Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing immediate patient care needs with the imperative for systematic quality improvement and patient safety. The pressure to address a perceived issue quickly can lead to reactive, rather than proactive, solutions. Effective judgment is required to identify the root cause of the problem and implement sustainable improvements, rather than superficial fixes. The hyperbaric environment itself introduces unique risks, making patient safety paramount and demanding rigorous adherence to protocols. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic, data-driven approach to quality improvement. This begins with a thorough investigation to understand the scope and root cause of the observed issue. Gathering objective data on patient outcomes, incident reports, and adherence to protocols provides the foundation for informed decision-making. Implementing a structured quality improvement initiative, which may include protocol review, staff training, and equipment checks, based on this data, ensures that interventions are targeted and effective. This aligns with the ethical obligation to provide safe and effective care and the professional responsibility to continuously improve practice. While specific regulatory frameworks for hyperbaric medicine quality improvement may vary by country, the underlying principles of patient safety, evidence-based practice, and continuous quality improvement are universally recognized ethical and professional standards. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Implementing a new protocol solely based on anecdotal observations without data collection fails to address the root cause and may introduce new, unforeseen risks. This approach bypasses the critical step of understanding the problem’s true nature and scope, potentially leading to wasted resources and ineffective interventions. It also neglects the ethical duty to base clinical decisions on evidence and best practices. Making immediate, significant changes to established treatment protocols without a formal review process or data analysis is a significant ethical and professional failing. This reactive approach can disrupt patient care, potentially compromise safety, and undermine the credibility of the quality improvement process. It demonstrates a lack of systematic problem-solving and a disregard for established procedures designed to ensure patient well-being. Focusing solely on staff retraining without investigating potential systemic issues like equipment malfunction or protocol clarity is an incomplete solution. While staff competency is crucial, assuming it is the sole cause of an issue without evidence is a flawed diagnostic approach. This can lead to unnecessary blame on individuals and fail to address underlying organizational or environmental factors contributing to the problem, thus not fully upholding the commitment to patient safety. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing such situations should adopt a structured problem-solving framework. First, define the problem clearly and gather objective data to understand its prevalence, impact, and potential causes. Second, analyze the data to identify the root cause(s). Third, develop and implement evidence-based interventions to address the identified root cause(s). Fourth, monitor the effectiveness of the interventions and make adjustments as needed. This iterative process, grounded in data and focused on patient safety, ensures that quality improvement efforts are both effective and ethically sound.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires an advanced practice provider to navigate the specific eligibility criteria for a specialized certification. Misinterpreting or misapplying these criteria can lead to wasted time, resources, and potentially a compromised professional development path. The core challenge lies in accurately assessing one’s qualifications against the defined standards of the Frontline Latin American Hyperbaric and Dive Medicine Advanced Practice Examination, ensuring alignment with the examination’s stated purpose. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a thorough and direct review of the official examination handbook and the governing body’s website for the Frontline Latin American Hyperbaric and Dive Medicine Advanced Practice Examination. This approach is correct because it relies on the most authoritative and up-to-date information directly from the source. The purpose of the examination is to certify advanced practice providers who meet specific, defined standards in hyperbaric and dive medicine within the Latin American context. Eligibility is strictly defined by these standards, which typically include educational prerequisites, supervised clinical experience, and potentially specific training modules relevant to the region’s practice. Adhering to these official guidelines ensures that an applicant’s qualifications are accurately assessed against the examination’s intended scope and purpose, thereby fulfilling the regulatory intent of the certification process. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves relying solely on informal discussions with colleagues or anecdotal evidence regarding eligibility. This is professionally unacceptable because informal sources are prone to inaccuracies, outdated information, and personal biases. They do not represent the official regulatory framework or the specific intent of the examination, potentially leading to an applicant pursuing certification without meeting the actual requirements, which is a failure of due diligence and adherence to established standards. Another incorrect approach is to assume that general hyperbaric and dive medicine experience from a different geographical region automatically qualifies an individual. This is professionally flawed because the Frontline Latin American Hyperbaric and Dive Medicine Advanced Practice Examination is specifically tailored to the Latin American context. This context may include unique patient populations, prevalent dive-related conditions, or specific regulatory considerations within Latin America that are not covered by general international experience. Failing to verify if one’s experience aligns with the regional focus stipulated by the examination’s purpose is a significant oversight. A further incorrect approach is to focus primarily on the desire to obtain the certification without a rigorous self-assessment against the stated eligibility criteria. This is professionally unsound as it prioritizes personal ambition over regulatory compliance and the integrity of the certification process. The purpose of the examination is to validate a specific level of competence and knowledge relevant to Latin American hyperbaric and dive medicine; an applicant must demonstrate they meet these prerequisites before seeking to be examined. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach certification eligibility by prioritizing official documentation and direct communication with the certifying body. A systematic process involves: 1) Identifying the certifying body and the specific examination. 2) Locating and meticulously reviewing the official examination handbook, eligibility criteria, and any accompanying guidelines. 3) Comparing one’s own qualifications (education, experience, training) directly against each stated requirement. 4) If any ambiguity exists, seeking clarification directly from the examination administrators or the relevant professional organization. This methodical approach ensures compliance, respects the purpose of the examination, and upholds professional standards.

