A 13-year-old client has a mole removed by a plastic surgeon. The benefits & risks of the procedure were explained to the client's legal guardian but there is no documentation in the client's medical record. An attorney contacts the plastic surgeon & the nurse who assisted in the procedure because the client's family wants to sue on the grounds of.

A. Asking the client to bear down as if urinating: This action is not appropriate in this situation because the lack of urine output may not necessarily be due to the client's inability to void. Checking for other potential issues, such as kinks in the tubing, is more appropriate as a first step.

B. Check for kinks in the tubing: This is the most appropriate first action. Kinks in the tubing can obstruct urine flow from the bladder to the drainage bag, leading to decreased or no urine output. By checking for kinks, the nurse can quickly identify and correct any obstructions, potentially resolving the issue without further intervention.

C. Increasing fluid intake: While maintaining adequate hydration is important for overall urinary function, it is not the most immediate action needed when there is no urine output in the catheter bag. Addressing potential mechanical issues, such as kinks in the tubing, takes precedence.

D. Inserting a new indwelling urinary catheter: Inserting a new catheter should not be the first action taken without investigating other potential causes for the lack of urine output. It is important to troubleshoot and address possible issues with the current catheter and drainage system before considering catheter replacement.

In this scenario, the lack of documentation regarding the explanation of the benefits and risks of the procedure in the client's medical record could be interpreted as a failure to follow the standard of care. Option C is the most appropriate choice for the grounds on which the family might sue:

C. Failure to follow the standard of care:

Healthcare providers are expected to adhere to a standard of care, which includes adequately informing patients or their legal guardians about the benefits, risks, and alternatives of medical procedures. Failure to document informed consent discussions and obtain signed consent forms may be considered a breach of the standard of care. Without proper documentation, it becomes challenging to prove that the healthcare providers fulfilled their duty to obtain informed consent and adequately inform the patient or legal guardian about the procedure's risks and benefits. The absence of documentation may suggest negligence or a lack of thoroughness in the healthcare provider's practice, which could serve as grounds for a lawsuit.

A. Battery:

Battery refers to the intentional and unauthorized touching of another person, which includes performing a medical procedure without obtaining informed consent. While the lack of documentation may suggest a failure to obtain proper consent, it does not necessarily imply intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate act of touching without consent (battery).

B. Injury:

While the client may have experienced an injury if complications arose from the procedure, the focus of the scenario is on the absence of documentation regarding informed consent rather than the occurrence of an injury itself. The grounds for a lawsuit are related to the failure to follow the standard of care in obtaining informed consent rather than the presence of an injury.

D. Slander:

Slander involves making false and damaging statements about someone that harm their reputation. The lack of documentation regarding informed consent does not relate to slander, as it does not involve making false statements but rather the failure to document discussions and obtain consent properly.