Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common challenge for candidates preparing for a comprehensive qualification: balancing the need for thorough preparation with the practical constraints of time and available resources. The professional challenge lies in guiding candidates towards effective, ethical, and compliant preparation strategies that align with the qualification’s standards without promoting shortcuts or misleading information. Misinformation or inadequate preparation can lead to poor performance, ethical breaches, and ultimately, a failure to meet the qualification’s objectives, impacting patient care and professional integrity. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a structured, evidence-based strategy that prioritizes understanding the qualification’s learning outcomes and recommended resources. This includes actively engaging with official study guides, recommended readings, and practice assessments provided by the awarding body. A realistic timeline should be developed, breaking down the material into manageable study blocks, incorporating regular review sessions, and allowing ample time for practice questions and self-assessment. This method ensures that preparation is comprehensive, aligned with the qualification’s scope, and fosters deep understanding rather than superficial memorization. It adheres to ethical principles of professional development by promoting diligent and honest preparation. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on condensed study notes or summaries from unofficial sources without cross-referencing with official materials is a significant ethical and regulatory failure. These unofficial resources may be outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete, leading to a misunderstanding of the qualification’s requirements and potentially exposing candidates to misinformation. This approach bypasses the structured learning pathway intended by the qualification body and can result in a superficial grasp of complex topics, which is detrimental to safe and effective psychiatric-mental health nursing practice. Focusing exclusively on memorizing answers to past examination papers, if available, without understanding the underlying principles is another professionally unacceptable approach. This method does not foster critical thinking or the ability to apply knowledge in novel situations, which are essential competencies for psychiatric-mental health nurses. It represents a form of academic dishonesty by attempting to circumvent the assessment of genuine understanding. Furthermore, it fails to prepare candidates for the dynamic nature of clinical practice where situations rarely mirror past exam questions precisely. Attempting to cram all study material in the final few weeks before the examination, without a structured timeline or regular review, is also an ineffective and potentially harmful strategy. This approach leads to information overload, poor retention, and increased stress, all of which can negatively impact performance. It demonstrates a lack of professional discipline and foresight, failing to adequately prepare for a qualification that demands a comprehensive and integrated understanding of psychiatric-mental health nursing. This rushed approach can lead to gaps in knowledge that could have serious implications in clinical settings. Professional Reasoning: Professionals preparing for significant qualifications should adopt a systematic and disciplined approach. This involves first thoroughly understanding the qualification’s objectives, syllabus, and recommended preparation materials. Next, they should create a realistic study plan that allocates sufficient time for each topic, incorporates active learning techniques (such as practice questions, case studies, and self-testing), and includes regular review periods. Seeking clarification from official sources or mentors when encountering difficulties is crucial. This methodical process ensures comprehensive preparation, promotes deep learning, and upholds the ethical standards of professional development.

The analysis reveals a common challenge in pan-regional nursing practice: ensuring that qualifications and eligibility align with the diverse regulatory landscapes and professional standards across different jurisdictions. This scenario is professionally challenging because a nurse seeking to practice across multiple regions must navigate potentially differing requirements for initial licensure, continuing education, and specific practice endorsements, all while upholding the highest standards of patient care and professional integrity. Careful judgment is required to avoid misrepresenting one’s qualifications or inadvertently practicing outside the scope permitted by a specific jurisdiction. The best approach involves proactively and meticulously verifying the specific eligibility criteria and application processes for the Comprehensive Pan-Regional Psychiatric-Mental Health Nursing Practice Qualification in each intended region of practice. This includes understanding the purpose of the qualification – to standardize and recognize advanced competencies in psychiatric-mental health nursing across participating regions – and confirming that one’s existing qualifications, experience, and any required supplementary training meet the stated requirements for each jurisdiction. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the core purpose of the qualification by ensuring adherence to the established standards and regulatory frameworks of each region, thereby guaranteeing lawful and ethical practice. It prioritizes accuracy and compliance, minimizing the risk of professional misconduct or legal repercussions. An incorrect approach would be to assume that a qualification recognized in one region automatically confers eligibility in all participating regions without independent verification. This failure stems from a misunderstanding of the principle of jurisdictional sovereignty in professional regulation. Each region retains the authority to set its own standards for practice, and while a pan-regional qualification aims for harmonization, it does not eliminate the need for individual jurisdictional compliance. This can lead to practicing without proper authorization, violating professional conduct codes, and potentially endangering patient safety. Another incorrect approach would be to rely solely on informal assurances or the advice of colleagues regarding eligibility, without consulting official documentation or regulatory bodies. This is ethically unsound as it outsources the responsibility for due diligence and can lead to misinformation. Professional accountability demands that individuals verify information through authoritative sources. This approach risks misinterpreting requirements, leading to an incomplete or invalid application, and ultimately, the inability to practice legally and competently. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to submit an application with incomplete or misleading information, hoping that the reviewing body will overlook discrepancies. This is a direct violation of ethical principles related to honesty and integrity in professional dealings. It undermines the trust placed in healthcare professionals and the regulatory process itself. Such actions can result in severe disciplinary measures, including the revocation of licenses and damage to one’s professional reputation. The professional reasoning process for similar situations should involve a systematic approach: first, clearly identify the specific pan-regional qualification and its stated purpose. Second, research the regulatory bodies and professional organizations responsible for overseeing psychiatric-mental health nursing practice in each target jurisdiction. Third, meticulously review the official eligibility criteria, application procedures, and any required documentation for the qualification in each jurisdiction. Fourth, proactively seek clarification from the relevant regulatory bodies if any aspect of the requirements is unclear. Fifth, gather and prepare all necessary documentation accurately and honestly. Finally, submit applications in accordance with the prescribed timelines and procedures for each jurisdiction, ensuring full compliance.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexity of assessing and diagnosing mental health conditions across diverse age groups, each with unique developmental stages and presentation of symptoms. The requirement for ongoing monitoring further complicates matters, demanding continuous adaptation of assessment tools and strategies to individual needs and evolving clinical presentations. Careful judgment is required to ensure that assessments are not only clinically sound but also ethically and legally compliant, respecting patient autonomy and privacy while adhering to professional standards. The best approach involves a comprehensive, age-appropriate assessment that integrates biological, psychological, and social factors, utilizing validated diagnostic criteria and ongoing monitoring tools tailored to the individual’s developmental stage and presenting concerns. This approach is correct because it aligns with established best practices in psychiatric-mental health nursing, emphasizing a holistic understanding of the patient. Regulatory frameworks and ethical guidelines mandate thorough and individualized care, ensuring that diagnoses are accurate and interventions are effective and safe. Continuous monitoring, as part of this approach, is crucial for tracking treatment efficacy, identifying adverse effects, and adapting care plans as needed, thereby upholding the professional duty of care. An incorrect approach would be to rely solely on standardized questionnaires without considering the individual’s developmental stage or cultural background. This fails to acknowledge that diagnostic criteria and symptom presentation can vary significantly across the lifespan and within different cultural contexts. Ethically, this approach risks misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment, violating the principle of beneficence. Legally, it may fall short of the standard of care expected in psychiatric-mental health nursing. Another incorrect approach is to focus exclusively on symptom reduction without exploring the underlying psychosocial factors contributing to the mental health condition. This neglects the biopsychosocial model of care, which is fundamental to comprehensive mental health assessment and treatment. Ethically, this narrow focus can lead to superficial treatment and a failure to address the root causes of distress, potentially violating the principle of non-maleficence by not providing truly beneficial care. A further incorrect approach would be to discontinue monitoring once initial symptoms appear to improve, without establishing a clear plan for ongoing assessment and relapse prevention. This overlooks the chronic or episodic nature of many mental health conditions and the importance of sustained support and vigilance. Ethically, this can be seen as abandoning the patient once they are no longer in acute distress, failing to uphold the ongoing duty of care and potentially increasing the risk of relapse and negative outcomes. Professional decision-making in such situations requires a systematic process. This includes first gathering comprehensive information through a multi-faceted assessment, considering the patient’s age, developmental stage, presenting symptoms, and psychosocial context. Next, applying appropriate diagnostic criteria and evidence-based practices is essential. Crucially, developing a personalized monitoring plan that accounts for potential changes and individual needs is paramount. Throughout this process, continuous reflection on ethical principles and regulatory requirements ensures that care is both effective and responsible.

