This scenario presents a professionally challenging situation due to the inherent uncertainty in synthesizing diverse evidence for complex perioperative decision-making, particularly when patient factors introduce variability. The advanced practice provider must navigate conflicting data, consider individual patient risk profiles, and adhere to established clinical guidelines and ethical principles. Careful judgment is required to ensure patient safety and optimize outcomes. The best professional approach involves a systematic and evidence-based method that prioritizes patient-specific factors. This approach begins with a comprehensive review of the most current, high-quality evidence relevant to the patient’s condition and planned procedure. It then integrates this evidence with a thorough assessment of the individual patient’s comorbidities, physiological status, preferences, and values. Finally, it utilizes a structured decision-making framework, such as a shared decision-making model, to arrive at a personalized perioperative management plan. This aligns with ethical obligations to provide patient-centered care, uphold beneficence and non-maleficence, and respect patient autonomy. Regulatory frameworks often mandate evidence-based practice and patient involvement in care decisions. An incorrect approach would be to rely solely on personal clinical experience or anecdotal evidence without rigorous synthesis of current research. This fails to meet the standard of care expected in advanced practice and can lead to suboptimal or even harmful management decisions. Ethically, it neglects the duty to provide the best possible care informed by the latest scientific knowledge. Another incorrect approach is to rigidly apply generalized guidelines without considering individual patient variability. While guidelines are valuable, they are not a substitute for clinical judgment and personalized assessment. Failure to adapt recommendations to the unique circumstances of a patient can lead to inappropriate interventions or missed opportunities for optimization, potentially violating principles of individualized care and patient safety. A further incorrect approach involves deferring the decision-making entirely to a senior physician without engaging in the critical synthesis and assessment process. While consultation is important, advanced practice providers are expected to exercise their professional judgment and contribute to the decision-making process based on their expertise and the available evidence. Abdicating this responsibility can hinder professional development and potentially delay or compromise patient care. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that emphasizes critical appraisal of evidence, systematic integration of patient-specific data, and collaborative decision-making. This involves: 1) identifying the clinical question, 2) searching for and appraising relevant evidence, 3) synthesizing the evidence with patient factors, 4) developing potential management options, 5) discussing these options with the patient and interdisciplinary team, and 6) implementing and evaluating the chosen plan.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires an advanced practice provider (APP) to navigate the specific eligibility criteria for a specialized certification exam without overstepping professional boundaries or misrepresenting qualifications. Careful judgment is required to ensure adherence to the examination’s stated purpose and to avoid actions that could undermine the integrity of the certification process. The correct approach involves a thorough review of the official examination handbook and direct communication with the examination board to clarify any ambiguities regarding eligibility. This approach is correct because it prioritizes accurate information gathering directly from the authoritative source. The purpose of the Critical North American Perioperative Medicine Advanced Practice Examination is to certify advanced practice providers who have met specific, defined criteria in perioperative medicine. Eligibility is a fundamental prerequisite for examination. By consulting the official documentation and the examination board, the APP ensures they are acting within the established regulatory framework for the certification. This upholds ethical standards by preventing misrepresentation of qualifications and respecting the examination’s integrity. An incorrect approach would be to rely solely on anecdotal evidence from colleagues or to interpret the eligibility criteria in a manner that is not explicitly supported by the official documentation. Relying on colleagues’ interpretations, while well-intentioned, can lead to misunderstandings of nuanced requirements and may not reflect the most current or precise guidelines. This fails to meet the regulatory requirement of demonstrating specific qualifications as defined by the examination board. Interpreting criteria loosely or in a self-serving manner constitutes a misrepresentation of qualifications, which is an ethical failure and a violation of the examination’s purpose to ensure a standardized level of expertise. Another incorrect approach would be to assume eligibility based on general advanced practice experience without verifying specific perioperative medicine requirements. The examination is specialized, and general experience, while valuable, may not fulfill the precise criteria established for this particular certification. This approach fails to acknowledge the specific purpose of the examination, which is to validate advanced knowledge and skills in a defined subspecialty. It bypasses the necessary due diligence required to meet the stated eligibility criteria, potentially leading to an application that is ultimately rejected and a waste of resources. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to proceed with the examination application without fully understanding or meeting all stated eligibility requirements, hoping for a later review or exception. This demonstrates a disregard for the established process and the examination’s purpose. It is an ethical failure to knowingly or negligently submit an application that does not meet the prerequisites. The examination’s purpose is to assess candidates who have already demonstrated a baseline of qualifications, and circumventing this initial screening undermines the validity of the certification. The professional reasoning framework for such situations involves a commitment to transparency, accuracy, and adherence to established guidelines. Professionals should always: 1. Identify the governing body and its regulations/guidelines. 2. Seek out the official documentation outlining requirements. 3. If ambiguity exists, proactively seek clarification from the authoritative source. 4. Act with integrity, ensuring all actions align with stated rules and ethical principles.

