Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the need for immediate action to address identified quality gaps with the imperative to follow established protocols for program evaluation and improvement. Rushing to implement changes without proper analysis or stakeholder consultation can lead to ineffective interventions, wasted resources, and a breakdown of trust within the wellness team and with participants. Careful judgment is required to ensure that improvements are data-driven, sustainable, and aligned with the overall goals of the wellness initiative. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic approach to continuous quality improvement. This begins with a thorough review of the audit findings to understand the root causes of the identified issues. Following this, a collaborative process with the wellness team and relevant stakeholders to brainstorm and prioritize potential solutions is crucial. Developing a clear action plan with measurable objectives, assigning responsibilities, and establishing a timeline for implementation and subsequent evaluation ensures that changes are implemented effectively and their impact can be assessed. This approach aligns with the principles of evidence-based practice and ethical program management, ensuring that interventions are both effective and responsible. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Implementing immediate, unvetted changes based solely on the audit’s surface-level findings without understanding the underlying causes is professionally unacceptable. This approach risks addressing symptoms rather than the root problems, potentially leading to ineffective or even detrimental interventions. It bypasses the critical step of root cause analysis and collaborative problem-solving, which are essential for sustainable quality improvement. Focusing solely on participant feedback without considering the broader operational or strategic context of the wellness initiative is also professionally unsound. While participant input is valuable, it needs to be integrated with other data sources and organizational goals to ensure that proposed changes are feasible and contribute to the overall effectiveness of the program. This approach neglects the systemic factors that may contribute to quality issues. Escalating the findings to senior management without attempting to collaboratively develop and implement solutions internally is premature and undermines the autonomy and problem-solving capacity of the wellness team. While escalation may be necessary at later stages, it should not be the first step in a continuous quality improvement cycle. This approach can foster a culture of blame rather than a culture of shared responsibility and improvement. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach continuous quality improvement by adopting a structured, data-driven, and collaborative methodology. This involves: 1) Acknowledging and thoroughly analyzing audit findings to identify root causes. 2) Engaging the wellness team and stakeholders in a collaborative process to generate and evaluate potential solutions. 3) Developing a detailed action plan with clear objectives, responsibilities, and timelines. 4) Implementing the plan and establishing mechanisms for ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure effectiveness and facilitate further refinement. This iterative process ensures that wellness initiatives are responsive to feedback, evidence-based, and continuously optimized for participant benefit and organizational success.

The evaluation methodology shows that assessing an individual’s well-being requires a holistic perspective, acknowledging the interconnectedness of various wellness dimensions. This scenario is professionally challenging because it presents a client whose presenting issues appear to stem from a single dimension, potentially leading to a narrow and ineffective intervention. The practitioner must resist the urge to focus solely on the most obvious symptom and instead conduct a thorough assessment across all recognized dimensions of wellness. Careful judgment is required to identify underlying or contributing factors that may reside in other dimensions. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive assessment that systematically explores each of the seven dimensions of wellness: physical, emotional, social, intellectual, spiritual, occupational, and environmental. This approach is correct because it aligns with the foundational principles of holistic wellness practice, which emphasizes understanding the client as a whole person. By gathering information across all dimensions, the practitioner can identify the root causes of the client’s distress, which may be multifaceted. This comprehensive understanding allows for the development of a more effective, personalized, and sustainable wellness plan that addresses all contributing factors, thereby promoting genuine and lasting well-being. This aligns with ethical guidelines that mandate client-centered care and the pursuit of optimal well-being through evidence-based and comprehensive practices. An approach that focuses exclusively on the client’s stated physical complaints, such as sleep disturbances, without exploring other dimensions, is professionally unacceptable. This narrow focus fails to acknowledge that physical symptoms can often be manifestations of underlying emotional, occupational, or environmental stressors. Such an approach risks providing superficial solutions that do not address the core issues, leading to a lack of progress and potential client dissatisfaction. It also violates the ethical principle of providing competent and comprehensive care. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to immediately recommend a generic stress-management program without a thorough assessment. While stress management can be beneficial, its effectiveness is contingent on understanding the specific sources and dimensions of stress impacting the client. Without this understanding, the program may be misaligned with the client’s actual needs, rendering it ineffective and potentially frustrating for the client. This demonstrates a lack of individualized assessment and care. Finally, an approach that prioritizes only the client’s immediate emotional distress and overlooks other dimensions, such as their occupational satisfaction or environmental living conditions, is also flawed. Emotional well-being is deeply intertwined with other aspects of life. Ignoring these connections can lead to incomplete interventions that do not foster long-term resilience or address the systemic factors contributing to the client’s overall wellness. The professional reasoning process for similar situations should begin with a commitment to a comprehensive, multi-dimensional assessment. This involves actively listening to the client’s presenting concerns while simultaneously employing a structured framework to explore each wellness dimension. The practitioner should utilize open-ended questions, active listening techniques, and potentially validated assessment tools to gather information across physical, emotional, social, intellectual, spiritual, occupational, and environmental domains. The next step is to synthesize this information to identify patterns, interconnections, and potential root causes. Based on this holistic understanding, the practitioner can then collaboratively develop a personalized wellness plan with the client, prioritizing interventions that address the most impactful dimensions while acknowledging the interconnectedness of all. Regular review and adjustment of the plan based on client feedback and progress are also crucial components of effective professional practice.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate needs of a specific community group with broader public health objectives and resource allocation. The practitioner must navigate potential conflicts between targeted interventions and universal access, ensuring that efforts are both effective and equitable. Careful judgment is required to avoid unintended consequences, such as stigmatization or the neglect of other vulnerable populations. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive, evidence-based strategy that integrates community-specific wellness initiatives within the broader public health framework. This approach prioritizes data collection and analysis to identify the most pressing needs and effective interventions for the target demographic, while also considering how these efforts contribute to overall community well-being and align with established public health goals. It emphasizes collaboration with local stakeholders and public health agencies to ensure sustainability and broad impact. This aligns with the principles of public health practice which advocate for population-level interventions informed by community-specific data and integrated into existing health systems. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves focusing solely on the immediate, perceived needs of the specific community group without considering their integration into wider public health strategies or their alignment with evidence-based practices. This can lead to fragmented efforts, duplication of services, and a failure to address underlying systemic issues that contribute to health disparities. It may also overlook the needs of other equally or more vulnerable populations. Another incorrect approach is to implement generic wellness programs without tailoring them to the unique cultural, social, and economic context of the community. This can result in low engagement, ineffectiveness, and wasted resources. Public health principles dictate that interventions must be culturally sensitive and responsive to the specific needs and preferences of the target population. A third incorrect approach is to prioritize interventions based on anecdotal evidence or personal opinions rather than robust data and established public health research. This can lead to the implementation of ineffective or even harmful programs, diverting resources from proven strategies and failing to achieve meaningful public health outcomes. Ethical considerations in public health demand that interventions be grounded in scientific evidence and best practices. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with a thorough needs assessment, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data. This should be followed by a review of existing public health literature and best practices relevant to the identified needs. Collaboration with community members and stakeholders is crucial to ensure that proposed interventions are culturally appropriate and feasible. Finally, interventions should be designed with clear objectives, measurable outcomes, and a plan for ongoing evaluation and adaptation, ensuring alignment with broader public health goals and ethical principles of equity and effectiveness.

