Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a candidate to balance the desire for efficient preparation with the need for thorough and compliant engagement with the certification process. Misinterpreting or underestimating the importance of official resources and timelines can lead to wasted effort, missed opportunities, and ultimately, failure to meet the certification requirements. Careful judgment is required to prioritize authentic preparation materials and adhere to the established schedule. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves prioritizing the official Candidate Handbook and the recommended timeline provided by the Critical Global Recreational Therapy Board. This approach is correct because the Candidate Handbook is the definitive source of information regarding eligibility criteria, examination content, application procedures, and preparation resources. Adhering to the recommended timeline ensures that the candidate systematically covers all required material, allows ample time for application submission, and avoids last-minute stress or errors. This aligns with ethical practice by respecting the established certification process and regulatory framework set forth by the Board, ensuring a fair and transparent evaluation for all candidates. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on unofficial study guides and forums without cross-referencing with the official Candidate Handbook is an ethically flawed approach. This can lead to misinformation, outdated content, or a misunderstanding of the examination’s scope, potentially violating the principle of competence and due diligence. Furthermore, attempting to cram all preparation into the final weeks before the application deadline disregards the recommended timeline, increasing the risk of incomplete preparation and a rushed, error-prone application, which undermines the integrity of the certification process. Focusing exclusively on advanced theoretical concepts without ensuring foundational knowledge is covered as outlined in the official resources is also problematic. This approach risks neglecting essential areas of the examination, leading to an incomplete understanding of the field and a failure to meet the Board’s competency standards. Finally, assuming that prior experience alone is sufficient without engaging with the specific preparation resources and timeline demonstrates a lack of respect for the structured certification process and may result in overlooking crucial details required for successful application and examination. Professional Reasoning: Professionals preparing for certification should adopt a systematic and resource-driven approach. This involves: 1. Identifying and thoroughly reviewing all official documentation provided by the certifying body (e.g., Candidate Handbook, study guides, FAQs). 2. Creating a personalized study plan that aligns with the recommended timeline, allocating sufficient time for each topic and for application completion. 3. Prioritizing official resources over unofficial ones, using unofficial materials only as supplementary tools after confirming their accuracy against official sources. 4. Regularly checking for updates or changes to the certification requirements or examination content. 5. Seeking clarification from the certifying body if any aspect of the process or resources is unclear.

The monitoring system demonstrates a client’s progressive decline in motor control and increased reports of pain during recreational therapy sessions. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the therapist to balance the client’s therapeutic goals with their immediate physical well-being and safety. Careful judgment is required to interpret subtle physiological changes and subjective reports, ensuring interventions remain beneficial and do not exacerbate underlying conditions. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive reassessment of the client’s current physical status, including a detailed review of their anatomy, physiology, and applied biomechanics in relation to the observed functional changes. This reassessment should inform a modification of the current treatment plan, prioritizing pain management and functional stabilization before progressing with more demanding activities. This approach is correct because it aligns with ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, ensuring the client’s safety and well-being are paramount. It also adheres to professional standards of practice that mandate ongoing client assessment and adaptive intervention strategies based on evolving client needs and responses. Regulatory frameworks for recreational therapy emphasize client-centered care and evidence-based practice, both of which necessitate this type of thorough, responsive evaluation. An incorrect approach would be to continue with the established treatment plan without modification, assuming the client will adapt or that the symptoms are temporary. This fails to acknowledge the physiological signals of distress and potential harm, violating the principle of non-maleficence. It also disregards the professional obligation to monitor client progress and adjust interventions accordingly, potentially leading to further injury or a negative therapeutic outcome. Another incorrect approach would be to immediately discontinue all therapeutic activities without a thorough assessment and consultation. While safety is important, abrupt cessation without understanding the underlying cause can be detrimental to the client’s overall rehabilitation and engagement. This approach lacks the nuanced clinical reasoning required to differentiate between temporary discomfort and a more serious issue, and it may prematurely halt potentially beneficial interventions. A further incorrect approach would be to solely rely on the client’s self-reporting of pain without correlating it with objective physiological observations and biomechanical assessments. While subjective reports are crucial, they must be integrated with other clinical data to form a complete picture. Ignoring objective signs or overemphasizing subjective reports without clinical correlation can lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment adjustments. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a cyclical approach: continuous assessment, intervention, and re-evaluation. When a client exhibits signs of distress or functional decline, the professional should first pause and conduct a thorough assessment, integrating subjective reports with objective data. Based on this assessment, the intervention plan should be modified to address the immediate concerns, prioritizing safety and comfort. Following the modification, the client’s response must be closely monitored, and the plan should be further adjusted as needed. This iterative process ensures that therapeutic interventions remain aligned with the client’s evolving physiological and functional status.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between client autonomy and the therapist’s professional judgment regarding safety and efficacy. The therapist must navigate the ethical imperative to respect the client’s wishes while also upholding their responsibility to provide safe and appropriate care, potentially intervening when a client’s choices pose a risk or are counterproductive to therapeutic goals. This requires a nuanced understanding of the client’s capacity, the potential impact of their choices, and the boundaries of professional intervention. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a collaborative approach that prioritizes open communication and client education. This entails engaging the client in a discussion about the rationale behind the proposed intervention, exploring their concerns and preferences, and jointly problem-solving to find a mutually agreeable solution. This approach respects client autonomy by valuing their input and fostering shared decision-making. It aligns with ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence by ensuring the client understands the potential benefits and risks, and that interventions are tailored to their needs and preferences, thereby maximizing engagement and therapeutic outcomes. This aligns with the overarching goal of allied health professionals to empower clients within a framework of safe and effective care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves unilaterally overriding the client’s stated preference and proceeding with the therapist’s preferred intervention without thorough discussion or exploration of the client’s reasoning. This fails to respect client autonomy and can lead to decreased engagement, mistrust, and potential non-adherence to treatment. It also neglects the opportunity to understand underlying issues that may be influencing the client’s resistance. Another incorrect approach is to simply accede to the client’s preference without addressing the therapist’s professional concerns about its suitability or potential risks. This could lead to suboptimal therapeutic outcomes or even harm if the client’s chosen activity is genuinely inappropriate or unsafe for their current condition. It represents a failure to exercise professional judgment and uphold the duty of care. A further incorrect approach is to terminate services prematurely due to a disagreement over intervention choice without exploring all avenues for resolution or referral. This can be seen as abandoning the client and failing to meet the professional obligation to provide appropriate care or facilitate a transition to alternative services if necessary. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with active listening and empathic understanding of the client’s perspective. This should be followed by a clear articulation of professional recommendations, grounded in evidence-based practice and an assessment of the client’s needs and capabilities. The next step involves a collaborative dialogue to explore discrepancies, address concerns, and co-create a treatment plan that balances client preferences with professional judgment. If consensus cannot be reached, professionals should consider alternative interventions, seek consultation, or facilitate a referral to another provider, always prioritizing the client’s well-being and therapeutic progress.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent variability in client responses to therapeutic interventions and the ethical imperative to ensure interventions are evidence-based and tailored to individual needs. Recreational therapists must navigate the complexities of selecting appropriate protocols while demonstrating efficacy through objective outcome measures, all within the framework of professional standards and client well-being. Careful judgment is required to balance established best practices with the unique characteristics of each client. The best approach involves a systematic process of selecting therapeutic interventions and protocols that are supported by current research and align with the client’s specific goals, abilities, and preferences. This includes utilizing standardized and validated outcome measures to objectively assess progress and inform ongoing treatment adjustments. This approach is correct because it prioritizes evidence-based practice, client-centered care, and accountability. Adherence to professional ethical codes, such as those promoted by the Global Therapeutic Recreation Association (GTRA) or equivalent professional bodies, mandates the use of interventions with demonstrated efficacy and the objective measurement of client outcomes to ensure the effectiveness and ethical delivery of services. This ensures that interventions are not only theoretically sound but also practically beneficial and justifiable to clients and stakeholders. An incorrect approach would be to rely solely on anecdotal evidence or personal preference when selecting interventions. This fails to meet the professional standard of