The risk matrix shows a high probability of medication errors due to a new electronic health record (EHR) system implementation in a busy psychiatric-mental health unit. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate need for patient safety with the complexities of integrating new technology into established clinical workflows. Nurses are on the front lines of patient care and are directly impacted by system changes, necessitating a proactive and informed approach to mitigate risks. Careful judgment is required to ensure that patient care is not compromised during this transition. The best approach involves actively participating in the EHR system’s testing and validation phases, specifically focusing on medication administration workflows. This includes identifying potential points of failure, reporting discrepancies, and collaborating with IT and pharmacy departments to refine the system before full rollout. This approach is correct because it aligns with professional nursing standards that mandate advocating for patient safety and actively participating in quality improvement initiatives. Regulatory frameworks, such as those guiding nursing practice and healthcare technology adoption, emphasize the importance of a systematic and evidence-based approach to implementing new systems to prevent adverse events. Proactive engagement ensures that the system is user-friendly, accurate, and supports safe medication practices, thereby minimizing the risk of errors. An incorrect approach would be to passively wait for the system to be fully implemented and then report errors as they occur. This fails to meet the professional obligation to anticipate and prevent harm. Ethically, this passive stance could be seen as a dereliction of duty to ensure patient safety. Another incorrect approach is to rely solely on IT to identify and resolve potential medication errors without clinical nursing input. This ignores the unique expertise nurses possess regarding medication administration and patient monitoring, and it violates the principle of interdisciplinary collaboration essential for safe healthcare delivery. Furthermore, assuming the system is flawless without thorough validation before patient use is a significant breach of professional responsibility and regulatory expectations for system implementation. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety, involves proactive risk assessment, and fosters interdisciplinary collaboration. This framework includes understanding the potential impact of new technologies on patient care, actively seeking opportunities for input and validation, and advocating for necessary system modifications to ensure safe and effective practice.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexity of psychiatric-mental health nursing practice, particularly when integrating pathophysiology-informed decision-making. The nurse must navigate the nuanced interplay between biological, psychological, and social factors influencing a patient’s presentation, while also adhering to professional standards and ethical obligations. The difficulty lies in translating complex pathophysiological knowledge into actionable clinical judgments that are both effective and safe for the patient. The best approach involves a systematic and evidence-based process that prioritizes patient safety and well-being. This entails a thorough assessment that considers the patient’s presenting symptoms, medical history, and potential underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. The nurse should then consult current, peer-reviewed literature and established clinical guidelines relevant to the suspected pathophysiology. This information should be synthesized with the individual patient’s presentation to formulate a differential diagnosis and develop a targeted, individualized care plan. This approach is correct because it aligns with the core principles of evidence-based practice, which are fundamental to professional nursing conduct and are implicitly or explicitly mandated by professional nursing standards and ethical codes. These standards emphasize the nurse’s responsibility to provide competent, safe, and individualized care based on the best available knowledge. An incorrect approach would be to rely solely on anecdotal experience or the most commonly observed presentation of a condition without considering the specific pathophysiological nuances of the individual patient. This fails to acknowledge the variability in disease presentation and can lead to misdiagnosis or delayed appropriate treatment, potentially violating the ethical duty to provide competent care and the regulatory requirement for nurses to practice within their scope and to a recognized standard. Another incorrect approach would be to immediately implement a treatment protocol based on a preliminary hypothesis without further investigation or confirmation of the underlying pathophysiology. This bypasses critical diagnostic steps and can result in the administration of inappropriate or even harmful interventions, contravening the ethical principle of non-maleficence and the regulatory expectation for evidence-based practice and patient safety. A further incorrect approach would be to defer all complex pathophysiological interpretations to other disciplines without actively engaging in the critical thinking process. While interdisciplinary collaboration is vital, nurses have a professional responsibility to understand and apply pathophysiological principles to their practice. Abdicating this responsibility can lead to a fragmented care approach and may not fully address the patient’s needs, potentially falling short of the comprehensive care expected within psychiatric-mental health nursing. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive assessment, followed by hypothesis generation informed by pathophysiological knowledge. This hypothesis should then be tested through further assessment, diagnostic reasoning, and consultation with evidence-based resources. The resulting care plan should be individualized, regularly evaluated, and adjusted as needed, always prioritizing patient safety and ethical considerations.