The control framework reveals a critical implementation challenge in managing patient safety and resource allocation within a hyperbaric and dive medicine practice. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing immediate patient needs with long-term operational sustainability and adherence to established medical protocols. The pressure to accommodate a high-priority patient, coupled with potential resource constraints (staffing, equipment availability), necessitates careful ethical and professional judgment. The best approach involves a systematic assessment of the patient’s clinical urgency against the established protocols for hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) and the availability of resources. This means consulting with the multidisciplinary team, including the referring physician and the hyperbaric physician, to determine if the patient’s condition meets the criteria for immediate HBOT and if the current schedule and resources can safely accommodate them without compromising care for existing patients. This approach is correct because it prioritizes patient safety by ensuring that HBOT is administered only when clinically indicated and that the treatment environment remains safe and effective for all patients. It aligns with ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm), as well as professional guidelines that emphasize evidence-based practice and responsible resource management. An incorrect approach would be to immediately schedule the patient for HBOT solely based on the referring physician’s urgency without a thorough clinical evaluation and resource check. This fails to uphold the principle of evidence-based medicine and could lead to inappropriate use of a specialized therapy, potentially diverting resources from patients who might benefit more or whose conditions are more immediately life-threatening. It also risks overburdening the facility and staff, potentially compromising the quality of care for all. Another incorrect approach would be to deny the patient HBOT outright due to a perceived lack of immediate availability without exploring all possible solutions, such as adjusting the schedule, consulting with other facilities for potential transfer of care if appropriate, or re-evaluating the urgency with the referring physician. This could violate the ethical duty to provide care when indicated and may not align with the spirit of collaborative healthcare. A further incorrect approach would be to proceed with HBOT without ensuring all necessary safety checks and protocols are followed due to time pressure. This directly contravenes the fundamental ethical and professional obligation to ensure patient safety in a high-risk treatment environment. The professional reasoning process for similar situations should involve a structured decision-making framework: 1. Clinical Assessment: Thoroughly evaluate the patient’s condition and the evidence supporting HBOT as the appropriate treatment. 2. Protocol Adherence: Review established protocols for HBOT indications, contraindications, and scheduling. 3. Resource Evaluation: Assess current staffing levels, equipment availability, and existing patient load. 4. Multidisciplinary Consultation: Engage with the referring physician, hyperbaric physician, and relevant support staff to discuss the case and potential solutions. 5. Risk-Benefit Analysis: Weigh the potential benefits of immediate HBOT against any risks to the patient or other patients, and consider the operational implications. 6. Ethical Considerations: Ensure decisions align with ethical principles of patient welfare, fairness, and professional responsibility. 7. Documentation: Meticulously document all assessments, consultations, decisions, and rationale.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the potential for misinterpreting imaging findings in a complex hyperbaric medicine context. The patient’s history of diving and symptoms suggestive of decompression sickness (DCS) necessitate a systematic and evidence-based diagnostic approach. Failure to select and interpret imaging appropriately can lead to delayed or incorrect treatment, potentially causing significant patient harm and violating professional standards of care. The urgency of suspected DCS further amplifies the need for precise diagnostic reasoning. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a structured workflow that prioritizes clinical assessment and symptom correlation before ordering advanced imaging. This approach begins with a thorough clinical evaluation, including a detailed history of the dive profile, symptom onset, and progression. Based on this clinical picture, the clinician then selects the most appropriate imaging modality to confirm or exclude specific pathologies. For suspected DCS, initial imaging often focuses on ruling out other neurological emergencies that might mimic DCS symptoms, such as stroke or intracranial hemorrhage, using modalities like CT or MRI of the brain. If these are negative and clinical suspicion for DCS remains high, further specialized imaging or direct therapeutic intervention (recompression) may be indicated based on established protocols and expert consultation. This systematic, clinically driven selection of imaging ensures resources are used efficiently and diagnostic efforts are targeted, aligning with ethical principles of patient welfare and responsible resource allocation. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately ordering a comprehensive, multi-modality imaging study of the entire spine and brain without a clear clinical indication or differential diagnosis derived from the initial patient assessment. This is professionally unacceptable as it represents a “shotgun” approach to diagnostics, leading to unnecessary radiation exposure, increased costs, and potential for incidental findings that can complicate management. It fails to adhere to the principle of judicious use of diagnostic resources and can delay definitive diagnosis by overwhelming the clinician with data. Another incorrect approach is to rely solely on imaging findings without integrating them with the patient’s clinical presentation. For instance, interpreting subtle MRI changes in isolation without considering the dive profile and symptomology could lead to misdiagnosis of DCS or attributing symptoms to an incidental finding. This violates the core tenet of diagnostic reasoning, which demands a synthesis of all available information – clinical, historical, and radiological – to arrive at the most accurate diagnosis. A further professionally unacceptable approach is to delay definitive management, such as recompression therapy, solely based on the absence of definitive findings on initial, potentially non-specific, imaging. While imaging is a valuable tool, in suspected DCS, clinical judgment and established treatment algorithms often take precedence, especially when imaging is inconclusive or negative for alternative diagnoses. This approach prioritizes imaging over timely patient care, potentially exacerbating the condition. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a diagnostic reasoning framework that begins with a comprehensive clinical assessment. This includes gathering a detailed history of the event (dive profile, symptoms, onset, progression), performing a thorough physical examination, and formulating a differential diagnosis. Based on this differential, the clinician then selects the most appropriate diagnostic tests, prioritizing those that will most effectively confirm or refute the leading diagnoses. Imaging selection should be guided by the specific clinical questions being asked. Interpretation of imaging must always be performed in the context of the patient’s clinical presentation. When faced with uncertainty, consultation with specialists and adherence to established clinical guidelines are crucial.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexities of managing chronic wounds in hyperbaric medicine, particularly when integrating evidence-based practices into routine care. The challenge lies in balancing established clinical protocols with the dynamic nature of patient response and the need for continuous professional development. Careful judgment is required to ensure patient safety, optimize treatment outcomes, and adhere to the evolving standards of care within the Latin American hyperbaric and dive medicine context. The approach that represents best professional practice involves a systematic review and integration of current, high-quality evidence into the existing clinical pathway for chronic wound management. This includes actively seeking out peer-reviewed studies, meta-analyses, and consensus guidelines specifically relevant to hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for chronic wounds. The practitioner should then critically appraise this evidence for its applicability to their patient population and clinical setting, making informed decisions about modifying treatment protocols, dosage, frequency, and adjunctive therapies based on the strongest available data. This approach is correct because it directly aligns with the ethical imperative to provide the highest standard of care, which is inherently evidence-based. Regulatory frameworks in Latin American medical practice generally emphasize the use of scientifically validated treatments and continuous quality improvement, making this proactive integration of evidence the most responsible and compliant course of action. An approach that involves relying solely on historical treatment patterns and anecdotal experience, without actively seeking or incorporating new evidence, represents a significant professional failure. This can lead to the perpetuation of outdated or suboptimal treatments, potentially compromising patient outcomes and failing to meet the expected standard of care. Ethically, it violates the principle of beneficence by not striving for the best possible treatment. From a regulatory standpoint, it may fall short of requirements for maintaining current competency and adhering to best practices. Another incorrect approach is to adopt new treatment modalities based on preliminary or low-quality evidence, such as single case reports or non-peer-reviewed publications, without rigorous critical appraisal. This can expose patients to unproven or potentially harmful interventions, violating the principle of non-maleficence. It also risks deviating from established, evidence-based protocols without sufficient justification, which can be viewed as unprofessional and potentially non-compliant with quality assurance standards. Finally, an approach that prioritizes patient preference over established evidence-based guidelines, particularly when those preferences are not supported by scientific data, is also professionally unsound. While patient autonomy is crucial, it must be exercised within the bounds of safe and effective medical practice. Uncritically following patient preferences that contradict strong evidence can lead to suboptimal outcomes and potential harm, failing to uphold the practitioner’s duty of care. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with identifying the clinical question or problem. This is followed by a thorough search for relevant, high-quality evidence. The evidence is then critically appraised for its validity, reliability, and applicability. Finally, the appraised evidence is integrated into clinical practice, considering the individual patient’s circumstances, values, and preferences, and the decision is evaluated for its effectiveness. This iterative process ensures that patient care remains at the forefront of scientific advancement and ethical responsibility.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge in balancing the need for robust assessment and quality assurance with the practicalities of resource allocation and candidate support within a specialized medical examination framework. The examination board must establish policies that are fair, transparent, and uphold the integrity of the certification process, while also considering the impact on candidates who may require additional attempts. The core tension lies in defining what constitutes a reasonable and ethically sound retake policy that prevents undue burden on candidates without compromising the high standards expected of practitioners in Latin American hyperbaric and dive medicine. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves establishing a clear, published policy that outlines the maximum number of retake attempts allowed, the waiting period between attempts, and the rationale behind these limits. This policy should be developed through a transparent process, potentially involving input from subject matter experts and consideration of best practices in professional certification. The justification for a limited number of retakes is rooted in ensuring that candidates have sufficient opportunity to master the material while also acknowledging that repeated failure may indicate a fundamental lack of aptitude or preparedness for advanced practice. A defined waiting period allows candidates time for further study and remediation, preventing a “cramming” mentality and promoting genuine learning. This approach aligns with principles of fairness, transparency, and professional accountability, ensuring that certified practitioners meet established competency standards. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to implement an arbitrary and undocumented limit on retake attempts, communicated only after a candidate has failed multiple times. This lacks transparency and fairness, potentially leading to candidate frustration and accusations of an opaque or biased system. It fails to provide candidates with clear expectations or opportunities for remediation, undermining the principle of equitable assessment. Another incorrect approach is to allow an unlimited number of retakes without any waiting period or requirement for remediation. While seemingly supportive, this approach can devalue the certification by lowering the perceived barrier to entry and may not adequately ensure that practitioners possess the necessary advanced skills and knowledge. It also fails to incentivize candidates to thoroughly prepare for subsequent attempts, potentially leading to a cycle of repeated, superficial engagement with the material. A third incorrect approach is to impose excessively long waiting periods between retakes, making it impractical for candidates to pursue certification in a timely manner. This can disproportionately affect candidates who may have extenuating circumstances or who are eager to contribute to the field. Such a policy, without clear justification, can be seen as punitive rather than as a measure to ensure competency. Professional Reasoning: Professionals tasked with developing examination policies should adopt a systematic and evidence-informed approach. This involves: 1) Defining the core competencies and knowledge required for safe and effective practice. 2) Researching established best practices in professional certification and assessment design. 3) Engaging relevant stakeholders, including subject matter experts and potentially candidate representatives, in policy development. 4) Ensuring all policies are clearly documented, communicated in advance to candidates, and consistently applied. 5) Regularly reviewing and updating policies based on feedback, performance data, and evolving professional standards. The focus should always be on upholding the integrity of the certification while providing a fair and supportive examination experience.

