A nurse is evaluating the supplement intake of a client who has high cholesterol. The nurse should identify that which of the following supplements will help lower the client’s lipid levels?

Choice A reason: Omega-3 fish oil, rich in EPA and DHA, lowers triglycerides by reducing hepatic VLDL production and enhances LDL clearance, cutting cholesterol levels. Clinical studies show it decreases cardiovascular risk in hyperlipidemia. For a client with high cholesterol, this supplement directly targets lipid metabolism, offering a therapeutic benefit, making it the appropriate choice here.

Choice B reason: Glucosamine, derived from shellfish, supports cartilage repair in osteoarthritis by aiding glycosaminoglycan synthesis, not affecting cholesterol pathways. It lacks lipid-lowering properties, focusing on joint health instead. For a client with high cholesterol, this supplement offers no benefit to lipid profiles, rendering it irrelevant to the goal of reducing levels.

Choice C reason: Cranberry tablets inhibit bacterial adhesion in the urinary tract, preventing infections, but have no impact on cholesterol metabolism or lipid levels. Their anthocyanins benefit bladder health, not cardiovascular risk factors. In high cholesterol, this supplement doesn’t address the condition, making it an ineffective choice for this client’s needs.

Choice D reason: Ginkgo biloba enhances cerebral blood flow via vasodilation, potentially aiding memory, but it doesn’t alter cholesterol synthesis or clearance. Its antioxidants target circulation, not lipids directly. For a client with high cholesterol, this supplement lacks evidence of lowering levels, failing to meet the therapeutic aim here.

Choice A reason: Limiting reconciliation to admission and discharge misses medication changes during hospitalization, risking errors or omissions. Effective reconciliation occurs at all care transitions—admission, transfers, discharge—ensuring a current, accurate list. This approach prevents discrepancies, like duplicative therapies or missed doses, that could harm the client. Skipping interim updates undermines safety, as hospital regimens evolve, making this action incomplete and inadequate for proper care.

Choice B reason: Comparing only home medications to new prescriptions excludes drugs given during hospitalization, creating an incomplete profile. Reconciliation requires reviewing all medications—home, inpatient, and discharge—to identify conflicts or redundancies. Focusing solely on prescribed home meds overlooks real-time additions, like painkillers or antibiotics, risking interactions or therapeutic gaps. This narrow scope fails to meet reconciliation’s comprehensive safety goal.

Choice C reason: Deleting new prescriptions with potential home medication interactions exceeds nursing scope and risks altering treatment without provider input. Reconciliation identifies conflicts for collaborative resolution, not unilateral changes. For example, removing a necessary anticoagulant due to an interaction could harm the client. This action bypasses clinical judgment, undermining the process’s intent to flag, not fix, issues independently.

Choice D reason: Considering medication interaction risks is the essence of reconciliation, ensuring safety by identifying conflicts between home and hospital drugs—like warfarin and antibiotics increasing bleeding risk. The nurse compiles a full list, assesses potential adverse effects, and reports to the provider for adjustments. This proactive step prevents harm, aligns with standards, and supports individualized care, making it the correct action.