This scenario presents a professionally challenging situation due to the inherent uncertainty in diagnosing complex perioperative conditions and the critical need for timely and accurate diagnostic information to guide patient management. The challenge lies in balancing the urgency of the patient’s condition with the need to select the most appropriate and least invasive diagnostic modality, while also considering resource allocation and patient safety. Careful judgment is required to avoid unnecessary delays, inappropriate testing, or potential harm to the patient. The correct approach involves a systematic, evidence-based workflow that prioritizes clinical assessment and judicious selection of imaging based on the most likely differential diagnoses. This begins with a thorough history and physical examination to narrow down potential causes. Subsequently, the choice of imaging modality should be guided by the suspected pathology, considering factors such as sensitivity, specificity, availability, cost, and patient-specific risks (e.g., contrast allergies, radiation exposure). For instance, if acute appendicitis is strongly suspected in a stable patient, an ultrasound might be the initial choice due to its safety profile and availability, followed by CT if the diagnosis remains unclear. This approach aligns with the principles of prudent medical practice and the ethical obligation to provide appropriate care, minimizing unnecessary interventions and costs. It also implicitly adheres to guidelines from professional bodies that advocate for evidence-based diagnostic pathways. An incorrect approach would be to immediately order the most advanced or comprehensive imaging study (e.g., a full-body CT scan) without a clear clinical indication or a reasoned differential diagnosis. This fails to adhere to the principle of diagnostic stewardship, which emphasizes using the least invasive and most cost-effective tests that can adequately answer the clinical question. Such an approach can lead to over-diagnosis, incidental findings requiring further investigation, increased patient radiation exposure, and unnecessary financial burden on the healthcare system. Ethically, it represents a failure to act in the patient’s best interest by not optimizing the diagnostic process. Another incorrect approach is to delay imaging unnecessarily, relying solely on clinical judgment when diagnostic uncertainty persists and the patient’s condition warrants further investigation. This can lead to delayed diagnosis and treatment, potentially worsening patient outcomes. It violates the professional duty to investigate suspected serious conditions promptly and can be considered a breach of the standard of care. Finally, an approach that disregards patient-specific factors, such as comorbidities or allergies, when selecting imaging modalities (e.g., ordering a contrast-enhanced CT without assessing for renal function or contrast allergies) is also professionally unacceptable. This demonstrates a lack of comprehensive patient assessment and can lead to adverse events, highlighting a failure in both clinical judgment and ethical patient care. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a structured approach: 1) Thoroughly gather patient information (history, physical exam, vital signs, laboratory results). 2) Formulate a prioritized differential diagnosis. 3) Identify the specific clinical question that imaging needs to answer. 4) Select the imaging modality with the highest likelihood of answering the question safely, effectively, and efficiently, considering patient factors and available resources. 5) Interpret the findings in the context of the clinical presentation and communicate them clearly. 6) Re-evaluate the diagnosis and management plan based on the imaging results.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge related to understanding and adhering to the examination’s blueprint, scoring, and retake policies. The challenge lies in interpreting the weighting of different blueprint sections and how this impacts preparation and performance, especially when considering the implications of a potential retake. Misunderstanding these policies can lead to inefficient study habits, inaccurate self-assessment, and undue stress regarding examination outcomes. Careful judgment is required to align study efforts with the examination’s stated priorities and to understand the consequences of not meeting the passing threshold. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough review of the official examination blueprint and the detailed policy document outlining scoring and retake procedures. This approach ensures a clear understanding of how different content areas are weighted, the passing score, and the specific conditions and limitations for retaking the examination. This aligns with the ethical obligation of candidates to be fully informed about the examination process and to prepare diligently based on the provided guidelines. Understanding the blueprint weighting directly informs study prioritization, maximizing the efficiency of preparation by focusing on high-yield areas. Knowledge of retake policies manages expectations and clarifies the path forward should the initial attempt be unsuccessful, preventing potential confusion or missteps. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves relying solely on anecdotal advice from colleagues or informal study groups regarding blueprint weighting and retake policies. This is professionally unacceptable because it bypasses the authoritative source of information, which is the official examination documentation. Anecdotal advice can be outdated, inaccurate, or based on individual experiences that do not reflect the current examination structure or policies, leading to misdirected study efforts and a flawed understanding of the examination’s requirements. Another incorrect approach is to assume that all sections of the blueprint are equally weighted and to study all topics with the same intensity, regardless of their stated importance in the blueprint. This is professionally unsound as it ignores the explicit guidance provided by the examination developers regarding the relative emphasis placed on different content areas. Such an approach is inefficient and does not demonstrate a strategic understanding of how to best prepare for the examination, potentially leading to under-preparation in critical areas and over-preparation in less important ones. A further incorrect approach is to disregard the retake policy entirely until after receiving examination results, believing it is a low probability event. This is professionally irresponsible as it demonstrates a lack of foresight and preparedness for all potential outcomes. Understanding the retake policy, including any associated timelines, limitations, or additional requirements, is a crucial part of the examination process. Ignoring it can lead to delays in re-examination, missed opportunities, or a failure to meet specific re-certification requirements, impacting professional standing. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing this situation should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes information gathering from official sources. This involves actively seeking out and meticulously reviewing the examination’s official blueprint, scoring rubric, and retake policy. The framework should then guide the application of this information to strategic study planning, focusing resources on areas with higher weighting as indicated by the blueprint. Finally, the framework should include contingency planning, such as understanding the implications of the retake policy, to ensure a comprehensive and prepared approach to the examination process.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the candidate’s desire for efficient preparation with the need for comprehensive understanding and adherence to established best practices for advanced examinations. The pressure to perform well on a critical, advanced-level exam, especially in a specialized field like perioperative medicine, can lead to shortcuts or suboptimal study strategies. Careful judgment is required to ensure that preparation is effective, sustainable, and aligned with the learning objectives of the examination. The best approach involves a structured, multi-modal preparation strategy that integrates foundational knowledge review with practical application and simulated testing, spread over a recommended timeline. This approach acknowledges that mastery in advanced perioperative medicine requires more than rote memorization; it demands critical thinking, problem-solving, and the ability to synthesize complex information under pressure. Regulatory and ethical considerations in professional examinations emphasize fairness, validity, and the assurance that candidates possess the requisite knowledge and skills. A comprehensive preparation plan, including dedicated time for review, practice questions, and mock exams, directly supports these principles by ensuring the candidate is adequately assessed on their true understanding and readiness, rather than their ability to cram or guess. This method aligns with professional development standards that advocate for continuous learning and thorough assessment. An approach that relies solely on reviewing past exam papers without understanding the underlying principles is professionally unacceptable. This strategy fails to build a robust knowledge base and can lead to superficial learning. It risks a candidate memorizing specific answers without grasping the concepts, which is ethically problematic as it does not guarantee competence. Furthermore, it may not adequately prepare them for novel or slightly altered questions, undermining the validity of the examination. Another unacceptable approach is to focus exclusively on high-yield topics identified by peers, neglecting other essential areas of perioperative medicine. This creates significant knowledge gaps and is ethically unsound. The examination is designed to assess a broad spectrum of competence, and focusing only on perceived “hot topics” can lead to a candidate being unprepared for critical aspects of patient care, potentially jeopardizing patient safety if they were to pass based on incomplete knowledge. This approach also fails to meet the professional obligation to be a well-rounded practitioner. Finally, attempting to cram all preparation into the final weeks before the exam is a flawed strategy. This method is associated with high stress, poor retention, and an increased likelihood of burnout. It does not allow for the deep processing and integration of complex information necessary for advanced practice. Ethically, it is questionable to present oneself for an advanced examination without adequate, well-paced preparation, as it suggests a lack of commitment to the profession and the rigor required for advanced practice. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes understanding over memorization, integrates diverse learning resources, and allocates sufficient time for spaced repetition and practice. This involves setting realistic study goals, breaking down the material into manageable chunks, actively engaging with the content through practice questions and case studies, and seeking feedback on performance. A structured timeline, incorporating regular review and assessment, is crucial for building confidence and ensuring comprehensive mastery.