evidence-based practice, potentially leading to the use of ineffective or even harmful interventions. Ethically, this approach neglects the responsibility to provide the highest quality of care supported by research and can undermine client trust and therapeutic outcomes. Another incorrect approach would be to implement interventions without a clear plan for measuring their impact. This makes it impossible to determine if the therapy is achieving its intended goals or if modifications are needed. Professionally, this demonstrates a lack of accountability and an inability to justify the therapeutic process or its outcomes, which is a failure to adhere to the principles of outcome-oriented practice and professional responsibility. A further incorrect approach would be to select interventions based on the availability of resources rather than the client’s needs and the evidence supporting the intervention’s effectiveness. While resource limitations are a practical consideration, they should not be the primary determinant of therapeutic choice when other, more appropriate, evidence-based options exist. This can lead to suboptimal client care and may violate ethical obligations to prioritize client well-being and effective treatment. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough client assessment, followed by a review of evidence-based interventions relevant to the identified needs and goals. The selection of interventions should then be a collaborative process with the client, considering their preferences and capabilities. Crucially, a robust plan for measuring outcomes using appropriate tools must be integrated from the outset, allowing for continuous evaluation and adaptation of the therapeutic plan. This systematic, evidence-informed, and client-centered approach ensures the delivery of high-quality, ethical, and effective recreational therapy services.

The evaluation methodology shows that assessing eligibility for the Critical Global Recreational Therapy Board Certification requires a nuanced understanding of both professional experience and educational attainment, as defined by the certification’s governing body. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the applicant to navigate potentially ambiguous interpretations of experience equivalencies and to present their qualifications in a manner that aligns precisely with the certification’s stated purpose and eligibility criteria. Careful judgment is required to ensure that all submitted documentation accurately reflects the applicant’s capabilities and meets the rigorous standards set forth for board certification, which aims to establish a benchmark for competent and ethical practice in recreational therapy on a global scale. The approach that best aligns with professional standards involves a comprehensive self-assessment against the explicit eligibility requirements outlined by the Critical Global Recreational Therapy Board Certification. This includes meticulously detailing all relevant educational coursework, ensuring it meets or exceeds the specified academic benchmarks, and clearly articulating the scope and duration of professional experience, demonstrating how it directly contributes to the core competencies expected of a board-certified recreational therapist. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the stated purpose of the certification – to validate a high level of knowledge and skill – and adheres to the eligibility criteria designed to ensure that only qualified individuals achieve this designation. It prioritizes transparency and accuracy in presenting one’s qualifications, thereby respecting the integrity of the certification process. An approach that focuses solely on the number of years of practice without detailing the nature or impact of that practice fails to meet the certification’s purpose. The certification is not merely about longevity in the field but about demonstrated competence and application of advanced recreational therapy principles. This approach is ethically flawed as it misrepresents the applicant’s qualifications by omitting crucial qualitative aspects of their experience, potentially misleading the certification board. Another incorrect approach is to assume that a general license to practice recreational therapy in any jurisdiction automatically fulfills the specific eligibility requirements for this particular board certification. While a license indicates a baseline level of competence, it does not guarantee that the applicant has met the specialized educational or experiential benchmarks set by the Critical Global Recreational Therapy Board Certification. This approach risks overlooking specific curriculum requirements or advanced practice competencies that are integral to the certification’s purpose. Finally, an approach that relies on informal endorsements or anecdotal evidence of competence, rather than documented qualifications and experience, is professionally unsound. The board certification process is designed to be objective and evidence-based. Relying on informal support bypasses the established criteria and undermines the credibility of the certification itself. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough review of the certification’s official documentation, including its mission, purpose, and detailed eligibility criteria. This should be followed by an honest and thorough self-assessment of one’s educational background and professional experience against these specific requirements. When gaps or ambiguities exist, seeking clarification directly from the certifying body is a crucial step. The final application should be a clear, concise, and accurate representation of how the applicant meets all stipulated criteria, prioritizing integrity and adherence to the established standards.