A nurse is speaking with the caregiver of a client who has Alzheimer’s disease. The caregiver states, “Providing constant care is very stressful and is affecting all areas of my life.” Which of the following actions should the nurse take?

Choice A reason: Personal blogs are unreliable, lacking evidence-based guidance for diabetes management, risking misinformation. ADA food exchange lists are credible. Providing blogs risks client confusion or harmful practices, critical to avoid in ensuring accurate, safe dietary education for type 2 diabetes mellitus management.

Choice B reason: The Institute of Medicine does not provide specific food label recommendations for diabetes; ADA exchange lists are standard. Assuming IOM resources are appropriate risks inadequate dietary guidance, potentially affecting glycemic control, critical to prevent in supporting effective diabetes self-management at discharge.

Choice C reason: ADA food exchange lists provide evidence-based meal planning, helping clients manage type 2 diabetes through balanced carbohydrate intake. This resource is critical for glycemic control, promoting adherence, ensuring nutritional education, and supporting long-term health, essential for effective diabetes management post-discharge.

Choice D reason: The Physicians’ Desk Reference provides medication details but not dietary guidance, unlike ADA exchange lists for diabetes meal planning. Assuming PDR is sufficient risks neglecting nutritional education, critical to avoid in ensuring comprehensive diabetes self-management and glycemic control at discharge.

Choice A reason: Discussing preferences for repositioning schedules is secondary to assessing physical ability in stroke clients, who may have hemiplegia. Evaluating ability ensures safety. Assuming preferences are priority risks unsafe repositioning, potentially causing falls, critical to avoid in ensuring safe mobility and care for stroke patients.

Choice B reason: Evaluating the client’s ability to assist with repositioning is critical post-stroke to assess motor function, ensuring safe technique and preventing injury. This informs whether assistive devices or additional staff are needed, essential for reducing fall risk, promoting recovery, and tailoring care to the client’s physical capacity.

Choice C reason: Repositioning without assistive devices is unsafe for stroke clients with potential weakness or paralysis, risking falls or strain. Evaluating ability is priority. Assuming no devices are needed risks injury, critical to prevent in ensuring safe handling, supporting recovery, and maintaining safety in stroke rehabilitation care.

Choice D reason: Raising side rails ensures safety but is secondary to evaluating the client’s ability to assist, which guides repositioning technique. Assuming rails are the first step risks overlooking physical capacity, potentially leading to unsafe repositioning, critical to avoid in preventing falls and ensuring safe care for stroke clients.