This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the advanced practice rehabilitation nurse to navigate complex ethical considerations and evolving patient needs within the context of limited resources and potential family dynamics. The nurse must balance the patient’s autonomy and right to self-determination with the family’s desire for involvement and the healthcare team’s professional judgment. Careful consideration of the patient’s capacity, the nature of the proposed intervention, and the potential impact on their quality of life is paramount. The best approach involves a comprehensive assessment of the patient’s current cognitive and functional status to determine their capacity to make informed decisions about their rehabilitation goals and treatment plan. This includes engaging in open and honest communication with the patient, exploring their values, preferences, and understanding of their condition and prognosis. If the patient demonstrates capacity, their wishes should be prioritized, with the family involved as supportive participants in the decision-making process, respecting the patient’s autonomy. This aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, as well as advanced practice standards that emphasize patient-centered care and shared decision-making. Rehabilitation nursing competencies require the advanced practitioner to advocate for the patient’s rights and ensure their voice is central to care planning. An incorrect approach would be to unilaterally implement the family’s preferred intensive therapy regimen without a thorough assessment of the patient’s capacity and consent. This disregards the patient’s autonomy and could lead to patient distress, non-adherence, and potentially futile interventions, violating the principle of non-maleficence. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the family’s concerns entirely and proceed solely with the patient’s expressed wishes without adequate exploration of the family’s perspective or potential underlying concerns. While patient autonomy is critical, ignoring the family’s input, especially if they are significant support persons, can create conflict and hinder the collaborative care environment essential for successful rehabilitation. This could also inadvertently overlook important contextual factors that might influence the patient’s well-being. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to defer the decision solely to the medical team without actively involving the patient and family in a shared decision-making process. Advanced practice rehabilitation nurses are expected to lead and facilitate these discussions, ensuring all perspectives are heard and considered, and that the patient’s values are integrated into the plan. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve: 1) Assessing the patient’s capacity to make decisions. 2) Engaging in open communication with the patient to understand their goals, values, and preferences. 3) Collaborating with the family, acknowledging their role and concerns, while respecting patient confidentiality and autonomy. 4) Consulting with the interdisciplinary team to gather diverse professional perspectives. 5) Documenting the decision-making process and the rationale for the chosen course of action.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a nurse to navigate the specific requirements and purpose of a specialized competency assessment without misinterpreting its scope or eligibility criteria. Misunderstanding these aspects can lead to inappropriate application for the assessment, wasting resources and potentially delaying professional development or recognition. Careful judgment is required to align the nurse’s individual circumstances and professional goals with the stated objectives and prerequisites of the Comprehensive Pan-Asia Rehabilitation Nursing Competency Assessment. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough review of the official documentation outlining the purpose and eligibility criteria for the Comprehensive Pan-Asia Rehabilitation Nursing Competency Assessment. This documentation will clearly define who the assessment is designed for (e.g., nurses with specific experience levels, those seeking to specialize in rehabilitation nursing across Pan-Asian regions, or those needing to meet specific professional development mandates) and the prerequisites for participation (e.g., existing nursing qualifications, years of relevant experience, or specific training). By meticulously consulting these guidelines, the nurse can accurately determine if their current professional standing and aspirations align with the assessment’s intent and requirements, ensuring a valid and purposeful application. This approach is correct because it is grounded in adherence to the established framework of the assessment, preventing misapplication and ensuring that the assessment serves its intended purpose of validating specialized competencies within the specified Pan-Asian context. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to assume the assessment is a general professional development tool applicable to any nurse seeking to enhance their skills, without verifying specific eligibility. This fails to acknowledge that specialized assessments often have defined target audiences and prerequisites, and applying without meeting these can lead to rejection or an assessment that does not accurately reflect the nurse’s current competency level or professional goals within the intended scope. Another incorrect approach is to base eligibility solely on anecdotal information or the experiences of colleagues who may have different professional backgrounds or have undertaken the assessment under different circumstances or for different reasons. This reliance on informal channels bypasses the official regulatory framework and can lead to significant misunderstandings about the assessment’s purpose and who it is intended to serve, potentially resulting in an inappropriate application. A further incorrect approach is to believe that simply having a desire to work in rehabilitation nursing in a Pan-Asian setting is sufficient for eligibility, without confirming if this desire is supported by the required qualifications, experience, or specific professional mandates that the assessment is designed to address. This overlooks the structured nature of competency assessments, which are typically tied to demonstrable experience and formal qualifications to ensure a standardized and meaningful evaluation. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic approach when considering specialized competency assessments. This involves: 1) Identifying the specific assessment and its stated objectives. 2) Locating and meticulously reviewing the official guidelines, regulations, and eligibility criteria provided by the assessing body. 3) Honestly evaluating one’s own qualifications, experience, and professional goals against these criteria. 4) Seeking clarification from the official assessment body if any aspect of the guidelines remains unclear. 5) Making an informed decision about application based on a clear understanding of the assessment’s purpose and one’s own suitability.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the nurse to integrate complex pathophysiological understanding with immediate clinical needs, while navigating potential resource limitations and patient variability. The pressure to make timely and effective decisions, especially in a rehabilitation setting where long-term outcomes are paramount, demands a robust and evidence-based approach. Misinterpreting the pathophysiology can lead to inappropriate interventions, delayed recovery, or even iatrogenic harm, underscoring the critical need for accurate assessment and informed decision-making. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic approach that begins with a thorough assessment of the patient’s current presentation, directly linking observed signs and symptoms to underlying pathophysiological processes. This approach prioritizes gathering objective data (e.g., vital signs, neurological status, wound characteristics) and subjective reports (patient’s experience) to form a differential diagnosis of the most likely pathophysiological cause of the observed changes. This is then followed by consulting current, evidence-based rehabilitation guidelines and research specific to the identified pathophysiology. The decision-making process is iterative, involving the formulation of a hypothesis about the pathophysiology, testing it with interventions, and reassessing the patient’s response to refine the diagnosis and treatment plan. This aligns with ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, ensuring interventions are targeted and evidence-based, and professional standards that mandate the application of scientific knowledge to patient care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves relying solely on anecdotal experience or past similar cases without critically evaluating the current patient’s unique presentation against established pathophysiological principles. This fails to acknowledge the inherent variability in disease processes and individual patient responses, potentially leading to the application of outdated or inappropriate interventions. Ethically, this can breach the duty of care by not providing the most current and effective treatment. Another incorrect approach is to immediately implement a standardized rehabilitation protocol without first confirming the underlying pathophysiology driving the patient’s current status. While protocols offer structure, they are most effective when tailored to specific diagnoses. Applying a generic protocol without a clear pathophysiological rationale risks addressing symptoms rather than root causes, potentially delaying or hindering recovery. This can be seen as a failure to apply critical thinking and a deviation from evidence-based practice. A further incorrect approach is to prioritize patient comfort or family requests over a rigorous pathophysiological assessment and evidence-based intervention. While patient-centered care is vital, it must be balanced with clinical expertise and the best available evidence. Ignoring or downplaying significant pathophysiological findings in favour of immediate symptom relief without addressing the underlying cause can lead to long-term complications and is ethically questionable as it may not promote the patient’s overall well-being and recovery. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a clinical reasoning framework that integrates knowledge, experience, and critical thinking. This involves: 1) Recognizing cues from the patient’s presentation. 2) Forming hypotheses about the underlying pathophysiology. 3) Generating and testing interventions based on evidence. 4) Evaluating the patient’s response and refining the plan. This cyclical process ensures that decisions are dynamic, responsive, and grounded in a deep understanding of the patient’s condition and the scientific basis of rehabilitation.