The monitoring system demonstrates a critical gap in candidate preparation for the Frontline Latin American Hyperbaric and Dive Medicine Advanced Practice Examination, specifically concerning the recommended resources and timeline. This scenario is professionally challenging because inadequate preparation can lead to examination failure, impacting the candidate’s career progression and potentially compromising patient safety if they are not fully equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills. Careful judgment is required to identify the most effective and compliant preparation strategy. The best approach involves a structured, multi-modal preparation plan that integrates official examination syllabi, reputable academic texts, and practical case study reviews, spread over a recommended minimum timeline. This method ensures comprehensive coverage of all examination domains, aligns with the expected depth of knowledge for advanced practice, and allows for sufficient assimilation and retention of complex information. Adherence to official guidelines and established academic standards is ethically paramount, ensuring that preparation is both effective and professionally sound, reflecting the rigor expected in hyperbaric and dive medicine. An approach that relies solely on informal online forums and anecdotal advice is professionally unacceptable. This method lacks the structured curriculum and validated information necessary for advanced medical practice. It risks exposure to outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete information, which is a significant ethical failure as it can lead to a candidate entering practice without adequate knowledge, potentially endangering patients. Furthermore, it bypasses the established channels for professional development and examination preparation, undermining the integrity of the certification process. Another unacceptable approach is to cram all study material into the final weeks before the examination. This method promotes superficial learning and poor retention, which is detrimental in a field requiring deep understanding and practical application. It fails to meet the implicit ethical obligation to thoroughly prepare for a role that demands high levels of competence and critical thinking. The lack of adequate time for reflection and integration of knowledge increases the likelihood of errors in judgment and practice. Finally, focusing exclusively on past examination papers without understanding the underlying principles is a flawed strategy. While past papers can offer insight into question style, they do not substitute for a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. This approach can lead to a candidate memorizing answers without grasping the concepts, which is ethically questionable as it does not guarantee true competence. It prioritizes passing the exam over developing the robust knowledge base essential for safe and effective hyperbaric and dive medicine practice. Professionals should approach examination preparation by first consulting the official examination syllabus and recommended reading lists provided by the examining body. They should then develop a realistic study timeline, allocating sufficient time for each topic, and incorporating a variety of learning resources, including textbooks, peer-reviewed literature, and practical case discussions. Regular self-assessment and mock examinations are crucial to gauge progress and identify areas needing further attention. This systematic and compliant approach ensures thorough preparation and upholds professional standards.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexity of integrating foundational biomedical sciences with clinical practice in a specialized field like hyperbaric and dive medicine. The physician must navigate the potential for novel applications of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) while ensuring patient safety, efficacy, and adherence to established medical standards. The pressure to adopt new technologies or protocols, especially when presented with promising but unproven research, requires a rigorous and evidence-based approach to avoid patient harm and maintain professional integrity. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic and evidence-based evaluation of any proposed new application of HBOT. This approach prioritizes patient safety and therapeutic efficacy by requiring robust scientific validation. It entails a thorough review of existing literature, consultation with experts in both hyperbaric medicine and the specific disease or condition being treated, and potentially the initiation of well-designed clinical trials or pilot studies. This methodical process ensures that any new treatment modality is not only theoretically sound but also demonstrably safe and effective in a clinical setting, aligning with the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, and the professional responsibility to practice evidence-based medicine. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Proposing immediate widespread adoption of the novel HBOT protocol based solely on preliminary in-vitro data and anecdotal reports is professionally unacceptable. This approach bypasses crucial steps in clinical validation, potentially exposing patients to unproven risks without established benefits. It violates the principle of non-maleficence by failing to adequately assess potential harms and the ethical obligation to provide care based on sound scientific evidence. Implementing the new HBOT protocol for all patients presenting with the condition, without individual assessment or comparative data, is also professionally unsound. This generalized application ignores patient variability and the possibility that the novel protocol may not be suitable or beneficial for all individuals. It risks patient harm through inappropriate treatment and deviates from the ethical requirement of individualized patient care. Adopting the novel HBOT protocol based on the persuasive presentation of a commercial vendor, without independent scientific scrutiny or peer review, is a significant ethical and professional failing. This approach prioritizes commercial interests over patient well-being and scientific rigor. It neglects the physician’s duty to critically evaluate all information and to base clinical decisions on objective evidence, not marketing claims. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that emphasizes critical appraisal of evidence, patient-centered care, and ethical considerations. This involves: 1) Thoroughly reviewing all available scientific literature, including peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses. 2) Consulting with multidisciplinary teams and subject matter experts. 3) Considering the risk-benefit profile for the specific patient population. 4) Adhering to established clinical guidelines and regulatory requirements. 5) Prioritizing patient safety and informed consent throughout the decision-making process.

