In assessing a client with an indwelling urinary catheter following the provision of care by an unlicensed assistive personnel (UAP), the practical nurse (PN) observes that the catheter drainage bag, which is half- full, is attached to the side rail and the tubing is looped on the bed.

Which action should the PN implement?

Choice A rationale:

Beginning continuous observation for transient episodes of neurologic dysfunction is important in the assessment and monitoring of the client's condition. However, in this scenario, the client is presenting with symptoms suggestive of a possible stroke or cerebrovascular event, and time is crucial. The nurse should prioritize actions that can lead to prompt diagnosis and treatment.

Choice B rationale:

Starting two large bore intravenous (IV) catheters and reviewing inclusion criteria for IV fibrinolytic therapy is the most urgent action. The client's symptoms, including sudden right-sided numbness, weakness, and facial droop, are indicative of a possible ischemic stroke. IV fibrinolytic therapy is time-sensitive and has a limited window of effectiveness. Establishing IV access and determining eligibility for this therapy should be the nurse's top priority to potentially improve the client's outcome.

Choice C rationale:

Administering aspirin to prevent further clot formation and platelet clumping is an important intervention in the treatment of ischemic stroke. However, it should not be the first action in this scenario. The priority is to assess for eligibility for IV fibrinolytic therapy, as this intervention has a more immediate impact on reversing the stroke's effects.

Choice D rationale:

Raising the head of the bed to 30 degrees and keeping the head and neck in neutral alignment is a reasonable nursing intervention to prevent complications such as aspiration and promote optimal cerebral blood flow. However, it is not the most urgent action in this case. The priority should be on assessing and potentially treating the stroke with IV fibrinolytic therapy.

Choice A rationale:

CP being one of the most common permanent physical disabilities in children is a general statement but does not directly address the mother's question about the progression of her child's impaired movements. It does not provide an explanation for the potential course of CP.

Choice B rationale:

Brain damage with CP is not progressive but does have a variable course. This response provides the best explanation to the mother's question. CP is a static neurological condition, which means that the initial brain injury that led to CP does not worsen over time. However, the functional abilities and impairments of a child with CP can vary widely and may change as the child grows and develops. Some children may improve with therapy and interventions, while others may have relatively stable impairments.

Choice C rationale:

Severe motor dysfunction determines the extent of successful habilitation is not entirely accurate. While the severity of motor dysfunction does play a role in the challenges a child with CP may face, it does not solely determine the extent of successful habilitation. Many factors, including early intervention, therapy, and individualized care, can influence a child's progress and potential for improvement.

Choice D rationale:

Continued development of the brain lesion determines the child's outcome is not an accurate statement. CP is primarily caused by non-pro