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires an individual to navigate the complexities of certification board policies regarding exam performance and the implications for their professional standing and future opportunities. The pressure to achieve certification, coupled with the financial and time investment, can lead to emotional responses that might cloud judgment. Understanding the official policies and acting within their framework is crucial to avoid unintended consequences. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough review of the Critical Global Recreational Therapy Board Certification’s official blueprint, scoring methodology, and retake policies. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the governing rules and guidelines established by the certification body. Adhering to these documented policies ensures that the individual’s actions are compliant, transparent, and fair, aligning with the ethical principles of professional certification which prioritize standardized procedures and objective evaluation. This proactive and informed approach respects the integrity of the certification process. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately contacting the board to request a review of the scoring without first consulting the published retake policies. This fails to respect the established procedural framework. The board’s policies are designed to outline the process for score verification and retakes; bypassing this by making an immediate, unresearched request can be seen as an attempt to circumvent standard procedures, potentially leading to a dismissal of the request or a perception of non-compliance. Another incorrect approach is to assume that a minor discrepancy in perceived performance warrants a special exception to the retake policy. Certification boards operate on standardized criteria to ensure equity for all candidates. Making assumptions or seeking exceptions based on personal interpretation of performance, rather than objective policy, undermines the fairness and consistency of the certification process. This approach disregards the established rules and can be seen as unprofessional. A further incorrect approach is to focus solely on the financial cost of retaking the exam and to delay any action or inquiry until after the official notification period for retakes has passed. While financial considerations are valid, professional responsibility dictates timely engagement with the certification process. Delaying action can lead to missed deadlines for appeals, retakes, or score reviews, thereby forfeiting legitimate avenues for recourse and potentially jeopardizing the certification goal. This approach prioritizes personal financial concerns over adherence to procedural timelines and professional obligations. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing situations involving exam performance and certification policies should adopt a systematic decision-making process. This begins with a comprehensive understanding of all relevant governing documents, including blueprints, scoring rubrics, and retake policies. Next, professionals should objectively assess their performance against these established criteria. If there are grounds for concern or a desire to retake, they should follow the outlined procedures precisely, respecting deadlines and required documentation. Seeking clarification from the certification body through official channels, after reviewing the policies, is appropriate. Maintaining professional integrity and adhering to the established framework are paramount throughout the process.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the recreational therapist to navigate the ethical and practical implications of using diagnostic information obtained through potentially outdated or inappropriate instrumentation for treatment planning. The core challenge lies in ensuring that client care is based on accurate, relevant, and ethically sourced information, while also respecting client autonomy and confidentiality. The therapist must balance the desire to utilize available data with the responsibility to provide evidence-based and safe interventions. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a multi-faceted approach that prioritizes client well-being and evidence-based practice. This includes critically evaluating the diagnostic information obtained from the older instrumentation, considering its limitations and potential for inaccuracy. The therapist should then seek to obtain more current and appropriate diagnostic data, potentially through consultation with other healthcare professionals or by utilizing updated assessment tools, if feasible and ethically permissible within the scope of practice. This approach ensures that treatment plans are grounded in the most reliable and relevant information available, aligning with ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, and professional standards that emphasize competent practice. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves solely relying on the diagnostic information from the older instrumentation without further validation or consideration of its limitations. This fails to uphold the professional responsibility to provide competent care based on current best practices and may lead to ineffective or even harmful interventions if the diagnostic data is inaccurate or incomplete. It also potentially violates ethical guidelines regarding the responsible use of assessment tools. Another incorrect approach is to disregard the existing diagnostic information entirely and proceed with treatment planning without any foundational assessment. This neglects the potential value of the data, however limited, and bypasses the crucial step of understanding the client’s needs and functional status, which is fundamental to effective recreational therapy. This approach could be seen as a failure to conduct a thorough assessment and plan. A third incorrect approach is to share the diagnostic information with the client and their family without first critically evaluating its validity or considering the implications of potentially inaccurate data. This could lead to undue anxiety or misinformed decisions by the client and their family, and it bypasses the therapist’s professional responsibility to interpret and contextualize diagnostic findings. It also raises concerns about client confidentiality and the appropriate dissemination of health information. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with a thorough understanding of the client’s presenting needs and goals. This involves critically evaluating all available assessment data, considering its source, validity, and relevance to the current treatment context. When faced with potentially outdated or questionable instrumentation, the professional should prioritize obtaining the most accurate and up-to-date information possible, consulting with colleagues or supervisors when necessary. Ethical principles, such as beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, should guide all decisions. Professionals must also be aware of and adhere to relevant professional standards and guidelines regarding assessment and treatment planning.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between client autonomy and the therapist’s ethical responsibility to ensure safety and appropriate care, especially when dealing with a client who may be experiencing cognitive impairment or emotional distress affecting their judgment. The need for careful judgment arises from balancing the client’s right to self-determination with the therapist’s duty of care and adherence to professional standards. The best professional approach involves a thorough, multi-faceted assessment that prioritizes gathering comprehensive information before making a decision about the client’s readiness for discharge or continued participation. This approach is correct because it aligns with ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the client’s best interest), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), and respect for autonomy, while also adhering to professional guidelines that mandate evidence-based practice and client-centered care. Specifically, it involves consulting with the interdisciplinary team, reviewing all available assessment data, and engaging in a direct, open conversation with the client about their perceived needs and the therapist’s observations. This collaborative and data-driven method ensures that the decision is informed, ethical, and in the client’s best interest, minimizing the risk of premature discharge or inappropriate continuation of services. An incorrect approach would be to solely rely on the client’s stated desire to leave without further investigation. This fails to acknowledge the therapist’s responsibility to assess the client’s capacity to make such decisions, especially if there are indicators of impaired judgment or risk. Ethically, this bypasses the duty of care and could lead to harm if the client is not truly ready. Another incorrect approach would be to unilaterally decide to discharge the client based on limited information or personal bias, without adequate consultation or client involvement. This violates principles of client-centered care and collaborative decision-making, and may not be supported by the comprehensive assessment required by professional standards. Finally, an approach that focuses solely on administrative expediency or resource limitations, rather than the client’s therapeutic needs and safety, is ethically unsound and professionally unacceptable, as it prioritizes operational concerns over client well-being. The professional reasoning process for similar situations should involve a systematic evaluation: first, identify the core ethical dilemma and relevant professional standards. Second, gather all pertinent information from multiple sources, including the client, other professionals, and available records. Third, analyze this information to assess risks, benefits, and the client’s capacity. Fourth, consult with colleagues or supervisors if the situation is complex or uncertain. Fifth, engage in open and honest communication with the client, explaining observations and recommendations. Finally, document the decision-making process and the rationale thoroughly.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent responsibility of recreational therapists to interpret complex client data and translate it into effective, individualized clinical decisions. The pressure to make timely and accurate judgments, while adhering to ethical standards and professional guidelines, requires a systematic and evidence-based approach. Misinterpreting data or relying on insufficient information can lead to suboptimal client outcomes, potential harm, and breaches of professional responsibility. Careful judgment is required to balance client autonomy, therapeutic goals, and the limitations of available information. The best approach involves a comprehensive review of all available client data, including assessment results, historical information, and client self-reports, to identify patterns and potential areas for intervention. This data should then be critically analyzed in the context of established recreational therapy principles and evidence-based practices. The therapist must consider the client’s stated goals, preferences, and any identified barriers or facilitators to participation. This holistic and analytical process ensures that clinical decisions are informed, client-centered, and aligned with professional standards for practice. This approach prioritizes a thorough understanding of the client’s situation before formulating an intervention plan. An incorrect approach would be to make a clinical decision based solely on a single, recent data point without considering the broader context of the client’s history or other relevant information. This fails to acknowledge the complexity of client needs and can lead to interventions that are not appropriate or effective. Ethically, it neglects the duty to provide competent care based on a comprehensive understanding of the client. Another incorrect approach is to rely heavily on anecdotal evidence or personal intuition without grounding the decision in objective data or established therapeutic models. While intuition can play a role, it must be supported by evidence. This approach risks making biased decisions that do not reflect the client’s actual needs or the most effective therapeutic strategies, potentially violating professional standards of practice. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to implement an intervention without clearly documenting the rationale behind the decision, particularly how the interpreted data informed the choice. This lack of transparency and accountability makes it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention and can hinder collaboration with other professionals. It also fails to meet professional documentation standards, which are crucial for continuity of care and legal protection. The professional reasoning process for similar situations should involve a cyclical approach: data collection and interpretation, hypothesis generation regarding potential interventions, intervention planning and implementation, and ongoing evaluation and adjustment. This iterative process ensures that clinical decisions are dynamic and responsive to client progress and changing needs, always grounded in a thorough understanding of the available data and professional best practices.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate need for client safety and infection prevention with the long-term goal of maintaining high-quality recreational therapy services. The pressure to reduce costs can sometimes lead to compromises that inadvertently increase risks or diminish the effectiveness of interventions. Careful judgment is required to ensure that cost-saving measures do not negatively impact client well-being or violate established professional standards and regulatory requirements. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive risk assessment and the implementation of evidence-based infection control protocols, prioritizing client safety and program integrity. This approach recognizes that while cost-effectiveness is important, it must not come at the expense of client well-being or regulatory compliance. Specifically, it entails a thorough review of current safety and infection prevention procedures, identifying any gaps or areas for improvement based on current best practices and relevant guidelines from professional organizations and regulatory bodies. This includes ensuring adequate training for staff, proper sanitization of equipment and facilities, and appropriate screening for communicable diseases when necessary. The ethical imperative to “do no harm” and the regulatory requirement to provide safe and effective care are paramount. This approach aligns with the principles of quality improvement, which emphasize continuous evaluation and enhancement of services to ensure optimal client outcomes and minimize risks. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves implementing cost-saving measures by reducing the frequency of equipment sanitization and staff training on infection control. This is professionally unacceptable because it directly compromises client safety by increasing the risk of pathogen transmission. It violates the ethical duty to protect clients from harm and fails to meet the implicit and explicit regulatory expectations for maintaining a safe therapeutic environment. Such a reduction in essential safety practices can lead to outbreaks, client illness, and potential legal liabilities, ultimately increasing costs through treatment of infections and reputational damage. Another unacceptable approach is to discontinue the use of certain infection control supplies, such as disposable gloves or hand sanitizers, due to their perceived cost, and instead rely solely on handwashing. While handwashing is a critical component of infection control, it is not always sufficient on its own, especially in a recreational therapy setting where clients may have compromised immune systems or where direct contact with shared equipment is frequent. This approach fails to adhere to comprehensive infection prevention strategies that often require a multi-faceted approach, including the use of appropriate personal protective equipment and readily available sanitizing agents. It disregards established guidelines that recommend a layered approach to infection control, thereby increasing the risk of transmission. A further professionally unsound approach is to delegate infection control responsibilities solely to junior staff without adequate supervision or ongoing training, in an effort to save on senior staff time. This undermines the quality control of infection prevention practices. It is the responsibility of the entire team, led by experienced professionals, to ensure that all safety protocols are consistently and correctly implemented. Without proper oversight and continued education, there is a higher likelihood of errors, inconsistencies, and a general decline in the effectiveness of infection control measures, putting clients at unnecessary risk. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes client safety and regulatory compliance above all else. This involves a proactive approach to risk management, where potential hazards are identified and mitigated before they can impact clients. When considering any changes, especially those related to cost reduction, a thorough impact assessment on safety, infection prevention, and quality of care must be conducted. This assessment should involve consulting relevant professional standards, regulatory guidelines, and evidence-based practices. Furthermore, open communication with the team and stakeholders about potential risks and benefits is crucial. The ultimate decision should always be guided by the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, ensuring that the well-being of clients remains the primary consideration.