Share This Link

While documentation and supervisor notification are crucial, immediate action involving the health care provider ensures timely response to potential adverse effects from the medication error.

Relying solely on the absence of drug allergies is insufficient and may jeopardize patient safety. Errors require immediate communication and reporting for appropriate interventions.

Administering additional drugs risks compounding harm. The priority is addressing the initial error and ensuring patient safety without introducing further interventions.

Checking medications only once increases the likelihood of errors. Safe practice requires multiple verification steps.

While better than a single check, verifying only twice may still miss potential discrepancies in drug or dosage accuracy.

Excessive verification may delay administration, reducing practicality without significantly improving safety beyond three checks.

Allergic reactions are adverse drug effects, not necessarily medication errors. Documentation of allergies before administration prevents such events.

Patient refusal is not a medication error but a decision. Nurses must document refusals and provide education on medication importance.

Persistent pain indicates ineffective medication, which is an issue of treatment efficacy, not an error in administration.

Moderate reactions don't cause breathing difficulty or hypotension. Severe symptoms indicate anaphylaxis, requiring emergency intervention.

Symptoms align with anaphylaxis, not food poisoning. Assuming an unrelated cause delays life-saving treatment.

Mild reactions lack systemic effects like hypotension and breathing difficulties. Antihistamines alone are insufficient for anaphylaxis.

Administering insulin at proper timing correlates with mealtimes. However, this alone doesn't ensure safe practice.

Confirming the injection site prevents lipodystrophy but does not address dose accuracy, which is vital for safety.

Insulin is injected subcutaneously, not in the deltoid muscle. Using incorrect sites disrupts absorption.

Positioning the tablet next to the cheek alters absorption and delays onset. Sublingual placement ensures rapid effect.

Swallowing bypasses sublingual absorption, reducing efficacy. The route is critical for desired therapeutic outcomes.

Crushing and dissolving disrupts integrity, compromising rapid sublingual absorption. Proper administration maintains efficacy.

While reliability exists, the oral route is less predictable than IV administration due to variability in absorption caused by digestive factors, making it less reliable for rapid or consistent onset.

While many clients tolerate oral medications well, others may face challenges, such as difficulty swallowing or gastric irritation, meaning tolerability varies and is not a universal advantage of this route.

The oral route does not ensure fast action due to time required for digestion, absorption, and metabolism, making it slower compared to routes like IV or sublingual administration.

Crushing pills can alter drug efficacy and safety, especially for medications with controlled-release properties, making this inappropriate without specific provider instructions.

Introducing pills directly into the patient’s mouth risks aspiration and violates safe administration practices, emphasizing the need for alternative methods.

If the patient struggles to hold the cup, self-administration becomes impractical. Assistance through appropriate alternative forms ensures compliance and safety.

Pharmacy technicians are not authorized to administer medications. Their scope involves preparation and dispensing under supervision, ensuring safety and compliance.

Delegating to the head nurse violates medication administration protocols, as accountability rests with the nurse who prepared the medications.

Allowing other licensed nurses to distribute medications increases the risk of errors due to lack of firsthand knowledge of preparation specifics.

Body fat levels influence subcutaneous absorption but are not the primary reason for choosing IM over SC injection in this scenario.

Needle size varies by medication and patient factors, but this is not the defining reason for selecting IM over SC injection.

IM injections are not inherently safer for patients at risk of bleeding; they carry similar risks and require proper assessment before administration.