The audit findings indicate a potential gap in the Certified Wellness Practitioner’s (CWP) understanding of fundamental nutritional principles, specifically concerning macronutrients and micronutrients, as evidenced by their recent client interactions. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the CWP to not only possess accurate knowledge but also to apply it ethically and effectively in client consultations, ensuring that advice is evidence-based and tailored to individual needs without overstepping professional boundaries or making unsubstantiated claims. Careful judgment is required to differentiate between general wellness advice and prescriptive dietary recommendations, which may fall under the purview of registered dietitians or medical professionals. The best professional approach involves the CWP accurately identifying the roles of macronutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, fats) and micronutrients (vitamins, minerals) in overall health and energy metabolism. This understanding should then be applied to provide general, evidence-based guidance on balanced eating patterns that support wellness goals, such as recommending whole foods rich in essential nutrients and explaining the importance of variety. This approach is correct because it aligns with the CWP’s scope of practice, which focuses on promoting healthy lifestyle habits and general wellness, rather than diagnosing or treating medical conditions or providing specific meal plans that require specialized training. Ethical practice dictates that CWPs operate within their competency and refer clients to other professionals when necessary. An incorrect approach would be for the CWP to focus solely on the caloric content of foods without considering the broader nutritional profile and the client’s overall health status. This failure neglects the crucial role of micronutrients in bodily functions beyond energy provision and can lead to an unbalanced dietary perspective. Another incorrect approach would be for the CWP to recommend specific dietary supplements to address perceived nutrient deficiencies without a proper assessment or referral to a qualified healthcare provider. This action oversteps the CWP’s scope of practice and could potentially lead to adverse health outcomes or interactions with existing medical conditions or medications. Furthermore, an incorrect approach would be for the CWP to provide highly specific meal plans or detailed macronutrient ratios for weight loss or muscle gain without consulting current evidence-based guidelines or referring the client to a registered dietitian. This constitutes practicing outside the CWP’s defined professional boundaries and could result in inadequate or harmful dietary advice. Professional decision-making in such situations requires a clear understanding of one’s scope of practice, a commitment to continuous learning and evidence-based information, and a strong ethical framework that prioritizes client safety and well-being. When faced with a client’s complex nutritional needs or concerns that fall outside the CWP’s expertise, the professional decision-making process should involve recognizing the limitation, consulting relevant professional guidelines, and making a timely and appropriate referral to a qualified healthcare professional, such as a registered dietitian or physician.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Certified Wellness Practitioner (CWP) to navigate the ethical and practical considerations of gathering sensitive health information from a client who may have limited understanding or be hesitant to disclose. The CWP must balance the need for comprehensive data to provide effective guidance with the client’s autonomy and privacy. The challenge lies in selecting a method that is both informative and respectful, ensuring the client feels comfortable and empowered throughout the assessment process. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a multi-faceted approach that begins with a detailed, client-centered interview. This method allows the CWP to build rapport, explain the purpose of the assessment, and tailor questions to the individual’s specific concerns and lifestyle. It provides an opportunity for the client to ask questions and feel heard, fostering trust. Following the interview, incorporating a validated food diary or a food frequency questionnaire, with clear instructions and support, allows for objective data collection on dietary habits. This combination respects client autonomy by involving them in the process, ensures data accuracy through direct client input, and aligns with ethical guidelines that prioritize informed consent and client well-being. The CWP’s role is to guide and educate, not to impose. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on a generic, pre-printed questionnaire without an initial interview is professionally unacceptable. This approach fails to build rapport, may not capture the nuances of the client’s diet or lifestyle, and can feel impersonal, potentially leading to incomplete or inaccurate information. It disregards the importance of client-centered care and informed consent. Using only observational methods without client input is also inappropriate, as it lacks the client’s perspective and can lead to misinterpretations of their dietary habits and needs. Furthermore, assuming the client’s dietary knowledge and providing complex, unguided tools like detailed portion-size estimation charts without prior explanation or practice is likely to overwhelm the client and result in unreliable data, failing to meet the professional standard of care. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic yet flexible approach. Begin by establishing a trusting relationship through open communication and active listening. Clearly explain the assessment process, its purpose, and how the information will be used. Prioritize methods that empower the client and respect their privacy. Continuously assess the client’s comfort level and understanding, adapting the approach as needed. Ethical practice demands that the assessment be a collaborative effort, not an interrogation.