Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a physician to navigate the specific requirements and purpose of the Applied Nordic Geriatric Medicine Proficiency Verification, balancing the needs of a patient with the established criteria for professional recognition. Misunderstanding the purpose or eligibility criteria could lead to inappropriate referrals, wasted resources, or delays in patient care. Careful judgment is required to ensure that the verification process is utilized correctly and ethically. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough understanding of the Applied Nordic Geriatric Medicine Proficiency Verification’s stated purpose and eligibility criteria. This means recognizing that the verification is designed to assess and confirm a physician’s advanced competence in geriatric medicine, specifically within the Nordic context, for purposes such as specialized practice, research, or teaching. Therefore, the physician should consult the official documentation or relevant professional bodies to ascertain if the patient’s condition or the physician’s own qualifications directly align with the stated objectives and prerequisites for undertaking this specific verification. This approach ensures that the verification is pursued for its intended reasons and that the physician meets the necessary foundational requirements. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Pursuing the verification solely because a patient presents with complex geriatric needs, without first confirming personal eligibility or the direct relevance of the verification to the physician’s current practice or career goals, is an incorrect approach. This fails to acknowledge that the verification is a process for assessing existing proficiency, not a treatment pathway for a patient. Another incorrect approach would be to assume the verification is a general accreditation for all geriatric care, ignoring the specific “Nordic” and “Proficiency” aspects, which implies a defined scope and standard. Furthermore, initiating the verification process without understanding its specific purpose, such as assuming it’s a prerequisite for any advanced geriatric role without checking the actual requirements, demonstrates a lack of due diligence and a misunderstanding of its role in professional development and recognition. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach such situations by first identifying the core purpose of any professional verification or accreditation. This involves consulting official guidelines, regulatory bodies, or professional organizations to understand the “what,” “why,” and “who” of the program. A decision-making framework should prioritize aligning personal professional goals and patient care needs with the established criteria of the verification. If the verification is intended for advanced specialization, research, or teaching, and the physician’s current practice or aspirations align with these, then exploring eligibility is appropriate. If the primary driver is a specific patient’s complex needs, the focus should remain on providing optimal care through existing qualifications and resources, rather than using a proficiency verification as a proxy for immediate clinical solutions.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate needs of a patient with the established protocols for diagnostic procedures and the ethical imperative to obtain informed consent. The pressure to act quickly in a potentially deteriorating situation can lead to shortcuts that compromise patient autonomy and regulatory compliance. Careful judgment is required to ensure that all necessary steps are taken, even under time constraints, to uphold patient rights and maintain professional standards. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves clearly communicating the proposed diagnostic procedure, its purpose, potential risks, and benefits to the patient or their legally authorized representative. This communication must be conducted in a manner understandable to the individual, allowing them to ask questions and make an informed decision. This approach is correct because it directly aligns with the fundamental ethical principle of patient autonomy and the legal requirement for informed consent, as mandated by general medical ethics and patient rights legislation. It ensures that the patient’s decision-making capacity is respected and that they are active participants in their care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves proceeding with the diagnostic procedure immediately based on the assumption that it is in the patient’s best interest, without attempting to obtain consent. This fails to respect patient autonomy and violates the principle of informed consent, which is a cornerstone of ethical medical practice. It bypasses the patient’s right to self-determination and could lead to legal repercussions and a breakdown of trust. Another incorrect approach is to delay the procedure significantly while attempting to contact a distant relative who may not be readily available or may not have the most up-to-date understanding of the patient’s wishes. While involving family can be important, it should not unduly compromise necessary medical intervention when the patient themselves, if capable, or an immediate decision-maker is available. This approach can lead to a delay in diagnosis and treatment, potentially worsening the patient’s condition, and may not be the most efficient way to obtain consent in an urgent situation. A further incorrect approach is to proceed with a less invasive but potentially less diagnostic procedure without fully explaining why the more definitive procedure is being recommended and why the less invasive option might be insufficient. This can be considered a form of implied consent for a different intervention than what is truly indicated, potentially misleading the patient or their representative about the scope and limitations of the chosen diagnostic path. It fails to provide a complete picture for informed decision-making. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient autonomy and regulatory compliance. In situations requiring urgent medical attention, the process of obtaining informed consent should be adapted to the circumstances. This means making a diligent effort to communicate clearly and effectively, even under pressure. If the patient is unable to consent, the next step is to identify and consult with the legally authorized surrogate decision-maker. The decision-making process should always be documented thoroughly, including the steps taken to obtain consent and the rationale for any decisions made in urgent circumstances.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge in managing candidate performance and adherence to established assessment protocols within a specialized medical field. The core difficulty lies in balancing the need for rigorous proficiency verification with fairness and transparency in the retake process, while also ensuring the integrity of the overall assessment framework. Mismanagement can lead to perceived unfairness, devalued certification, and potential risks to patient care if unqualified individuals are certified. Careful judgment is required to interpret and apply the blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies consistently and ethically. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough review of the candidate’s performance against the established blueprint weighting and scoring criteria, followed by a clear communication of the results and the specific areas requiring improvement. This approach directly addresses the candidate’s performance in relation to the defined standards of the Applied Nordic Geriatric Medicine Proficiency Verification. The justification for this approach is rooted in the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability inherent in professional certification. The blueprint weighting and scoring are the objective measures of proficiency; therefore, any assessment of performance and subsequent decision regarding retakes must be grounded in these established metrics. This ensures that the retake policy is applied equitably and that the candidate understands the precise reasons for their outcome, enabling targeted remediation. This aligns with the ethical obligation to maintain high standards of medical practice and to provide clear, actionable feedback to candidates. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately granting a retake without a detailed analysis of the candidate’s performance against the blueprint weighting and scoring. This fails to uphold the integrity of the assessment process. The blueprint and scoring are designed to identify specific areas of competence and deficiency. Bypassing this analysis undermines the validity of the certification and suggests that the assessment criteria are not being rigorously applied. It also fails to provide the candidate with the necessary feedback to improve, potentially leading to repeated failures or a false sense of preparedness. Another incorrect approach is to deny a retake solely based on a single, minor deviation from the scoring rubric, without considering the overall performance in the context of the blueprint weighting. This demonstrates a lack of nuanced judgment and an overly rigid interpretation of the scoring system. Professional assessments should allow for some degree of discretion when minor deviations do not fundamentally compromise the candidate’s overall proficiency in critical areas, as defined by the blueprint weighting. This approach risks being punitive rather than developmental and may not accurately reflect the candidate’s ability to practice geriatric medicine competently. A further incorrect approach is to alter the blueprint weighting or scoring criteria for a specific candidate to facilitate a retake. This is a severe ethical breach and fundamentally compromises the standardization and credibility of the entire certification program. The blueprint and scoring are established benchmarks for all candidates. Modifying them for an individual introduces bias, creates an unfair advantage, and devalues the certification for all who have successfully passed under the original criteria. This directly violates principles of fairness and equal opportunity. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach performance reviews and retake decisions by first adhering strictly to the established assessment framework. This involves understanding the blueprint weighting and scoring mechanisms as the definitive measures of proficiency. When a candidate’s performance is reviewed, the focus should be on how their results align with these established criteria. Any decision regarding remediation or retakes must be directly informed by this objective analysis. Professionals should then communicate the findings clearly and transparently to the candidate, outlining specific areas for improvement based on the blueprint and scoring. If a retake is permissible under the policy, the process should be standardized and applied equitably to all candidates. Ethical decision-making in this context requires a commitment to fairness, transparency, and the maintenance of high professional standards, ensuring that the certification process accurately reflects the competence required for safe and effective geriatric medicine practice.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate need for a diagnostic procedure with the ethical and regulatory imperative of obtaining informed consent, especially in a vulnerable geriatric population where capacity may be fluctuating. The urgency of the situation can create pressure to bypass standard consent procedures, but doing so carries significant legal and ethical risks. Careful judgment is required to ensure patient autonomy is respected while also acting in the patient’s best interest. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic approach to assessing and obtaining informed consent. This begins with a thorough evaluation of the patient’s capacity to understand their condition, the proposed procedure, its risks, benefits, and alternatives. If capacity is present, the physician should clearly explain the procedure, answer all questions, and obtain verbal or written consent. If capacity is diminished, the physician must engage with the designated next-of-kin or legal guardian to discuss the situation and obtain consent, ensuring they have all necessary information to make a decision in the patient’s best interest. This approach aligns with fundamental ethical principles of autonomy and beneficence, and regulatory requirements for patient care and consent. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Proceeding with the procedure without attempting to assess the patient’s capacity or involving their next-of-kin if capacity is clearly absent is a significant ethical and regulatory failure. This violates the principle of patient autonomy and the legal requirement for informed consent. It could lead to legal repercussions and a breach of trust. Relying solely on the patient’s daughter’s initial verbal request without a formal assessment of the patient’s capacity or ensuring the daughter is the legally authorized decision-maker is also problematic. While familial involvement is crucial, it must be within a structured framework that respects the patient’s rights and legal mandates regarding surrogate decision-making. Delaying the procedure indefinitely until a formal capacity assessment can be completed, even if the patient’s condition is deteriorating, might not always be the most appropriate course of action if less invasive diagnostic options or a rapid capacity assessment could be performed. However, it is ethically preferable to proceeding without any attempt at consent or capacity evaluation. The key is to find a balance that respects autonomy while ensuring timely and appropriate care. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a tiered approach to consent. First, assess the patient’s capacity. If capacity is present, proceed with direct informed consent. If capacity is diminished, identify the legally authorized surrogate decision-maker and engage them in the consent process, providing them with all necessary information. Document all steps taken, including capacity assessments and discussions with surrogates. In emergency situations where immediate intervention is life-saving and consent cannot be obtained, document the emergency and the rationale for proceeding.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the candidate’s desire for efficient preparation with the need for comprehensive understanding and adherence to the rigorous standards of the Applied Nordic Geriatric Medicine Proficiency Verification. Misjudging the timeline or resources can lead to inadequate preparation, potentially impacting patient care and professional integrity. Careful judgment is required to ensure the candidate is not only passing the exam but truly proficient. The best approach involves a structured, multi-faceted preparation strategy that integrates diverse learning resources with a realistic timeline. This includes dedicating specific blocks of time for theoretical review of core geriatric medicine principles, focusing on evidence-based guidelines relevant to Nordic healthcare systems, and actively engaging with case studies that mirror the complexities of geriatric patient management in the region. Furthermore, incorporating mock examinations and peer discussion groups allows for self-assessment and the identification of knowledge gaps. This method is correct because it aligns with the ethical imperative to provide competent patient care, which necessitates a thorough understanding of the subject matter beyond superficial memorization. It also implicitly adheres to professional development standards that encourage continuous learning and skill enhancement, ensuring the candidate is well-equipped for the demands of the proficiency verification. An approach that relies solely on reviewing past examination papers without understanding the underlying principles is professionally unacceptable. This fails to address the core requirement of demonstrating proficiency, as it encourages rote learning rather than deep comprehension. It also risks overlooking evolving clinical guidelines and research, which are crucial in geriatric medicine. Such a method could lead to outdated knowledge and potentially compromise patient safety, violating the ethical duty of care. Another unacceptable approach is to focus exclusively on a single, highly specialized area of geriatric medicine, neglecting the broader scope of the examination. While specialization is important, the proficiency verification is designed to assess a candidate’s overall competence across various aspects of geriatric care. This narrow focus would leave significant gaps in knowledge, making the candidate ill-prepared to handle the diverse patient presentations encountered in practice and during the examination, thus failing to meet the standards of comprehensive geriatric care. A third professionally unsound approach is to underestimate the time required for preparation, leading to a rushed and superficial review of materials. This haste prevents the assimilation of complex information and the development of critical thinking skills necessary for applying knowledge to clinical scenarios. It prioritizes speed over depth, which is antithetical to the goal of proficiency verification and the ethical commitment to patient well-being. Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes a systematic and comprehensive approach to preparation. This involves: 1) Understanding the examination’s scope and learning objectives. 