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexity of assessing and monitoring rehabilitation needs across diverse age groups, each with unique physiological, psychological, and social considerations. The critical need for accurate diagnostics and ongoing monitoring is paramount to ensure effective and individualized care plans, directly impacting patient outcomes and adherence to professional standards. Careful judgment is required to navigate the nuances of developmental stages and age-related conditions. The best approach involves a comprehensive, age-specific assessment that integrates physiological data, functional status, cognitive abilities, and psychosocial factors. This approach is correct because it aligns with the core principles of holistic patient care and adheres to best practices in rehabilitation nursing, which emphasize individualized treatment plans. Regulatory frameworks and ethical guidelines universally mandate that care be tailored to the patient’s unique needs, developmental stage, and specific condition. This includes utilizing validated assessment tools appropriate for each age group, from infants to the elderly, and establishing clear monitoring parameters to track progress and identify any deviations or complications promptly. This ensures that interventions are evidence-based and responsive to the patient’s evolving condition, promoting optimal recovery and quality of life. An incorrect approach would be to apply a standardized, one-size-fits-all assessment protocol across all age groups. This fails to acknowledge the significant developmental differences and specific health challenges inherent to each life stage, leading to potentially inaccurate diagnoses and ineffective care plans. Ethically, this approach violates the principle of beneficence by not providing care that is truly in the patient’s best interest. Another incorrect approach is to rely solely on subjective patient reporting without objective clinical assessment and monitoring. While patient input is vital, it must be corroborated by objective data. This approach risks overlooking critical physiological changes or functional limitations that the patient may not be aware of or able to articulate, potentially delaying necessary interventions and compromising safety. This contravenes the professional duty of care to conduct thorough and objective evaluations. A further incorrect approach is to focus exclusively on the immediate rehabilitation goals without considering the long-term implications or potential for age-related comorbidities. Rehabilitation is a dynamic process that requires continuous reassessment and adaptation. Neglecting the broader lifespan perspective can lead to short-sighted care plans that may not adequately prepare the patient for future health challenges or support sustained functional independence. This demonstrates a failure to practice comprehensive, forward-thinking nursing care. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough understanding of the patient’s current condition and historical context. This involves systematically gathering data using age-appropriate tools, analyzing this data in conjunction with established clinical guidelines and evidence-based practices, and then formulating an individualized care plan. Continuous monitoring and reassessment are integral to this process, allowing for timely adjustments to the plan based on the patient’s response and evolving needs. Collaboration with the patient, family, and interdisciplinary team is also crucial for ensuring a holistic and effective rehabilitation journey.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the need for consistent competency assessment with the practical realities of professional development and potential individual circumstances. Careful judgment is required to ensure that retake policies are fair, transparent, and aligned with the overarching goal of maintaining high standards in Pan-Asian rehabilitation nursing. The best approach involves a clear, pre-defined retake policy that is communicated to all participants. This policy should outline the number of retake opportunities, the timeframe within which retakes must be completed, and any additional support or remediation offered to candidates who do not initially meet the competency standards. This approach is correct because it establishes a transparent and equitable framework for assessment, ensuring that all nurses are held to the same standards while providing a structured pathway for improvement. It aligns with the principles of fair assessment and professional accountability inherent in competency frameworks. An incorrect approach would be to allow unlimited retakes without any time constraints or structured remediation. This undermines the purpose of a competency assessment by potentially allowing individuals to repeatedly attempt the assessment without demonstrating a genuine grasp of the required skills, thereby compromising patient safety and the integrity of the certification. It also fails to provide a clear benchmark for professional progression. Another incorrect approach would be to implement a punitive policy that severely restricts retakes or imposes significant penalties without offering adequate support. This could discourage nurses from participating in the assessment or lead to undue stress, potentially impacting their performance. It fails to acknowledge that learning is a process and that individuals may require different levels of support to achieve competency. A further incorrect approach would be to make retake policies ambiguous or subject to individual discretion without clear guidelines. This creates an environment of uncertainty and can lead to perceptions of bias or unfairness, eroding trust in the assessment process. It violates the principle of transparency and consistency in evaluation. Professionals should use a decision-making framework that prioritizes fairness, transparency, and the ultimate goal of ensuring competent rehabilitation nursing practice. This involves: 1) understanding the purpose and scope of the competency assessment; 2) consulting relevant guidelines and best practices for assessment design and administration; 3) considering the impact of policies on individual nurses and the profession as a whole; and 4) establishing clear, documented policies that are communicated effectively to all stakeholders.