A nuclear medicine technologist finds that a colleague entered 'QC passed' in the dose calibrator log for a linearity check that had been skipped, and that page is headed for a regulatory inspection next week. The colleague is a friend who has covered extra shifts. Facility policy requires any record discrepancy to be reported to the supervisor. Which action best meets the ARRT Standards of Ethics here?

The appropriate action is to report the false entry to the supervisor and document a correction while preserving the original entry and audit trail. This addresses the known inaccuracy promptly and keeps a clear record of what was entered, what was corrected, and when. Friendship and past favors do not change your duty to act honestly and protect regulated records. Using the facility’s QA reporting channel, making a dated and signed correction, and notifying the radiation safety officer may create a traceable record, but it does not meet the stated policy because it bypasses required supervisor notification. Reporting the false entry and asking the records custodian to correct it during a scheduled pre-inspection review delays correction of a known false entry; the correction should be documented promptly through the proper process. Reporting the issue, correcting the controlled electronic log, and filing a verified scan in place of the paper page does not preserve the original paper record and its audit trail. Exam caveat: reporting pathways and amendment procedures vary by facility, but a correction should not obscure the original or bypass the responsible authority. Practical check: follow the site’s controlled-record procedure to confirm who must be notified, how to date and authenticate the correction, and where the original page and amendment history must remain available.