2) Identifying a range of high-quality, relevant resources, including textbooks, peer-reviewed literature, clinical guidelines, and reputable online modules. 3) Developing a realistic study schedule that allocates sufficient time for each topic, incorporating active learning techniques and regular self-assessment. 4) Seeking opportunities for practical application and discussion, such as case study analysis and peer review. 5) Regularly evaluating progress and adjusting the study plan as needed to address identified weaknesses. This framework ensures that preparation is not merely about passing an exam, but about achieving genuine proficiency and upholding the highest standards of geriatric medical practice.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between respecting patient autonomy and the clinician’s duty of care, particularly when a patient’s capacity to make decisions is in question. The complexity is amplified by the potential for differing interpretations of “best interests” and the need to navigate these sensitive discussions with empathy and adherence to ethical principles. Careful judgment is required to ensure the patient’s rights are upheld while also safeguarding their well-being. The best approach involves a thorough and documented assessment of the patient’s capacity to understand the information relevant to their treatment decision, including the nature of their condition, proposed interventions, alternatives, and the consequences of not receiving treatment. This assessment should be conducted by the treating clinician, ideally with input from other relevant healthcare professionals if capacity is borderline or complex. If capacity is deemed present, the patient’s informed consent, or refusal, must be respected, even if it conflicts with the clinician’s view of what is medically best. This aligns with the fundamental ethical principles of autonomy and beneficence, as well as legal frameworks that mandate informed consent for medical treatment. The process should involve clear communication, allowing the patient ample opportunity to ask questions and express their concerns, ensuring they are not unduly influenced. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with treatment solely based on the clinician’s judgment of the patient’s best interests without a formal capacity assessment, especially when there are doubts. This disregards the patient’s right to self-determination and could constitute a breach of ethical and legal obligations. Another incorrect approach is to assume a lack of capacity based on age or a particular diagnosis without a proper assessment. This is discriminatory and undermines the patient’s dignity and autonomy. Finally, overriding a patient’s clearly expressed wishes, even if the clinician believes it is for their own good, without following established legal and ethical procedures for situations where capacity is lacking or in dispute, is professionally unacceptable. Such actions can lead to a breakdown of trust and potential legal repercussions. Professionals should approach such situations by first prioritizing a comprehensive capacity assessment. If capacity is confirmed, the patient’s informed decision is paramount. If capacity is lacking or in doubt, a structured process involving a multidisciplinary team, consultation with family or designated representatives (where appropriate and legally permissible), and adherence to established guidelines for decision-making in the patient’s best interests should be followed. Transparency, clear documentation, and ongoing communication are crucial throughout the process.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging due to the inherent complexity of diagnosing geriatric conditions, which often present with atypical symptoms and multiple comorbidities. The selection and interpretation of imaging studies require a nuanced understanding of age-related physiological changes and the potential for incidental findings. Balancing diagnostic accuracy with patient well-being, resource utilization, and adherence to established clinical guidelines is paramount. The pressure to provide timely and effective care while minimizing unnecessary interventions necessitates a systematic and evidence-based approach. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive clinical assessment that integrates the patient’s history, physical examination, and existing medical knowledge to formulate a differential diagnosis. This initial assessment guides the judicious selection of imaging modalities, prioritizing those most likely to yield diagnostically relevant information for the suspected conditions. Interpretation of imaging findings must then be contextualized within the patient’s overall clinical picture, considering age-related changes and the likelihood of pathology versus benign variations. This approach aligns with ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence by ensuring that diagnostic efforts are targeted, effective, and minimize patient exposure to unnecessary risks or costs. It also reflects a commitment to evidence-based practice, utilizing diagnostic tools only when clinically indicated. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves ordering a broad range of imaging studies without a clear diagnostic hypothesis, driven by a desire to “rule out everything.” This is professionally unacceptable as it can lead to over-diagnosis, unnecessary patient anxiety, increased healthcare costs, and potential harm from radiation exposure or invasive procedures. It fails to adhere to the principle of proportionality in diagnostic workups. Another incorrect approach is to rely solely on imaging findings without thorough clinical correlation, particularly when interpreting incidental findings. This can lead to misdiagnosis or over-treatment of conditions that are clinically insignificant in the context of the geriatric patient’s overall health status and prognosis. It disregards the holistic nature of geriatric care and the importance of integrating all available clinical data. A further incorrect approach is to delay or omit necessary imaging due to assumptions about the patient’s age or frailty, without a proper clinical justification. This can result in missed diagnoses and delayed treatment, potentially leading to poorer outcomes. It violates the ethical duty to provide appropriate care regardless of age. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic diagnostic reasoning process that begins with a thorough clinical evaluation. This includes active listening to the patient and their caregivers, a detailed review of medical history, and a comprehensive physical examination. Based on this, a prioritized differential diagnosis should be established. Imaging selection should then be guided by this differential diagnosis, choosing the modality that offers the best risk-benefit ratio for answering specific clinical questions. Interpretation of imaging should always be performed in conjunction with the clinical context, and a shared decision-making process with the patient and their family should be utilized when considering further investigations or treatments.

The review process indicates a need to optimize the approach to addressing health disparities in an aging Nordic population. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the principles of population health management, epidemiological data interpretation, and the ethical imperative of health equity within the specific context of geriatric care in a Nordic setting. Professionals must navigate complex social determinants of health, resource allocation, and the unique needs of older adults, ensuring that interventions are both effective and equitable. The best approach involves a comprehensive, data-driven strategy that prioritizes vulnerable subgroups within the aging population. This entails systematically collecting and analyzing disaggregated epidemiological data to identify specific health inequities related to age, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and other relevant factors. Based on this analysis, targeted interventions can be designed and implemented, with a strong emphasis on community engagement and co-creation of solutions with affected populations. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the root causes of health inequity by ensuring that interventions are informed by robust evidence and tailored to the specific needs of those most at risk. It aligns with the ethical principles of justice and fairness, ensuring that all older adults have a reasonable opportunity to achieve their full health potential, regardless of their background or circumstances. Furthermore, it reflects best practices in public health and geriatric medicine by focusing on proactive, evidence-based strategies that promote well-being and reduce preventable health disparities. An approach that relies solely on broad, universal health promotion campaigns without specific targeting fails because it may not reach or effectively engage the most vulnerable older adults. Such a strategy risks perpetuating existing inequities by assuming a one-size-fits-all solution, neglecting the nuanced barriers faced by different subgroups. This is ethically problematic as it does not actively strive for equity. Another incorrect approach involves prioritizing interventions based on the prevalence of disease in the general elderly population without considering the differential impact of those diseases on specific socioeconomic or ethnic groups. This overlooks the epidemiological principle that disease burden is not evenly distributed and can be exacerbated by social determinants of health, leading to inequitable outcomes. Focusing exclusively on individual-level behavioral change interventions without addressing the systemic and environmental factors that contribute to health disparities is also professionally unacceptable. While individual choices are important, they are often constrained by broader social and economic conditions. An approach that ignores these structural determinants fails to achieve true health equity and is therefore ethically insufficient. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough understanding of the epidemiological landscape of aging in the Nordic region, paying close attention to data that can be disaggregated by relevant social determinants. This should be followed by an ethical assessment of potential interventions, considering their impact on health equity and the principles of justice. Community consultation and participatory approaches are crucial to ensure that interventions are culturally appropriate and address the lived experiences of the target populations. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of interventions, with a focus on equity outcomes, are essential for adaptive management and long-term success.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common challenge in geriatric medicine where a patient exhibits symptoms that could stem from multiple underlying conditions, some with significant biomedical underpinnings and others with more direct clinical manifestations. Differentiating between these requires a nuanced understanding of how foundational biomedical sciences inform clinical presentation, especially in an aging population where physiological reserves are diminished and comorbidities are frequent. The professional challenge lies in efficiently and accurately diagnosing the root cause to initiate appropriate and timely treatment, avoiding unnecessary interventions or delays that could negatively impact patient outcomes. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a systematic investigation that begins with a thorough clinical assessment, including a detailed history and physical examination, to identify the most probable diagnoses based on the patient’s presentation. This is then followed by targeted investigations, guided by the initial clinical hypotheses, that integrate foundational biomedical principles. For instance, if cognitive decline is suspected, understanding the neurobiological basis of Alzheimer’s disease or vascular dementia would inform the choice of neuroimaging or cerebrospinal fluid analysis. If fatigue is the primary complaint, investigating potential endocrine imbalances (e.g., thyroid function, vitamin deficiencies) or hematological issues (e.g., anemia) directly applies biomedical knowledge to clinical symptoms. This integrated approach ensures that diagnostic efforts are focused, cost-effective, and directly address the most likely biomedical causes of the clinical presentation, aligning with principles of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to immediately initiate broad-spectrum empirical treatments without a clear diagnostic hypothesis. This bypasses the crucial step of understanding the underlying biomedical mechanisms contributing to the symptoms, potentially leading to ineffective treatment, adverse drug reactions, and a delay in addressing the true pathology. It fails to apply the principles of diagnostic reasoning and can be seen as professionally negligent by not seeking to establish a definitive cause. Another incorrect approach would be to solely rely on advanced, highly specific diagnostic tests without a preceding comprehensive clinical evaluation. This can lead to ordering expensive and potentially invasive investigations that are not indicated by the patient’s presentation, wasting resources and potentially causing patient distress. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of how to efficiently bridge foundational biomedical knowledge with clinical observation to formulate appropriate diagnostic pathways. A further incorrect approach would be to dismiss the symptoms as a normal part of aging without further investigation. This overlooks the potential for treatable underlying biomedical conditions that significantly impact quality of life and functional status. It represents a failure to uphold the professional duty of care and to apply the principles of geriatric medicine, which emphasizes proactive management of age-related changes and associated pathologies. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a diagnostic framework that prioritizes a thorough clinical assessment to generate differential diagnoses. This should be followed by a tiered approach to investigations, starting with simpler, more accessible tests that directly address the most likely biomedical causes identified during the clinical evaluation. The decision-making process should be iterative, with results from each investigation informing the next steps, always keeping the patient’s overall well-being and the integration of biomedical science with clinical presentation at the forefront.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the patient’s autonomy and understanding with the caregiver’s involvement and potential influence, all within the framework of geriatric care where cognitive or physical limitations might affect decision-making capacity. Ensuring that decisions are truly shared, respecting the patient’s wishes while acknowledging the caregiver’s supportive role, is paramount. The best approach involves actively engaging the patient in understanding their condition and treatment options, using clear, accessible language, and explicitly inviting their preferences and concerns. This approach respects the patient’s right to self-determination, a core ethical principle in healthcare. It also aligns with guidelines that emphasize patient-centered care and shared decision-making, ensuring that the patient’s values and goals are at the forefront. By systematically exploring the patient’s understanding and preferences, and then discussing how these align with treatment possibilities, the healthcare professional facilitates a truly collaborative decision. An approach that prioritizes the caregiver’s input without first establishing the patient’s own understanding and preferences fails to uphold the patient’s autonomy. This can lead to decisions that do not reflect the patient’s true wishes, potentially causing distress or suboptimal care. Ethically, this bypasses the fundamental right of the patient to make informed decisions about their own health. Another unacceptable approach is to present a single, predetermined treatment plan to both the patient and caregiver without exploring alternatives or soliciting their input. This is paternalistic and undermines the principle of shared decision-making. It assumes the healthcare professional knows best and neglects the collaborative aspect of care planning, which is crucial for adherence and patient satisfaction. Furthermore, an approach that focuses solely on the medical aspects of the condition, without inquiring about the patient’s or caregiver’s concerns, values, or lifestyle, misses a critical opportunity for shared decision-making. Effective care planning requires understanding the broader context of the patient’s life and how treatment decisions will impact them and their support system. Professionals should employ a structured approach to shared decision-making. This involves: 1) Assessing the patient’s capacity and readiness to participate. 2) Eliciting the patient’s values, preferences, and goals. 3) Providing clear, balanced information about all reasonable options, including the option of no intervention, outlining benefits, harms, and uncertainties. 4) Exploring the patient’s understanding and addressing any misconceptions. 5) Collaboratively deciding on a course of action that aligns with the patient’s preferences and clinical best practice, with appropriate involvement of caregivers as determined by the patient.