An adult client exhibits an allergic reaction to an Insect bite. The nurse should observe the client's skin for which finding?

Choice A Reason:
Sending the sample for laboratory evaluation is incorrect. Sending the urine sample for laboratory evaluation is a standard procedure to assess for any abnormalities, such as urinary tract infections (UTIs), kidney function, or other urinary tract disorders. While laboratory evaluation of the urine sample is important for diagnostic purposes, the client's difficulty providing an adequate urine sample suggests an underlying issue that needs to be addressed before obtaining a sample.
Choice B Reason:
Giving the client 8 ounces (236.5 mL) of water to drink is incorrect. Offering the client water to drink is a common intervention to encourage urine production and facilitate urine sample collection, particularly if the client is dehydrated or has difficulty producing a sample. However, given the client's symptoms of lower abdominal discomfort, frequent urination, and difficulty providing a urine sample despite efforts, simply offering water may not adequately address the underlying issue of potential bladder distention.
Choice C Reason:
Evaluating the client for bladder distention is correct. The client's symptoms of lower abdominal discomfort, frequent urination, and difficulty providing a urine sample after an extended period of time, along with returning with only a few drops of urine, are suggestive of potential bladder distention. Evaluating the client for bladder distention involves assessing for signs such as a visibly enlarged and palpable bladder, suprapubic discomfort or pain, and percussion of the bladder to assess for dullness, indicating fluid accumulation. Addressing bladder distention is essential to ensure the client's comfort and prevent complications associated with urinary retention.
Choice D Reason:
Instructing the client to attempt to urinate again is incorrect. Instructing the client to attempt to urinate again may be a reasonable intervention if the bladder is not distended and the client is simply having difficulty producing a urine sample. However, given the client's symptoms and the difficulty providing an adequate urine sample despite previous attempts, simply instructing the client to try again may not address the underlying issue of potential bladder distention. Evaluating for bladder distention is necessary to determine the appropriate course of action and ensure the client's comfort and safety.

Choice A Reason:
An adult male presents with fears that he has "lung cancer." Is appropriate. This choice accurately captures the client's expressed fear of having lung cancer. However, it lacks specificity regarding the duration of symptoms (six weeks) and the nature of the symptom (dry cough). Therefore, while it acknowledges the client's concern, it does not provide comprehensive documentation of the client's reported symptoms.
Choice B Reason:
This option accurately captures the client's primary concern, which is the persistent dry cough lasting for six weeks. It avoids assuming a diagnosis (such as lung cancer) and instead focuses on the client's reported symptom. This type of documentation allows for an objective record of the client's statement while avoiding speculation about specific diagnoses. It also provides important information that can guide further assessment and diagnostic evaluation by healthcare providers.
Choice C Reason:
This option documents the client's expressed concern about having symptoms consistent with lung cancer for the past six weeks. While it accurately reflects the client's fear, it may lead to premature assumptions about the diagnosis before a thorough assessment and diagnostic workup are conducted. It's important for documentation to focus on the client's reported symptoms rather than presumptive diagnoses to maintain objectivity and guide appropriate evaluation and management..
Choice D Reason:
Presents with a hacking non-productive cough of 6 weeks duration. This choice accurately describes the client's reported symptom of a "hacking non-productive cough" and includes the duration of the symptom (six weeks). However, it does not explicitly mention the client's expressed fear of having lung cancer, which is an important aspect of the client's presentation that should be documented. Additionally, the term "hacking" may not fully capture the severity or character of the client's reported cough, as the client described it as "body-wracking." Therefore, while it provides some relevant information, it does not fully capture the client's concerns and presentation.