This scenario is professionally challenging due to the inherent complexity of integrating advanced biomedical science knowledge with direct patient care in a perioperative setting. The advanced practice provider must navigate potential patient-specific physiological responses, drug interactions, and the evolving understanding of disease pathophysiology, all while adhering to established clinical guidelines and ethical principles. Careful judgment is required to balance evidence-based practice with individual patient needs and to anticipate potential complications. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive pre-operative assessment that explicitly integrates the patient’s genetic predisposition for adverse drug reactions with their current physiological status and planned anesthetic agents. This approach is correct because it aligns with the ethical principle of beneficence and non-maleficence by proactively identifying and mitigating potential risks. It also adheres to the professional standard of care, which mandates a thorough patient evaluation before any intervention. Furthermore, it reflects the increasing emphasis on personalized medicine, where understanding individual biological variations is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes and minimizing harm. This proactive integration of genetic information into the clinical decision-making process is a hallmark of advanced practice in modern perioperative medicine. An incorrect approach would be to rely solely on standard pre-operative questionnaires without considering the patient’s known genetic profile for drug metabolism. This fails to meet the standard of care by neglecting a significant factor that could influence drug efficacy and safety. Ethically, it risks causing harm by not taking all reasonable steps to prevent adverse events, potentially violating the principle of non-maleficence. Another incorrect approach would be to administer anesthetic agents based on typical dosing guidelines without any consideration for potential pharmacogenomic variations, even if the patient has a known genetic predisposition. This approach is professionally unacceptable as it ignores critical biomedical information that directly impacts patient safety and treatment effectiveness. It demonstrates a failure to apply advanced scientific knowledge to clinical practice, thereby increasing the risk of adverse drug reactions and suboptimal patient care. A further incorrect approach would be to delay the administration of necessary pre-operative medications until a full genetic workup is completed, even if the patient’s condition is stable and the genetic information is not immediately critical for the planned anesthetic. This approach is inefficient and potentially detrimental, as it can delay essential care without a clear clinical benefit in the immediate perioperative context. While genetic information is valuable, its application must be judicious and aligned with the urgency and nature of the clinical situation. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes a holistic patient assessment. This framework involves: 1) gathering comprehensive patient data, including biomedical history, current physiological status, and relevant genetic information; 2) critically evaluating this data in the context of evidence-based perioperative guidelines and the specific clinical scenario; 3) identifying potential risks and benefits associated with different management strategies; and 4) selecting the most appropriate and individualized plan of care that maximizes patient safety and optimizes outcomes, while continuously reassessing and adapting as needed.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a patient’s expressed wishes and the perceived best medical interest of the patient, compounded by the potential for significant harm if the patient’s wishes are not respected or if they are overridden without due process. Advanced practice professionals must navigate complex ethical and legal landscapes to ensure patient autonomy while upholding their duty of care. Careful judgment is required to balance these competing principles. The best approach involves a structured, collaborative decision-making process that prioritizes patient autonomy and informed consent, while also ensuring the patient’s capacity is appropriately assessed. This includes engaging in open and empathetic communication with the patient to understand the underlying reasons for their decision, exploring alternatives, and involving the patient’s designated healthcare proxy or surrogate decision-maker if capacity is in question. Documentation of all discussions, assessments, and decisions is paramount. This approach aligns with fundamental ethical principles of respect for autonomy and beneficence, and is supported by professional guidelines emphasizing shared decision-making and patient-centered care. An incorrect approach would be to unilaterally override the patient’s wishes based solely on the professional’s judgment of what is medically superior, without a thorough assessment of capacity or exploration of the patient’s values and goals. This disregards the ethical principle of autonomy and could lead to a breach of trust and potential legal repercussions. Another incorrect approach involves pressuring the patient to change their mind through coercion or manipulation. This violates the principle of informed consent, which requires voluntariness, and is ethically indefensible. Finally, failing to involve the patient’s designated healthcare proxy or surrogate decision-maker when there are concerns about capacity, or when the patient is unable to fully participate in decision-making, is a significant ethical and potential legal failing. This can lead to decisions being made that do not reflect the patient’s true wishes or values, and can undermine the legal framework for surrogate decision-making. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with assessing the patient’s capacity to make the specific decision. If capacity is present, the focus shifts to ensuring informed consent through clear communication, exploring alternatives, and respecting the patient’s autonomous choice. If capacity is questionable, a formal assessment should be conducted, and if impaired, the process should involve the designated surrogate decision-maker, guided by the patient’s known wishes and values. Throughout this process, thorough and accurate documentation is essential.