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the need for consistent and fair assessment of nursing competency with the practical realities of candidate performance and the integrity of the qualification. Decisions about retakes directly impact a candidate’s career progression and the public’s trust in the qualification’s rigor. Careful judgment is required to ensure policies are applied equitably and ethically, without compromising standards. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a thorough review of the candidate’s performance against the established blueprint weighting and scoring criteria, coupled with a clear, pre-defined retake policy that prioritizes remediation and learning. This approach ensures that the candidate understands the specific areas of weakness identified through objective scoring aligned with the blueprint. The retake policy, when focused on targeted learning and demonstrating mastery of identified gaps, upholds the integrity of the qualification by ensuring that all successful candidates meet the required standards, while also supporting the candidate’s professional development. This aligns with ethical principles of fairness, beneficence (supporting the candidate’s growth), and non-maleficence (ensuring safe practice). Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately denying a retake based solely on a single failed attempt without considering the candidate’s overall performance relative to the blueprint or offering any pathway for improvement. This fails to uphold the principle of beneficence by not providing an opportunity for remediation and can be seen as punitive rather than developmental. It also risks undermining the qualification’s reputation if it is perceived as overly rigid and unsupportive of developing professionals. Another incorrect approach is to allow an unlimited number of retakes without any structured remediation or assessment of learning between attempts. This approach compromises the integrity of the qualification by potentially allowing individuals to pass without demonstrating genuine mastery of the required competencies. It also fails to adequately protect the public, as it does not guarantee that individuals are truly proficient in psychiatric-mental health nursing practice. This deviates from the ethical obligation to ensure competent practitioners. A further incorrect approach is to arbitrarily change the scoring or blueprint weighting for a retake attempt without clear justification or communication to the candidate. This violates principles of fairness and transparency. Candidates must be assessed against consistent, pre-established criteria. Altering these criteria for a retake undermines the validity of the assessment process and erodes trust in the qualification’s fairness. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach decisions regarding qualification assessments and retakes by first grounding themselves in the established regulatory framework and the qualification’s specific policies. This includes understanding the blueprint weighting and scoring mechanisms as the objective basis for assessment. When a candidate does not meet the passing standard, the professional decision-making process should involve: 1) objectively reviewing the candidate’s performance against the blueprint to identify specific areas of deficiency. 2) consulting the established retake policy, prioritizing options that include structured remediation and opportunities for the candidate to demonstrate improved competency. 3) communicating clearly and empathetically with the candidate about their performance and the available pathways for retaking the assessment. 4) ensuring that any retake process is fair, transparent, and upholds the rigorous standards of the qualification, ultimately safeguarding public safety and trust.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a patient’s expressed wishes and the nurse’s ethical and professional responsibility to ensure the patient’s safety and well-being, especially when the patient’s capacity to make informed decisions is in question. Navigating this requires a delicate balance of respecting autonomy while upholding the duty of care, necessitating careful judgment and adherence to established ethical principles and professional standards. The best professional approach involves a systematic assessment of the patient’s capacity to make decisions regarding their mental health treatment. This includes engaging in a thorough conversation with the patient to understand their reasoning, exploring their understanding of their condition and the proposed treatment, and assessing their ability to weigh the risks and benefits. If, after this assessment, the nurse determines the patient lacks capacity, the next step is to consult with the multidisciplinary team, including the patient’s treating psychiatrist, to discuss appropriate legal and ethical pathways for treatment, which may involve seeking consent from a substitute decision-maker or adhering to involuntary treatment provisions if applicable under relevant mental health legislation. This approach prioritizes patient autonomy to the extent possible while ensuring that decisions are made in the patient’s best interest and in accordance with legal and ethical frameworks governing mental health care. An approach that immediately overrides the patient’s wishes without a comprehensive capacity assessment is ethically flawed because it disrespects patient autonomy and can erode trust. Failing to involve the multidisciplinary team in decisions about a patient’s capacity or treatment plan is a significant professional failing, as it bypasses essential collaborative care and expert opinion, potentially leading to suboptimal or inappropriate care. Similarly, proceeding with treatment against a patient’s expressed wishes without a clear determination of incapacity and appropriate legal authorization would constitute a breach of professional conduct and potentially violate the patient’s rights. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a presumption of capacity. When capacity is questioned, a structured assessment process should be initiated, involving open communication with the patient, consideration of their values and beliefs, and consultation with relevant professionals. This framework emphasizes shared decision-making where possible, and a clear, documented process for determining and acting upon a lack of capacity, always prioritizing the patient’s safety and dignity within the legal and ethical boundaries of practice.

