A patient has been put on Contact Precautions. The patient’s family is extremely apprehensive about visiting due to fear of being “contaminated” by the patient. What is the best course of action for the nurse?

Choice A rationale:
Administering an antipyretic would lower the client's fever, but it would not address the underlying cause of the sepsis. Antipyretics can mask important signs and symptoms of infection, making it more difficult to diagnose and treat the sepsis. It's important to identify the causative organism of sepsis to initiate appropriate antibiotic therapy.
Therefore, obtaining cultures to identify the causative organism is the priority action.
Choice B rationale:
Obtaining specified cultures is the most important action for a client with possible sepsis because it allows for the identification of the causative organism.
This information is essential for selecting the appropriate antibiotic therapy. Cultures should be obtained as soon as possible, before antibiotics are administered.
Choice C rationale:
While administering antibiotics is an important part of the treatment for sepsis, it is not the first action that the nurse should take.
Antibiotics should be administered after the causative organism has been identified.
Administering antibiotics before cultures are obtained can make it more difficult to identify the causative organism.
Choice D rationale:
Placing the client in isolation is important to prevent the spread of infection, but it is not the first action that the nurse should take.
The priority is to identify the causative organism and initiate appropriate treatment. The client can be placed in isolation after cultures have been obtained.

Choice A rationale:
Leukocyte-poor packed red blood cells (LP-PRBCs) have a significantly reduced number of white blood cells (WBCs), also known as leukocytes. This is crucial for pre-transplant patients like the one in the question for several reasons:
Prevention of Alloimmunization: WBCs in blood transfusions carry human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), which are proteins on the surface of cells that play a role in the immune system. Exposure to foreign HLAs can cause the recipient's immune system to develop antibodies against them, a process called alloimmunization. These antibodies can then attack and damage the transplanted kidney, leading to rejection. By reducing the number of WBCs in the transfusion, LP-PRBCs significantly lower the risk of alloimmunization.
Reduced Incidence of Febrile Non-Hemolytic Transfusion Reactions (FNHTRs): FNHTRs are the most common type of transfusion reaction, characterized by fever, chills, and occasionally other symptoms like nausea and vomiting. They are thought to be caused by cytokines released from WBCs in the transfused blood. LP-PRBCs, with their reduced WBC content, have been shown to lower the incidence of FNHTRs.
Potential Benefits for Graft Survival: Some studies have suggested that the use of LP-PRBCs for transfusions may improve long-term graft survival rates in kidney transplant patients, although more research is needed to confirm these findings.
Choice B rationale:
This statement is incorrect. While LP-PRBCs may have some advantages in terms of absorption or utilization, this is not the primary reason for their use in pre-transplant patients. The main goal is to reduce the risk of alloimmunization and other transfusion-related complications.
Choice C rationale:
This statement is partially correct. LP-PRBCs do tend to cause fewer blood reactions, particularly FNHTRs, as explained in the rationale for Choice A. However, this is not the most comprehensive or accurate explanation for their use in pre-transplant patients.
Choice D rationale:
This statement is not directly relevant to the use of LP-PRBCs in pre-transplant patients. While LP-PRBCs may have a lower risk of hemolysis, this is not the primary reason for their use in this specific context.