The review process indicates a patient presenting with a complex history of chronic pain, recently exacerbated by an acute injury, requiring perioperative management. This scenario is professionally challenging due to the need to balance effective pain control for surgery with the risks associated with chronic opioid use, potential for opioid-induced hyperalgesia, and the imperative to adhere to evolving evidence-based guidelines for perioperative pain management, particularly in North America where opioid stewardship is a significant concern. Careful judgment is required to avoid undertreating pain, which can lead to poor surgical outcomes and patient dissatisfaction, while simultaneously avoiding overtreatment that could lead to adverse events, prolonged recovery, and contribute to the opioid crisis. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of the patient’s pain, including a thorough review of their chronic pain history, current opioid regimen, functional status, and psychosocial factors. This assessment should inform the development of an individualized, multimodal pain management plan that prioritizes non-opioid analgesics (e.g., acetaminophen, NSAIDs, gabapentinoids), regional anesthesia techniques where appropriate, and judicious use of opioids only when necessary and at the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration. This approach aligns with current evidence-based guidelines from organizations like the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which emphasize a shift towards non-opioid strategies and opioid-sparing techniques in the perioperative setting to mitigate risks. It also reflects ethical obligations to provide patient-centered care, minimize harm, and promote recovery. An approach that solely relies on escalating the patient’s chronic opioid regimen to manage acute perioperative pain without a thorough reassessment and consideration of alternative analgesics fails to adhere to evidence-based practices. This could lead to increased risk of opioid-related adverse events, such as respiratory depression, constipation, and prolonged sedation, and may exacerbate underlying opioid tolerance or opioid-induced hyperalgesia, ultimately hindering recovery. It also neglects the ethical imperative to use the least invasive and least harmful interventions necessary. Another unacceptable approach would be to significantly reduce or abruptly discontinue the patient’s chronic opioid therapy perioperatively without adequate bridging or alternative pain management strategies. This could lead to severe withdrawal symptoms, uncontrolled acute pain, and significant patient distress, negatively impacting surgical outcomes and patient trust. It disregards the patient’s established pain management regimen and the potential for significant suffering. Furthermore, an approach that neglects to involve a multidisciplinary team, such as pain management specialists, physical therapists, or addiction medicine consultants, when managing a patient with complex chronic pain and acute perioperative needs, is suboptimal. This siloed approach may miss crucial insights into the patient’s overall condition and limit the effectiveness of the pain management strategy, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes and increased risks. The professional reasoning framework for such situations should involve a systematic approach: 1) Thorough patient assessment (history, physical, psychosocial). 2) Identification of pain type and contributing factors (acute, chronic, neuropathic, nociceptive). 3) Consultation of current evidence-based guidelines and best practices. 4) Development of a multimodal, individualized pain management plan prioritizing non-opioid and non-pharmacological interventions. 5) Careful selection and titration of opioid analgesics, if necessary, with a clear exit strategy. 6) Ongoing reassessment and adjustment of the pain management plan. 7) Multidisciplinary team collaboration when indicated.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a patient’s autonomy and the healthcare provider’s duty of care, particularly when a patient’s decision-making capacity is in question. The need for careful judgment arises from balancing the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice within the existing legal and professional frameworks governing healthcare in North America. The approach that represents best professional practice involves a systematic assessment of the patient’s decision-making capacity, followed by a collaborative discussion with the patient and their surrogate decision-maker, if applicable, to ensure all concerns are addressed and the patient’s wishes are respected within the bounds of safe medical practice. This approach is correct because it upholds the patient’s right to self-determination while ensuring their safety and well-being. It aligns with established ethical guidelines and legal precedents that mandate informed consent and respect for patient autonomy, provided the patient has the capacity to make such decisions. When capacity is uncertain, a structured process of assessment and consultation is paramount. An approach that bypasses a thorough capacity assessment and proceeds with a treatment