The control framework reveals a complex scenario involving a psychiatric-mental health nurse practitioner (PMHNP) supporting a physician in prescribing psychotropic medication. The professional challenge lies in balancing patient autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice within the strict regulatory and ethical boundaries of prescribing support. The PMHNP must navigate potential conflicts of interest, ensure accurate patient assessment, and uphold the highest standards of medication safety, all while operating within their scope of practice and collaborative agreements. Careful judgment is required to avoid errors that could lead to patient harm or regulatory sanctions. The best approach involves the PMHNP meticulously reviewing the patient’s comprehensive psychiatric and medical history, current symptoms, and previous medication responses. This includes consulting with the prescribing physician to discuss the rationale for the proposed medication, potential benefits, risks, and alternative treatment options. The PMHNP should then independently verify the appropriateness of the dosage, potential drug interactions, and contraindications based on current evidence-based guidelines and the patient’s specific profile. This thorough, evidence-based, and collaborative review process directly aligns with the principles of patient-centered care, professional accountability, and the regulatory requirements for safe medication management and prescribing support. It ensures that the decision to prescribe is informed, safe, and in the patient’s best interest, adhering to the duty of care and the standards expected of advanced practice professionals. An incorrect approach would be to simply endorse the physician’s recommendation without independent verification. This fails to uphold the PMHNP’s professional responsibility to ensure medication safety and could lead to prescribing errors if the physician has overlooked critical patient factors or made an inappropriate choice. Such an action would violate the ethical principle of non-maleficence and potentially breach regulatory guidelines that mandate due diligence in medication support. Another unacceptable approach is to proceed with the prescription based solely on the patient’s expressed desire for a specific medication, without a thorough clinical assessment and physician consultation. This prioritizes patient preference over clinical judgment and safety, potentially leading to the prescription of an inappropriate or harmful medication. It disregards the PMHNP’s role in ensuring evidence-based practice and patient well-being, and contravenes ethical obligations to act in the patient’s best medical interest. Finally, relying on outdated or anecdotal information about the medication, rather than consulting current evidence-based guidelines and the prescribing physician, is professionally unsound. This approach risks prescribing a medication that is no longer considered optimal, has known risks that have not been adequately addressed, or is contraindicated for the patient. It demonstrates a failure to maintain professional competence and adhere to contemporary standards of care, thereby jeopardizing patient safety and potentially violating regulatory expectations for informed prescribing support. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with a comprehensive patient assessment, followed by a critical evaluation of the proposed treatment plan in collaboration with the prescribing physician. This process must be grounded in evidence-based practice, ethical principles, and a thorough understanding of the relevant regulatory framework governing prescribing support. Continuous professional development and a commitment to patient safety should guide all decisions.