The efficiency study reveals a significant backlog in hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) consultations for patients with chronic wounds, leading to delayed treatment initiation. This scenario is professionally challenging because it pits the imperative to provide timely patient care against resource limitations and the need for adherence to established protocols and ethical considerations. Balancing patient well-being with operational realities requires careful judgment and a commitment to professional standards. The best approach involves a systematic review of the existing patient referral and scheduling processes. This includes identifying bottlenecks, assessing the urgency of pending cases based on clinical criteria, and exploring the feasibility of expanding clinic hours or utilizing telemedicine for initial assessments where appropriate and safe. This approach is correct because it prioritizes patient safety and clinical necessity by ensuring that the most critical cases are addressed first, while also seeking sustainable solutions to improve efficiency. It aligns with the ethical obligation to provide competent care and the professional responsibility to manage resources effectively. Furthermore, it respects the established protocols for HBOT by not circumventing necessary clinical evaluations. An incorrect approach would be to prioritize patients based solely on the order in which they were referred, without considering their clinical condition. This fails to acknowledge the ethical imperative to treat patients based on medical need, potentially leading to adverse outcomes for those with more urgent conditions. It also neglects the professional responsibility to advocate for patients and ensure they receive timely care when indicated. Another incorrect approach would be to unilaterally extend the scope of practice for non-physician staff to conduct initial HBOT assessments without proper training, credentialing, or regulatory approval. This poses a significant risk to patient safety, violates professional boundaries, and likely contravenes regulatory requirements governing the practice of hyperbaric medicine. It undermines the principle of providing care only within one’s scope of competence. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to simply inform patients of the long wait times without offering any proactive solutions or alternative management strategies. This demonstrates a lack of professional engagement and fails to uphold the duty of care, which includes exploring all reasonable options to facilitate access to necessary treatment. It can lead to patient dissatisfaction and potentially abandonment of care. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough understanding of the clinical needs of the patient population. This should be followed by an assessment of existing resources and operational constraints. Next, potential solutions should be evaluated against established clinical guidelines, ethical principles, and regulatory requirements. Finally, the chosen course of action should be implemented with clear communication to all stakeholders, including patients and staff, and subject to ongoing review and adjustment.

The performance metrics show a concerning trend in patient adherence to hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) protocols, particularly among patients with chronic wounds. This scenario presents a professional challenge because it directly impacts patient outcomes and the effective utilization of healthcare resources. It requires a nuanced understanding of patient autonomy, the ethical imperative to provide effective care, and the principles of health systems science, which emphasizes optimizing healthcare delivery. The challenge lies in balancing the need for adherence with the patient’s right to make informed decisions, while also considering the broader systemic implications of non-adherence on treatment success and resource allocation. The best approach involves a comprehensive, patient-centered strategy that prioritizes understanding the root causes of non-adherence and collaboratively developing solutions. This includes a thorough re-evaluation of the patient’s understanding of their condition and treatment, addressing any practical barriers (transportation, scheduling, financial concerns), and exploring alternative or modified treatment plans in consultation with the patient and their referring physician. This approach aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest), non-maleficence (avoiding harm by ensuring treatment is appropriate and understood), and respect for patient autonomy. It also embodies health systems science by seeking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the HBOT program through patient engagement and problem-solving, rather than simply enforcing compliance. This ensures that treatment decisions are shared and tailored to the individual’s circumstances, maximizing the likelihood of positive outcomes. An approach that focuses solely on documenting non-adherence without further investigation or intervention fails to uphold the ethical duty to provide optimal care and explore all avenues for patient benefit. It neglects the underlying reasons for non-adherence, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes and a missed opportunity to improve the patient’s health. Another unacceptable approach is to unilaterally alter the treatment protocol without explicit patient consent or a clear clinical rationale discussed with the patient. This undermines patient autonomy and the informed consent process, potentially leading to ineffective treatment or adverse events. It also disregards the collaborative nature of healthcare decision-making. Finally, an approach that involves pressuring the patient to adhere without addressing their concerns or barriers is ethically problematic. While adherence is important, coercion is not a substitute for informed decision-making and can damage the patient-provider relationship, leading to further disengagement and mistrust. Professionals should employ a decision-making process that begins with open communication and active listening to understand the patient’s perspective. This should be followed by a systematic assessment of potential barriers to adherence, a collaborative discussion of treatment options and their implications, and a shared decision-making process that respects the patient’s values and preferences. This framework ensures that interventions are not only clinically sound but also ethically justifiable and aligned with the principles of patient-centered care within the broader health system.