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Certified Wellness Practitioner (CWP) to navigate the delicate balance between providing effective stress management support and respecting client autonomy and professional boundaries. The client is expressing a desire for immediate relief and is open to various techniques, but the CWP must ensure that any intervention is evidence-based, appropriate for the client’s current state, and delivered within the scope of their practice. Careful judgment is required to select the most suitable approach that prioritizes client well-being and ethical conduct. The best professional approach involves the CWP actively listening to the client’s expressed needs and preferences while also conducting a brief, informal assessment to gauge their readiness and suitability for different techniques. This approach prioritizes a client-centered, collaborative process. By discussing the options, explaining the potential benefits and limitations of each, and allowing the client to co-create a plan, the CWP ensures that the chosen technique is not only effective but also empowering for the client. This aligns with ethical principles of informed consent and client self-determination, ensuring that the client feels heard and respected. The CWP’s role is to guide and educate, not to impose solutions. An incorrect approach would be to immediately recommend and implement a complex meditation technique without first understanding the client’s prior experience or current capacity for focus. This could lead to frustration, a sense of failure for the client, and potentially exacerbate their stress if they feel unable to engage with the practice. It bypasses the crucial step of assessing suitability and could be perceived as a prescriptive, rather than collaborative, intervention. Another incorrect approach would be to suggest a purely passive relaxation technique, such as listening to music, without exploring the client’s active role in managing their stress. While passive relaxation can be beneficial, it may not equip the client with the coping skills they need for long-term stress management. This approach fails to leverage the client’s expressed openness to learning and actively participating in their wellness journey, potentially limiting their empowerment. A further incorrect approach would be to suggest a technique that is outside the CWP’s scope of practice, such as recommending specific pharmaceutical interventions or complex psychological therapies. This would be a clear ethical and regulatory violation, potentially causing harm to the client and jeopardizing the CWP’s professional standing. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a structured approach: 1. Active Listening and Empathy: Fully understand the client’s concerns and emotional state. 2. Needs Assessment: Briefly assess the client’s current capacity, experience, and preferences related to stress management. 3. Collaborative Exploration: Present a range of suitable, evidence-based techniques, explaining their mechanisms and potential benefits. 4. Client-Centered Choice: Empower the client to select the technique that resonates most with them, fostering a sense of ownership. 5. Gradual Implementation and Support: Introduce the chosen technique with clear instructions and offer ongoing support and adjustments as needed. 6. Scope of Practice Adherence: Always operate within the defined boundaries of the CWP role, referring to other professionals when necessary.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Certified Wellness Practitioner (CWP) to navigate the nuanced and often subjective definition of “wellness” while adhering to professional standards and ethical obligations. The client’s personal interpretation of wellness, influenced by their cultural background and individual experiences, may diverge from a universally accepted or clinically recognized understanding. The CWP must balance respecting client autonomy with ensuring that the wellness plan is evidence-informed, safe, and aligned with professional scope of practice, avoiding the promotion of unsubstantiated or potentially harmful practices. Careful judgment is required to differentiate between a client’s personal preferences and a genuine need for support that falls within the CWP’s expertise. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a collaborative approach where the CWP actively listens to the client’s personal definition of wellness, exploring their values, beliefs, and aspirations. This approach acknowledges that wellness is holistic and individualized. The CWP then uses this understanding as a foundation to introduce evidence-based wellness strategies that align with the client’s goals and are within the CWP’s scope of practice. This is ethically sound as it respects client autonomy and promotes self-efficacy, while also ensuring that the interventions are grounded in professional knowledge and ethical guidelines that emphasize client well-being and safety. The CWP acts as a facilitator and educator, empowering the client to make informed choices about their health journey. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately imposing a standardized, scientifically validated definition of wellness onto the client, disregarding their personal narrative and cultural context. This fails to acknowledge the individualized nature of wellness and can alienate the client, leading to disengagement and a lack of trust. It also risks overlooking the client’s unique needs and motivations, potentially leading to an ineffective or inappropriate wellness plan. Another incorrect approach is to uncritically accept the client’s definition of wellness, even if it includes practices that are not evidence-based, potentially harmful, or outside the CWP’s scope of practice. This approach prioritizes client satisfaction over professional responsibility and ethical duty of care. It could lead to the promotion of pseudoscience or unsafe health behaviors, violating the CWP’s obligation to provide competent and ethical guidance. A third incorrect approach is to focus solely on the physical aspects of wellness, neglecting the mental, emotional, social, and spiritual dimensions that are integral to a holistic understanding of well-being. This narrow perspective fails to address the multifaceted nature of wellness and may result in a superficial or incomplete wellness plan that does not truly support the client’s overall health and quality of life. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a client-centered, holistic, and evidence-informed decision-making process. This begins with active listening and empathetic inquiry to understand the client’s perspective, values, and goals. Next, the professional should integrate their own evidence-based knowledge and ethical framework to identify potential areas for support. The process involves a collaborative dialogue to co-create a wellness plan that is both personally meaningful to the client and professionally sound, ensuring safety, efficacy, and alignment with the practitioner’s scope of practice. Regular assessment and adaptation of the plan based on client feedback and progress are also crucial components of ethical and effective practice.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate needs of a community with the long-term sustainability and ethical considerations of a health program. The Certified Wellness Practitioner (CWP) must navigate potential conflicts of interest, ensure equitable access, and adhere to principles of community empowerment and evidence-based practice. Careful judgment is required to select an approach that is both effective and ethically sound. The best approach involves a comprehensive needs assessment, followed by collaborative program design with community stakeholders, and a commitment to ongoing evaluation and adaptation. This method is correct because it prioritizes understanding the community’s specific context, challenges, and existing resources before proposing interventions. Engaging the community in the design process fosters ownership, increases the likelihood of program adoption and sustainability, and ensures that the initiative is culturally relevant and addresses actual needs. This aligns with ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice in public health, and implicitly supports the CWP’s role in promoting well-being through informed and participatory means. An approach that focuses solely on implementing a pre-designed, evidence-based program without significant community input is professionally unacceptable. This fails to acknowledge the unique characteristics of the target community, potentially leading to a program that is irrelevant, inaccessible, or culturally inappropriate. It also bypasses the ethical imperative of community engagement and self-determination. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to prioritize securing external funding over understanding community needs. While funding is crucial for program sustainability, making it the primary driver risks creating a program that serves the interests of funders rather than the community. This can lead to misaligned priorities and a lack of genuine impact, violating the principle of beneficence. Finally, an approach that relies on anecdotal evidence and personal experience to design the initiative, without a systematic needs assessment or consideration of broader public health principles, is also professionally unacceptable. This lacks the rigor required for effective public health interventions and can lead to ineffective or even harmful outcomes, failing to uphold the CWP’s responsibility to provide evidence-informed guidance. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough understanding of the community’s context, needs, and assets. This should be followed by a collaborative process involving stakeholders in program design, implementation, and evaluation. Ethical considerations, including equity, autonomy, and beneficence, should guide every step, ensuring that the initiative is both effective and respectful of the community it serves.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Certified Wellness Practitioner (CWP) to navigate the complex and often nuanced landscape of dietary recommendations while respecting individual client autonomy and avoiding the unauthorized practice of dietetics. The CWP must balance providing helpful, evidence-based guidance with the legal and ethical boundaries of their scope of practice, particularly when dealing with clients who may have specific health conditions or dietary needs that fall outside the CWP’s expertise. Misinterpreting or overstepping these boundaries can lead to client harm and professional repercussions. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves the CWP acting as an educator and facilitator, providing general, evidence-based dietary guidelines that promote overall wellness and healthy eating patterns. This includes empowering clients with knowledge about balanced nutrition, the importance of whole foods, hydration, and mindful eating, all within the scope of general wellness advice. The CWP should then encourage clients to consult with a registered dietitian or healthcare provider for personalized dietary plans, especially if they have specific health concerns, chronic conditions, or require therapeutic diets. This approach respects the CWP’s scope of practice, adheres to ethical principles of client safety and informed consent, and aligns with the understanding that CWPs are not licensed dietitians. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves the CWP developing a detailed, individualized meal plan for the client, including specific portion sizes and macronutrient targets, based on the client’s stated health goals. This crosses the line into the practice of dietetics, which typically requires licensure and specialized training. Providing such a plan without being a registered dietitian is an unauthorized practice and could lead to inappropriate dietary advice, potentially exacerbating existing health issues or creating new ones. Another incorrect approach is for the CWP to recommend specific dietary supplements or restrictive elimination diets to address the client’s perceived nutritional deficiencies or health complaints. While supplements can be part of a wellness strategy, recommending them without proper medical or dietetic assessment and without understanding potential interactions or contraindications is risky. Similarly, suggesting restrictive diets without professional supervision can lead to nutrient deficiencies and disordered eating patterns. This approach oversteps the CWP’s scope and can be detrimental to client health. A third incorrect approach is for the CWP to dismiss the client’s dietary concerns entirely and refuse to offer any guidance, stating that diet is outside their purview. While it is crucial to respect scope of practice, a complete refusal to engage with the topic of diet, even in a general educational capacity, can be unhelpful to the client. A more professional response would involve acknowledging the importance of diet in wellness and offering general, evidence-based information while clearly delineating the boundaries of their expertise and recommending appropriate referrals. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes client safety, ethical conduct, and adherence to regulatory boundaries. This involves: 1) Clearly defining one’s scope of practice and understanding the limitations of one’s qualifications. 2) Educating oneself on general, evidence-based wellness principles, including broad dietary recommendations for healthy populations. 3) Recognizing when a client’s needs extend beyond one’s expertise and having a robust referral network for specialized care (e.g., registered dietitians, medical doctors). 4) Communicating transparently with clients about what services can and cannot be provided, ensuring informed consent. 5) Continuously seeking professional development to stay abreast of best practices and regulatory changes within one’s field.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the Certified Wellness Practitioner (CWP) to navigate a complex interplay of individual health needs, cultural sensitivities, and potential legal/ethical obligations related to dietary advice. Providing accurate, safe, and culturally appropriate guidance while respecting client autonomy and avoiding overstepping professional boundaries is paramount. The CWP must demonstrate a nuanced understanding of how dietary restrictions can impact overall well-being and how to address them without causing harm or offense. The best approach involves a thorough, client-centered assessment that prioritizes safety and informed consent. This includes actively listening to the client’s stated concerns, understanding the specific nature of their allergies and intolerances, and inquiring about their cultural or religious dietary practices. The CWP should then leverage their knowledge to provide evidence-based, general dietary recommendations that accommodate these considerations, emphasizing the importance of consulting with a registered dietitian or medical doctor for personalized medical nutrition therapy, especially for severe allergies or complex intolerances. This approach respects the client’s autonomy, ensures their safety by acknowledging the limits of the CWP’s scope of practice, and upholds ethical standards by providing responsible and informed guidance. An incorrect approach would be to dismiss the client’s concerns about cultural diets, viewing them as secondary to allergies. This fails to recognize the holistic nature of wellness, where cultural and religious practices are integral to an individual’s identity and well-being. Ethically, ignoring these aspects can lead to a breakdown in trust and a failure to provide comprehensive support. Another incorrect approach would be to provide specific meal plans or detailed recipes for managing the client’s allergies and intolerances without proper qualification. This oversteps the CWP’s scope of practice, potentially leading to unsafe dietary advice that could trigger allergic reactions or exacerbate intolerances. Ethically and professionally, this constitutes practicing without appropriate licensure or certification in dietetics and nutrition, risking harm to the client. A further incorrect approach would be to assume that all dietary restrictions are interchangeable and to offer generic advice that doesn’t specifically address the nuances of allergies, intolerances, and cultural diets. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the distinct physiological and psychosocial implications of each type of dietary consideration and can lead to ineffective or even harmful recommendations. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a tiered approach: first, active listening and empathetic understanding of the client’s stated needs and concerns; second, a comprehensive assessment of the client’s health status, including known allergies, intolerances, and relevant cultural/religious practices; third, applying general wellness principles and knowledge to offer safe, evidence-based, and culturally sensitive suggestions; and fourth, clearly defining the boundaries of the CWP’s expertise and making appropriate referrals to registered dietitians, medical doctors, or other specialists when the client’s needs extend beyond the CWP’s scope of practice.