The nurse is teaching a parent who delivered the baby with vacuum-assisted delivery. Which of the following statements will confirm to the nurse that the teaching was effective?

Choice A reason: The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is typically recommended for preteens at age 11 or 12 to protect against HPV infections that can lead to certain types of cancer later in life. This vaccine is given as a series of shots, and starting the series at 11 years old is ideal for maximizing its effectiveness before any potential exposure to the virus.

Choice B reason: The Pneumococcal vaccine is generally recommended for infants, young children, and older adults, particularly those with certain health conditions. It protects against pneumococcal disease, including infections in the lungs, blood, and brain. While it is crucial for vulnerable populations, it is not typically administered to healthy 11-year-old children.

Choice C reason: The Measles vaccine is part of the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine, which is usually administered in two doses—the first dose at 12-15 months of age and the second dose at 4-6 years of age. By the time a child reaches 11 years old, they would have already received both doses of the MMR vaccine, assuming they followed the standard vaccination schedule.

Choice D reason: The Rubella vaccine is also included in the MMR vaccine, which is given in two doses during early childhood. Since the second dose is typically administered by the age of 6, an 11-year-old child would not require another dose of the Rubella vaccine if they followed the standard vaccination schedule.

Choice A reason: Scheduling a full neurological evaluation is the appropriate action in this scenario. The sudden regression in the child's ability to walk is a significant concern that requires immediate investigation to rule out any underlying neurological or medical conditions. A full neurological evaluation will help identify any issues such as developmental delays, neuromuscular disorders, or other conditions that may be affecting the child's motor skills. Prompt evaluation and diagnosis are crucial for early intervention and appropriate management.

Choice B reason: Recommending follow-up in 30 days after documenting the regression is not an ideal approach in this situation. Given the severity of the regression in the child's walking ability, waiting for 30 days without further investigation could delay critical diagnosis and treatment. Immediate assessment is necessary to address potential underlying issues and provide timely intervention.

Choice C reason: Questioning the parents about changes in the child's activity schedule is important but should not be the sole action taken. While gathering information about the child's activities and environment can provide valuable context, it does not replace the need for a thorough medical evaluation. The primary concern here is the sudden regression in motor skills, which warrants a full neurological assessment.

Choice D reason: Documenting the findings and scheduling an 18-month well-visit is also not sufficient. While it is essential to document the observed regression, delaying further action until the next routine check-up could result in missed opportunities for early diagnosis and intervention. The priority should be to conduct a neurological evaluation to understand the cause of the regression and take appropriate steps to address it.