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a nurse to balance the immediate demands of patient care with the long-term goal of professional development and competency assurance, all within a structured assessment framework. The pressure to perform well on the Comprehensive Pan-Asia Rehabilitation Nursing Competency Assessment, while also managing daily clinical responsibilities, necessitates careful planning and resource allocation. The assessment’s focus on Pan-Asian competencies implies a need to understand diverse healthcare contexts and patient populations, adding another layer of complexity. The best approach involves a proactive and structured preparation strategy that integrates learning with practical application, aligning with the principles of continuous professional development and evidence-based practice. This strategy prioritizes understanding the assessment’s scope and objectives, identifying relevant learning resources, and allocating dedicated time for study and practice. It acknowledges that effective preparation is not merely about memorizing facts but about developing a deep understanding of rehabilitation nursing principles within the Pan-Asian context, which is crucial for competent and ethical patient care. This aligns with the ethical imperative to maintain professional competence and provide safe, effective care, as often stipulated by nursing regulatory bodies and professional organizations that emphasize ongoing learning and skill development. An approach that focuses solely on reviewing past patient cases without consulting current guidelines or assessment-specific materials is professionally unsound. This fails to address potential gaps in knowledge regarding evolving best practices or specific competencies tested by the assessment. It also neglects the importance of understanding the Pan-Asian context, which may differ significantly from the nurse’s immediate practice environment. Such an approach risks providing outdated or contextually inappropriate care, potentially violating ethical duties to patients and professional standards. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to rely exclusively on informal peer discussions for preparation. While peer learning can be valuable, it cannot substitute for a systematic review of authoritative resources and assessment-specific content. Informal discussions may be subject to individual biases, inaccuracies, or incomplete information, leading to a superficial understanding of complex topics. This approach fails to meet the rigorous standards expected for a competency assessment and could result in a deficit in essential knowledge and skills, impacting patient safety and quality of care. Furthermore, an approach that postpones preparation until immediately before the assessment is highly risky. This reactive strategy often leads to superficial learning, increased stress, and an inability to adequately absorb and integrate the necessary information. It demonstrates a lack of professional foresight and commitment to thorough preparation, which is essential for demonstrating competence. This can result in a failure to meet the assessment’s requirements and, more importantly, a potential compromise in the quality of care provided to patients due to inadequate preparation. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a systematic assessment of personal knowledge and skill gaps relative to the assessment’s requirements. This should be followed by the development of a realistic and structured study plan that incorporates diverse, authoritative learning resources. Regular self-assessment and practice, along with seeking feedback from mentors or supervisors, are also critical components of effective preparation. This proactive and comprehensive approach ensures that the nurse is not only prepared for the assessment but also equipped to provide high-quality, evidence-based rehabilitation nursing care within the specified Pan-Asian context.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between patient autonomy and the perceived best interests of the patient, complicated by cultural considerations and the potential for misinterpretation of consent. The nurse must navigate these complexities while upholding professional standards of care and respecting the patient’s rights. Careful judgment is required to ensure that interventions are both clinically appropriate and ethically sound, avoiding paternalism while ensuring patient safety. The best approach involves a multi-faceted strategy that prioritizes open communication, cultural sensitivity, and collaborative decision-making. This includes engaging in a detailed discussion with the patient about their understanding of their condition and treatment options, actively seeking to understand their cultural beliefs and how they might influence their healthcare choices, and involving family members in a supportive, non-coercive manner to facilitate shared understanding and decision-making. This approach aligns with ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence, and is supported by professional nursing guidelines that emphasize patient-centered care and culturally competent practice. It ensures that the patient’s voice is central to their care plan, even when there are differing perspectives. An approach that focuses solely on the family’s wishes without adequately exploring the patient’s own understanding and consent is ethically flawed. This risks overriding the patient’s autonomy and may lead to treatment that is not aligned with their personal values or desires, potentially causing distress and undermining trust. It fails to uphold the principle of informed consent, which requires the patient’s voluntary agreement based on adequate information. Another incorrect approach would be to proceed with treatment based on the assumption that the family’s interpretation of the patient’s wishes is definitive, without direct and thorough engagement with the patient themselves. This bypasses the patient’s right to self-determination and can lead to a breach of professional duty of care if the patient’s actual preferences are not met. It also fails to acknowledge the potential for cultural nuances in family dynamics that might not fully represent the individual patient’s wishes. Finally, an approach that dismisses the family’s input entirely and insists on a purely individualistic decision-making process without acknowledging the cultural context could also be problematic. While patient autonomy is paramount, ignoring the significant role of family in many Asian cultures can create barriers to effective communication and care, potentially leading to non-compliance or family distress, which indirectly impacts patient well-being. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with assessing the patient’s capacity and understanding. This is followed by open, empathetic communication, actively listening to the patient’s concerns and preferences. Cultural considerations should be explored respectfully, and family involvement should be facilitated as a supportive element, not a directive one. Documentation of all discussions, assessments, and decisions is crucial.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent risks associated with medication management, particularly in a diverse Pan-Asian context where variations in drug availability, patient demographics, and healthcare system structures can impact safety. The nurse must navigate these complexities while adhering to stringent medication safety protocols and understanding the nuances of prescribing support. Careful judgment is required to ensure patient well-being and prevent adverse events. The best professional practice involves a systematic and collaborative approach to medication reconciliation and safety checks. This includes diligently verifying the patient’s current medication list against prescribed new medications, identifying potential drug-drug interactions, allergies, and contraindications, and actively communicating any concerns with the prescribing physician. This approach is correct because it directly addresses multiple facets of medication safety, aligning with established nursing standards of care and ethical principles of patient advocacy. It prioritizes patient safety by ensuring that all potential risks are identified and mitigated before medication administration, thereby upholding the nurse’s duty of care and adhering to principles of pharmacovigilance. An incorrect approach would be to assume the new prescription is accurate without independent verification, potentially overlooking critical interactions or contraindications. This failure to perform due diligence violates the fundamental nursing responsibility to ensure medication safety and can lead to serious patient harm, contravening ethical obligations to act in the patient’s best interest. Another incorrect approach would be to administer the medication based solely on the patient’s verbal confirmation of their existing regimen, without cross-referencing with documented records. This bypasses essential safety checks and relies on potentially unreliable patient recall, increasing the risk of errors and contravening established protocols for medication administration. A further incorrect approach would be to delay reporting a suspected interaction to the physician, hoping it might resolve on its own or that the patient will not experience adverse effects. This inaction represents a failure to advocate for the patient and a disregard for the principles of proactive risk management in medication safety, potentially exposing the patient to preventable harm. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety through a multi-step process: 1. Thoroughly review the new prescription and compare it with the patient’s existing medication profile, including over-the-counter drugs and supplements. 2. Utilize available resources (e.g., drug interaction checkers, formulary information) to identify potential risks. 3. Engage in open and clear communication with the prescribing physician regarding any identified concerns. 4. Document all findings, communications, and actions taken. 5. Educate the patient about their medications and potential side effects.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a patient’s expressed wishes and the perceived best interests of their recovery, complicated by cultural nuances and the potential for misinterpretation of consent. Navigating this requires a deep understanding of patient autonomy, ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, and the specific regulatory framework governing patient care in the Pan-Asian context, emphasizing informed consent and cultural sensitivity. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive and culturally sensitive discussion with the patient and their family, aiming to understand the underlying reasons for their reluctance to participate in rehabilitation activities. This approach prioritizes shared decision-making, respecting the patient’s autonomy while also fulfilling the nurse’s ethical obligation to promote well-being. By actively listening, providing clear explanations in an understandable language, and addressing concerns with empathy, the nurse can build trust and collaboratively develop a rehabilitation plan that respects the patient’s values and cultural background, thereby ensuring informed consent and maximizing engagement. This aligns with the core principles of patient-centered care and ethical nursing practice prevalent across Pan-Asian healthcare guidelines, which emphasize respect for individual rights and cultural diversity. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with rehabilitation activities without fully understanding the patient’s objections, assuming their reluctance is simply a lack of understanding or a temporary phase. This disregards the principle of informed consent, as true consent requires comprehension and voluntary agreement. Forcing or coercing participation, even with good intentions, violates patient autonomy and can lead to distress and mistrust, undermining the therapeutic relationship. Another incorrect approach is to solely rely on the family’s interpretation of the patient’s wishes without direct, clear communication with the patient themselves, especially if the patient is deemed capable of expressing their preferences. While family involvement is crucial, particularly in certain cultural contexts, the ultimate decision-making authority regarding personal healthcare rests with the individual patient, provided they have the capacity to consent. Failing to engage directly with the patient risks misrepresenting their true desires and can lead to ethical breaches related to patient rights. A further incorrect approach involves dismissing the patient’s concerns as culturally irrelevant or outdated, and proceeding with a standardized rehabilitation protocol. This demonstrates a lack of cultural competence and disrespects the patient’s worldview, which significantly impacts their willingness to engage in care. Ethical nursing practice demands an understanding and integration of cultural factors into care planning. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough assessment of the patient’s understanding, values, and cultural background. This should be followed by open and honest communication, actively seeking to understand barriers to participation. Collaborative goal-setting, where the patient and family are active partners, is essential. If significant discrepancies arise between the patient’s wishes and the healthcare team’s recommendations, a process for mediation or seeking further consultation, potentially involving ethics committees or cultural liaisons, should be initiated to ensure the patient’s rights and well-being are upheld.

This scenario is professionally challenging due to the inherent complexities of resource allocation, patient acuity, and the need to maintain high standards of care within a multidisciplinary team. Effective leadership and communication are paramount to ensuring patient safety and optimal outcomes. The pressure to meet operational demands while upholding ethical and professional responsibilities requires careful judgment and a systematic approach to delegation and interprofessional collaboration. The best approach involves a proactive and collaborative strategy. This entails the nurse leader initiating a direct conversation with the interprofessional team, including the physician, to discuss the patient’s evolving needs and the proposed care plan adjustments. This communication should clearly articulate the rationale for any proposed changes, acknowledge the physician’s expertise, and seek their input and agreement. This aligns with principles of shared decision-making and promotes a unified approach to patient care. Furthermore, it respects the professional boundaries and roles within the team, ensuring that delegation is appropriate and that all members are informed and engaged. This collaborative communication fosters mutual respect and enhances the likelihood of a cohesive and effective care plan, directly addressing the need for clear interprofessional communication and appropriate leadership in delegation. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with implementing significant changes to the care plan without direct, explicit communication and agreement from the physician. This bypasses essential interprofessional dialogue, potentially leading to misunderstandings, conflicting care strategies, and a breakdown in team cohesion. It undermines the physician’s role and responsibility in the patient’s overall medical management and could result in suboptimal or even unsafe patient care. This failure to engage in open communication violates ethical principles of collaboration and professional respect. Another incorrect approach would be for the nurse leader to unilaterally decide to delegate tasks to other nursing staff without first discussing the patient’s complex needs and the rationale for delegation with the physician. While delegation is a key leadership function, it must be informed by a comprehensive understanding of the patient’s condition and the interprofessional plan. Delegating without this crucial interprofessional consultation risks assigning tasks that may not be aligned with the overall medical strategy or that may exceed the scope of practice or competency of the delegated staff, potentially compromising patient safety. This demonstrates a failure in both leadership and interprofessional communication. A final incorrect approach would be to avoid addressing the situation directly and instead rely on informal communication channels or assume the physician will infer the necessary changes. This passive stance fails to provide clear leadership and can lead to delays in care, confusion among team members, and a missed opportunity to ensure the patient receives the most appropriate and timely interventions. It neglects the responsibility to actively manage the care environment and foster effective communication. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes open, direct, and respectful communication with all relevant team members. This involves assessing the situation, identifying potential care gaps or needs, formulating a proposed solution, and then engaging in collaborative discussion to gain consensus and ensure alignment before implementing changes or delegating tasks. This framework emphasizes patient-centered care, interprofessional teamwork, and ethical leadership.