plan based solely on the perceived best interests of the patient, without engaging the patient or their surrogate in a meaningful discussion about their values and preferences, fails to respect patient autonomy. This can lead to ethical breaches and potential legal challenges related to battery or lack of informed consent. Another unacceptable approach would be to defer entirely to the surrogate decision-maker without independently verifying the patient’s understanding or wishes, especially if there is any indication that the patient might still possess some level of capacity or if the surrogate’s decision appears to contradict the patient’s previously expressed values. This neglects the professional’s responsibility to advocate for the patient and ensure their voice is heard. Finally, an approach that involves imposing a treatment plan without adequate communication or exploration of the patient’s or surrogate’s concerns, or without seeking further consultation when faced with disagreement, demonstrates a failure in professional communication and ethical deliberation. This can erode trust and lead to suboptimal patient outcomes. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with assessing the patient’s capacity to understand their condition, the proposed treatment, alternatives, and the risks and benefits. If capacity is present, informed consent is paramount. If capacity is questionable or absent, a structured process involving surrogate decision-makers, ethical consultation, and adherence to institutional policies and legal requirements for substitute decision-making should be followed. This framework emphasizes shared decision-making, clear communication, and respect for patient values.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the immediate needs of an individual patient with broader population health goals and the ethical imperative of health equity. Advanced practice providers in perioperative medicine must recognize that individual patient care decisions can have ripple effects on community health outcomes and that disparities in access and outcomes exist. Careful judgment is required to ensure that care is not only clinically sound but also equitable and contributes positively to population health. The best professional approach involves a comprehensive assessment that explicitly considers social determinants of health and potential barriers to post-operative recovery and adherence to care plans. This approach prioritizes identifying and addressing factors such as socioeconomic status, access to transportation, social support systems, and health literacy, which disproportionately affect certain populations. By proactively integrating these considerations into the perioperative plan, the provider can implement targeted interventions, connect patients with necessary resources, and advocate for equitable care, thereby promoting better outcomes for vulnerable individuals and contributing to overall population health improvement. This aligns with ethical principles of justice and beneficence, and implicitly supports the goals of public health initiatives aimed at reducing health disparities. An approach that focuses solely on the immediate surgical risk and standard post-operative protocols without considering the patient’s broader social and economic context is professionally unacceptable. This failure to assess social determinants of health can lead to suboptimal recovery, increased readmission rates, and exacerbation of existing health inequities, particularly for patients from marginalized communities. It neglects the ethical responsibility to provide comprehensive care that addresses all factors influencing patient well-being. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to assume that all patients have equal access to post-operative resources and support. This assumption overlooks the systemic barriers that prevent many individuals from adhering to complex care instructions, attending follow-up appointments, or accessing necessary medications and equipment. Such an oversight can result in preventable complications and poorer outcomes for those already facing disadvantages, thereby perpetuating health disparities. Finally, an approach that delegates the responsibility for addressing social determinants of health entirely to other disciplines without active collaboration and integration into the perioperative plan is also professionally deficient. While interdisciplinary collaboration is crucial, the advanced practice provider has a direct role in identifying these needs during the perioperative evaluation and initiating appropriate referrals and advocacy. A passive stance fails to leverage the provider’s unique position to champion equitable care. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a broad assessment of the patient, encompassing not only their medical history and current condition but also their social, economic, and environmental context. This should be followed by an analysis of how these factors might impact their perioperative journey and recovery. Interventions should then be tailored to address identified barriers and promote equitable outcomes, with ongoing evaluation and adaptation of the care plan as needed.