuable, but regulatory frameworks often have specific provisions for renewal that may include examinations or a defined set of continuing education credits, irrespective of years of practice. Professionals should adopt a proactive and diligent approach to licensure and renewal. This involves maintaining a thorough understanding of the governing regulations, actively seeking clarification from the official licensing authority when in doubt, and meticulously documenting all continuing education and professional development activities. A structured decision-making process would involve: 1) Identifying the specific regulatory body and relevant legislation/guidelines. 2) Reviewing the official requirements for license renewal. 3) If ambiguity exists, directly contacting the regulatory body for clarification. 4) Acting strictly in accordance with the official guidance received.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a patient’s autonomy and the radiographer’s professional responsibility to ensure patient safety and adherence to established protocols. The radiographer must navigate the patient’s expressed wishes, which may stem from personal beliefs or misinformation, against the established standards of care and the potential risks associated with deviating from them. Careful judgment is required to balance empathy with professional duty. The best approach involves a thorough and respectful discussion with the patient, aiming to understand the root of their refusal and provide clear, accurate information about the procedure, its benefits, and potential risks. This approach prioritizes patient education and informed consent, aligning with ethical principles of autonomy and beneficence. By engaging in open dialogue, the radiographer can address the patient’s concerns, clarify any misunderstandings about radiation dose management, and explore alternative imaging techniques or sedation if medically appropriate and within the scope of practice. This respects the patient’s right to make decisions about their healthcare while ensuring they are making those decisions based on accurate information and understanding of the implications. This aligns with the principles of patient-centered care and the ethical obligation to obtain informed consent, as mandated by professional standards and regulatory guidelines that emphasize patient understanding and voluntary agreement to medical procedures. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with the examination without fully addressing the patient’s concerns, assuming their refusal is based on a misunderstanding that can be ignored. This fails to uphold the principle of informed consent, as the patient’s agreement would not be truly voluntary or informed. Another incorrect approach is to immediately dismiss the patient’s concerns and insist on the procedure, potentially creating an adversarial relationship and undermining patient trust. This disregards the patient’s autonomy and right to refuse treatment, even if the refusal is based on what the healthcare provider perceives as an irrational basis. Finally, unilaterally deciding to proceed with a modified or alternative procedure without proper consultation with the referring physician or a supervisor, and without ensuring the patient understands and consents to the modification, is also professionally unacceptable. This bypasses established protocols for patient care and decision-making, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes or ethical breaches. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with active listening and empathetic engagement with the patient. This should be followed by a clear and concise explanation of the procedure, its necessity, and the rationale behind the recommended radiation dose management protocols. If the patient expresses specific concerns, these should be directly addressed with accurate information. If the concerns persist and cannot be resolved through discussion, the professional should consult with a supervisor or the referring physician to explore alternative solutions, such as different imaging modalities, sedation, or rescheduling the examination, always ensuring the patient’s understanding and consent throughout the process.

The investigation demonstrates a scenario where a radiographer, while performing a CT scan on a patient with a history of radiation sensitivity, encounters an unexpected finding requiring a higher radiation dose than initially planned. This situation is professionally challenging because it pits the immediate diagnostic need against the long-term principle of radiation protection, specifically the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle, and potentially patient autonomy if informed consent was based on a lower dose. Careful judgment is required to balance these competing factors within the established regulatory framework for radiation dose management. The best approach involves immediately consulting with the supervising radiologist or radiation safety officer to discuss the unexpected finding and the necessity for a dose increase. This approach is correct because it adheres to the established hierarchy of responsibility and expertise within the medical imaging department. The radiographer, while skilled, is not the ultimate authority on diagnostic necessity or radiation dose justification for complex cases. By seeking expert consultation, the radiographer ensures that any deviation from the initial protocol is medically justified, ethically sound, and compliant with regulatory guidelines that mandate appropriate supervision and decision-making for radiation procedures. This collaborative process also allows for a thorough review of the clinical indication and potential alternative imaging techniques, if any, that might achieve the diagnostic goal with less radiation. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with the higher radiation dose without seeking further consultation, assuming the diagnostic benefit outweighs the risk. This fails to uphold the ALARA principle by not actively seeking ways to minimize dose while achieving the diagnostic objective. It also bypasses the established chain of command and expert review, potentially leading to unnecessary radiation exposure and a breach of professional responsibility. Another incorrect approach would be to terminate the scan and refuse to proceed with the higher dose, citing only the initial protocol and ALARA principle without considering the clinical necessity of the unexpected finding. This could compromise patient care by withholding potentially vital diagnostic information and demonstrates a rigid adherence to protocol that does not account for the dynamic nature of medical imaging and patient needs. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to unilaterally increase the dose significantly beyond what is strictly necessary, even if justified by the finding, without proper documentation or consultation. This demonstrates a lack of adherence to dose management protocols and could lead to an unacceptable radiation burden for the patient, violating the core tenets of radiation safety. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety and diagnostic efficacy. This involves a continuous assessment of the situation, adherence to established protocols, proactive communication with supervisors and colleagues, and a commitment to the ALARA principle. When faced with unexpected findings or situations that necessitate deviation from standard procedures, the framework should guide the professional to seek expert advice, document all decisions and justifications thoroughly, and ensure that any action taken is in the best interest of the patient while remaining within regulatory and ethical boundaries.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between the immediate need for efficient data management and the paramount importance of adhering to regulatory requirements for patient safety and data integrity. The pressure to implement a new informatics system quickly, coupled with the potential for cost savings, can create a temptation to bypass or minimize crucial accreditation and compliance steps. Navigating this requires a deep understanding of the regulatory landscape, ethical obligations to patients, and the long-term implications of non-compliance. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves prioritizing the comprehensive review and validation of the new informatics system against all relevant regulatory standards and accreditation requirements *before* full integration and data migration. This means ensuring the system’s design, security features, data handling protocols, and audit trails meet or exceed the standards set by the Caribbean Radiation Dose Management Licensure Examination framework. This proactive stance guarantees that patient data is managed compliantly from the outset, minimizing the risk of regulatory violations, data breaches, and compromised patient care. It aligns with the ethical imperative to protect patient privacy and ensure the accuracy of radiation dose records, which are critical for ongoing patient management and regulatory oversight. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Implementing the new system immediately and addressing potential compliance gaps retrospectively is professionally unacceptable. This approach creates significant regulatory risk. It violates the principle of “compliance by design,” where regulatory adherence should be built into systems from their inception. Such a retrospective approach could lead to the discovery of critical non-compliance issues after patient data has already been migrated, necessitating costly and disruptive remediation efforts, and potentially exposing the facility to penalties or loss of licensure. Prioritizing cost savings and operational efficiency over a thorough regulatory and accreditation review is also professionally unsound. While financial considerations are important, they must never supersede patient safety and regulatory obligations. This approach demonstrates a disregard for the established framework designed to ensure the quality and safety of radiation dose management. It suggests a willingness to gamble with patient data and regulatory standing for short-term financial gain, which is ethically indefensible. Focusing solely on the technical functionality of the informatics system without a parallel assessment of its accreditation readiness and regulatory compliance is incomplete. A system may be technically advanced but still fail to meet the specific data management, security, and reporting requirements mandated by the regulatory body. This oversight can lead to a situation where the system is operational but not compliant, creating the same risks as the other incorrect approaches. Professional Reasoning: Professionals in radiation dose management must adopt a risk-based, compliance-first decision-making framework. This involves: 1) Thoroughly understanding all applicable regulations and accreditation standards. 2) Proactively assessing new technologies and systems against these requirements during the selection and implementation phases. 3) Engaging regulatory and accreditation experts early in the process. 4) Documenting all compliance-related decisions and actions. 5) Establishing robust internal audit processes to ensure ongoing adherence. The goal is always to integrate technology in a manner that enhances patient care and safety while upholding the highest standards of regulatory compliance.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires balancing the integrity of the licensure examination process with empathy for a candidate facing personal hardship. The challenge lies in upholding the established retake policies, which are designed to ensure consistent competency standards, while also considering the individual circumstances that may have impacted a candidate’s performance. Careful judgment is required to avoid compromising the examination’s validity or appearing insensitive to genuine difficulties. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves adhering strictly to the established retake policies as outlined by the Caribbean Radiation Dose Management Authority. This means informing the candidate that the blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies are non-negotiable and that they must follow the standard procedure for retaking the examination, which may include a waiting period or additional fees. This approach is correct because it upholds the principle of fairness and equity for all candidates by applying the same rules consistently. It ensures the integrity of the licensure process, preventing any perception of favoritism or undue influence, and maintains the credibility of the certification. The policies are in place to guarantee that all licensed professionals meet a defined standard of knowledge and competence, and deviations, even for sympathetic reasons, could undermine this objective. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to waive the standard retake fee and allow the candidate to retake the examination immediately without adhering to any prescribed waiting period. This is professionally unacceptable because it bypasses the established policy, potentially creating a precedent for other candidates to seek similar exceptions based on personal circumstances. It undermines the structured nature of the examination and licensing process, which is designed to ensure a consistent level of preparedness. Another incorrect approach would be to offer the candidate a partial refund of the examination fee due to their personal hardship. While seemingly compassionate, this is ethically problematic as it deviates from the established financial policies for examinations and retakes. It could lead to disputes and questions about the fairness of fee structures and the authority’s financial management. Furthermore, it does not address the core issue of ensuring the candidate’s competency, which is the primary purpose of the examination. A further incorrect approach would be to provide the candidate with specific questions or topics that were identified as weaknesses during their previous attempt, outside of the standard feedback mechanisms. This is ethically and professionally unsound as it constitutes providing an unfair advantage. The examination blueprint and scoring are designed to assess a broad range of competencies, and providing targeted assistance beyond general study guidance would compromise the integrity of the assessment and the validity of the licensure. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing similar situations should first consult the official examination handbook and the Caribbean Radiation Dose Management Authority’s policies regarding candidate performance, retakes, and appeals. They should then communicate the established policies clearly and empathetically to the candidate, explaining the rationale behind them. If there are any provisions for exceptional circumstances, these should be followed rigorously and documented. The decision-making process should prioritize fairness, transparency, and the maintenance of professional standards above all else.

The monitoring system demonstrates a consistent pattern of elevated radiation doses to a specific diagnostic imaging department staff member. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate need for diagnostic imaging services with the ethical and regulatory obligation to protect healthcare workers from occupational radiation exposure. The professional must exercise careful judgment to identify the root cause of the elevated doses and implement effective mitigation strategies without compromising patient care or violating established radiation safety protocols. The best approach involves a comprehensive review of the current imaging protocols and the specific workflow of the staff member in question. This includes analyzing the types of procedures performed, the equipment used, the shielding measures in place, and the staff member’s adherence to ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principles. Optimization would then focus on modifying protocols to reduce dose where possible, such as adjusting imaging parameters, utilizing collimation more effectively, or exploring alternative imaging techniques if appropriate and clinically indicated. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the identified problem through a systematic, evidence-based review and optimization process, aligning with the fundamental principles of radiation protection and the ethical duty to safeguard staff well-being. It also adheres to the spirit of regulatory frameworks that mandate dose optimization and monitoring. An incorrect approach would be to immediately restrict the staff member’s access to certain procedures without a thorough investigation. This fails to identify the underlying cause of the elevated doses, potentially leading to unnecessary disruption of services and impacting patient access to care. Ethically, it is premature and punitive without due process. Another incorrect approach would be to solely rely on the staff member to self-correct their practices without providing additional training or modifying existing protocols. While individual responsibility is important, systemic issues within protocols or equipment can contribute significantly to dose, and ignoring these aspects is a failure of institutional responsibility for radiation safety. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to simply increase the frequency of personal dosimetry checks without implementing any changes to protocols or equipment. This is a reactive measure that monitors the problem but does not actively seek to solve it, failing to meet the obligation to optimize radiation protection. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with data analysis (the monitoring system’s readings), moves to root cause identification (protocol and workflow review), then to intervention design (protocol optimization), and finally to implementation and ongoing evaluation. This systematic process ensures that interventions are targeted, effective, and ethically sound, prioritizing both worker safety and the provision of quality patient care.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires balancing the immediate need for licensure with the ethical obligation to ensure adequate preparation and competence. Rushing the process without proper resources can lead to suboptimal patient care and potential breaches of professional standards, even if the individual eventually passes the examination. The pressure to obtain licensure quickly, perhaps due to employment demands or personal ambition, can create a conflict between expediency and thoroughness. Careful judgment is required to navigate these competing pressures while upholding the integrity of the radiation dose management profession. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a structured and realistic approach to candidate preparation, prioritizing comprehensive understanding over speed. This entails allocating sufficient time for dedicated study, utilizing a variety of recognized learning resources, and engaging in practice assessments to gauge readiness. This approach is correct because it directly aligns with the ethical imperative to ensure competence before practicing. Regulatory frameworks governing professional licensure, such as those implicitly understood within the Applied Caribbean Radiation Dose Management Licensure Examination context, emphasize that licensure is a gatekeeping mechanism to protect public safety. Adequate preparation, facilitated by a well-planned timeline and appropriate resources, is fundamental to meeting these standards and demonstrating the necessary knowledge and skills to manage radiation doses safely and effectively. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves relying solely on informal study methods and a compressed timeline, assuming prior knowledge is sufficient. This fails to acknowledge the specific nuances and updated guidelines relevant to radiation dose management licensure. Ethically, this approach risks presenting oneself as competent without having undergone the necessary rigorous preparation, potentially leading to errors in practice and compromising patient safety. It bypasses the structured learning and assessment that the licensure process is designed to ensure. Another incorrect approach is to prioritize passing the examination above all else, focusing only on memorizing testable material without a deep understanding of the underlying principles. This is ethically problematic as it undermines the purpose of licensure, which is to ensure a practitioner can apply knowledge effectively in real-world scenarios, not just pass a test. Regulatory bodies expect practitioners to possess a robust understanding of radiation dose management principles for safe and effective patient care. A third incorrect approach involves neglecting to utilize a diverse range of preparation resources, such as official study guides, reputable textbooks, and practice examinations, opting instead for a single, potentially outdated, or incomplete source. This limits the candidate’s exposure to the breadth of knowledge required and may not adequately prepare them for the scope of the examination. Professionally, this demonstrates a lack of diligence in preparation, which can lead to gaps in knowledge and ultimately compromise the quality of radiation dose management provided. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing licensure preparation should adopt a systematic decision-making process. This involves first understanding the examination’s scope and requirements, then identifying credible and comprehensive preparation resources. Next, they should develop a realistic study timeline that allows for thorough learning and practice, rather than a rushed approach. Regular self-assessment through practice questions and mock exams is crucial to identify areas needing further attention. This iterative process ensures that preparation is not just about passing an exam, but about developing the competence necessary for safe and effective professional practice, thereby upholding ethical obligations and regulatory expectations.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it pits the immediate need for a patient’s diagnostic imaging against the strict adherence to radiation dose management protocols designed for long-term patient safety and regulatory compliance. The radiographer faces pressure from the referring physician and the patient’s discomfort, creating a conflict between expediency and established safety standards. Careful judgment is required to balance these competing demands without compromising patient well-being or regulatory integrity. The best professional approach involves prioritizing patient safety and regulatory compliance by adhering strictly to the established ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle and the facility’s radiation dose management protocols. This means performing the imaging procedure using the lowest effective radiation dose that can produce the required diagnostic information, even if it requires slightly more time or a minor adjustment to the protocol. This approach is correct because it directly upholds the core ethical duty of ‘do no harm’ and aligns with the fundamental principles of radiation protection mandated by regulatory bodies. It ensures that the patient receives necessary diagnostic information while minimizing potential long-term risks associated with radiation exposure, thereby maintaining professional integrity and fulfilling legal obligations. An incorrect approach would be to bypass established dose management protocols to expedite the procedure, perhaps by increasing the radiation output without proper justification or by omitting necessary shielding. This is ethically and regulatorily unacceptable because it directly violates the ALARA principle and the specific dose limits set by the regulatory framework. Such an action exposes the patient to unnecessary radiation, increasing their risk of stochastic effects without a clear clinical benefit, and constitutes a breach of professional responsibility and regulatory requirements. Another incorrect approach would be to refuse to perform the imaging altogether due to minor protocol deviations, without seeking appropriate consultation or exploring alternative solutions. While caution is important, an outright refusal without attempting to find a safe and compliant solution can be detrimental to patient care. This approach fails to uphold the professional duty to provide necessary medical services within safe parameters and may indicate a lack of problem-solving skills in navigating complex clinical situations. A third incorrect approach would be to proceed with the imaging using a higher dose than necessary, based solely on the referring physician’s request for expediency, without independently verifying the clinical justification for deviating from standard dose management. This is ethically flawed as it places undue trust in a potentially misinformed request and abdicates the radiographer’s responsibility to advocate for the patient’s radiation safety. It also represents a failure to adhere to regulatory guidelines that require independent professional judgment in dose management. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough understanding of the patient’s clinical need and the relevant radiation dose management protocols. When faced with a conflict, the first step is to consult the established protocols and seek clarification from a senior radiographer, radiation safety officer, or the referring physician regarding any perceived discrepancies or urgent needs. If a deviation is deemed necessary, it must be clinically justified, documented, and performed using the lowest possible dose that achieves the diagnostic objective, always prioritizing patient safety and regulatory compliance.