This scenario presents a professionally challenging situation due to the inherent tension between efficient resource allocation and the ethical imperative to provide safe and effective patient care. The registered nurse (RN) is faced with a delegation decision that could compromise patient outcomes if not handled with utmost care and adherence to professional standards. Careful judgment is required to balance the needs of multiple patients with the competencies of available staff. The best professional approach involves the RN directly assessing the situation and the patient’s needs before delegating tasks. This approach is correct because it upholds the RN’s ultimate accountability for patient care. By personally evaluating the patient requiring the complex wound care, the RN ensures that the delegated task aligns with the available staff member’s skill set and that the patient’s condition is accurately understood. This aligns with professional nursing standards that emphasize the RN’s role in assessment, planning, and evaluation, and the principle of appropriate delegation based on patient acuity and staff competency. It also adheres to the ethical principle of beneficence, ensuring the patient receives the highest standard of care. An incorrect approach would be to delegate the complex wound care solely based on the availability of a nursing assistant without a direct RN assessment of the patient’s needs and the assistant’s specific training and experience in complex wound management. This is professionally unacceptable because it bypasses the RN’s critical assessment role, potentially leading to an inappropriate delegation of a task beyond the assistant’s scope or competence, thereby jeopardizing patient safety and violating the principle of non-maleficence. Another incorrect approach would be to inform the nursing assistant that the wound care is “urgent” and needs to be done immediately without providing specific instructions or confirming the assistant’s ability to perform the complex procedure. This is professionally unacceptable as it places undue pressure on the assistant without ensuring they have the necessary knowledge, skills, or authorization to manage a complex wound, increasing the risk of error and patient harm. It also fails to acknowledge the RN’s responsibility to supervise and support delegated tasks. A further incorrect approach would be to postpone the complex wound care until a more experienced nurse becomes available, even though the patient’s condition may warrant timely intervention. This is professionally unacceptable as it could lead to a delay in necessary treatment, potentially worsening the patient’s condition and violating the principle of timely and appropriate care. While caution is important, outright postponement without exploring all safe delegation options or seeking immediate RN consultation is not ideal. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes patient safety and well-being. This involves: 1) Assessing the patient’s needs and acuity. 2) Identifying the specific tasks required. 3) Evaluating the competencies and scope of practice of available staff. 4) Delegating tasks appropriately, providing clear instructions and supervision. 5) Continuously monitoring the patient and the delegated task. 6) Documenting all assessments, decisions, and actions.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between respecting patient autonomy and ensuring public safety and the continuity of care for a vulnerable population. The nurse must navigate complex ethical considerations, including confidentiality, beneficence, and non-maleficence, within the framework of psychiatric-mental health nursing practice. Careful judgment is required to balance these competing interests. The best professional approach involves a multi-faceted strategy that prioritizes patient well-being while adhering to ethical and legal obligations. This includes a thorough assessment of the patient’s current mental state, understanding the specific risks associated with their condition and potential non-adherence to treatment, and engaging in open, collaborative communication with the patient about their care plan and the importance of follow-up. This approach aligns with the principles of patient-centered care and promotes self-management and recovery. It also respects the patient’s right to privacy while fulfilling the nurse’s duty to advocate for their health and safety. Furthermore, it involves proactive engagement with the patient’s support system, with the patient’s consent, to reinforce the care plan and identify potential barriers to continuity. This collaborative effort ensures that the patient receives comprehensive support and that potential gaps in care are addressed effectively, thereby promoting population health and preventing adverse outcomes. An approach that solely focuses on documenting the patient’s non-compliance without exploring the underlying reasons or offering further support fails to uphold the principle of beneficence. It neglects the nurse’s responsibility to actively assist the patient in overcoming barriers to care and promoting their recovery. This passive approach can lead to a breakdown in the therapeutic relationship and potentially exacerbate the patient’s condition, negatively impacting population health outcomes. Another unacceptable approach would be to immediately breach confidentiality and report the patient’s non-compliance to external agencies without first attempting to engage the patient and explore alternative solutions. While public safety is a consideration, it must be balanced with the patient’s right to privacy and the therapeutic alliance. Such an action, without due diligence, could erode trust and discourage the patient from seeking future care, ultimately harming both the individual and the broader population’s mental health. A third inappropriate approach involves making assumptions about the patient’s capacity to manage their own care based solely on their current presentation, without a comprehensive assessment. This can lead to paternalistic interventions that undermine patient autonomy and may not address the actual needs of the individual, hindering effective population health promotion. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive assessment of the patient’s situation, including their mental state, understanding of their illness, and perceived barriers to care. This should be followed by open and empathetic communication with the patient to collaboratively develop a care plan that respects their autonomy while addressing their health needs. When necessary, consultation with interdisciplinary team members and, with patient consent, engagement with their support network are crucial steps. Ethical guidelines and professional standards of practice should always inform decisions, particularly concerning confidentiality and the duty to protect.