Which of the following forms commonly accompanies a toxicology drug screen for legal purposes?
Chain of custody
Requisition
Encounter
CMS 1500
The Correct Answer is A
Choice A Reason:
The chain of custody form is crucial in the context of a toxicology drug screen for legal purposes. It is a document that records the sequence of custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of physical and electronic evidence. It is particularly important in legal cases where the results of the toxicology screen can be used as evidence in court. The chain of custody ensures that the sample has been handled properly and that the integrity of the sample has been maintained throughout the testing process.
Choice B Reason:
A requisition form is used to request a specific test or service. While it is an essential document in the process of ordering a toxicology drug screen, it does not serve the same purpose as the chain of custody in terms of legal proceedings. The requisition form typically includes patient information, the tests ordered, and the reason for the test, but it does not track the handling of the sample.
Choice C Reason:
An encounter form, also known as a superbill, is used in medical billing to capture the services provided during a patient's visit. It includes information about the patient's diagnosis, the procedures performed, and the codes for billing purposes. However, it is not specifically related to the legal aspects of a toxicology drug screen.
Choice D Reason:
The CMS 1500 form is the standard claim form used by healthcare providers to bill Medicare and Medicaid services. It is also used by some private insurers and managed care plans. Like the encounter form, it is related to billing and not to the legal chain of custody required for a toxicology drug screen.
Nursing Test Bank
Naxlex Comprehensive Predictor Exams
Related Questions
Correct Answer is D
Explanation
Choice A Reason:
Inverting the tube 5 to 7 times may not be sufficient to mix the blood thoroughly with the EDTA. This could lead to partial clotting and potentially inaccurate test results. The EDTA anticoagulant works by binding calcium ions, which are necessary for blood clotting. Without adequate mixing, the EDTA may not be evenly distributed, leaving some areas of the blood sample able to clot.
Choice B Reason:
Inverting the tube only 2 to 4 times is inadequate for proper mixing. This minimal agitation would likely result in clot formation because the anticoagulant would not be sufficiently mixed with the blood. Clots can interfere with the accuracy of hematological tests by trapping cells and altering the specimen's composition.
Choice C Reason:
Inverting the tube 1 to 3 times is clearly insufficient and would almost certainly lead to clotting. The purpose of inverting the tube is to ensure that the EDTA coats all the blood cells, preventing coagulation. Such a low number of inversions would not allow for the anticoagulant to perform its function effectively.
Choice D Reason:
Inverting the tube 8 to 10 times is the recommended practice. This number of inversions ensures that the blood is fully mixed with the EDTA, preventing clot formation and preserving the integrity of the sample for accurate laboratory analysis. It is important to perform these inversions gently to avoid hemolysis, which can also affect test results. Hemolysis occurs when red blood cells are damaged and their contents leak out, which can happen if the blood is shaken too vigorously.
Correct Answer is A
Explanation
Choice A Reason:
The recommended heel stick depth of 2.0 mm is based on the need to minimize the risk of injury to the infant. Penetrating deeper than this can increase the likelihood of hitting bone, which in infants can be as close as 2.0 mm under the skin of the plantar surface of the heel. This depth is sufficient to obtain a blood sample without risking injury to deeper tissues or bone.
Choice B Reason:
A depth of 2.5 mm may be too deep for some infants, especially preterm or very small infants, where the calcaneus (heel bone) is closer to the surface. While this depth might still be safe for some infants, it does not provide the same margin of safety as the 2.0 mm recommendation and could potentially lead to bone puncture or other injuries.
Choice C Reason:
A depth of 3.0 mm significantly increases the risk of bone puncture, especially in infants with less subcutaneous fat or in those who are preterm. This depth could easily breach the protective layer of skin and subcutaneous tissue, leading to a higher risk of osteomyelitis, an infection of the bone, which can be a serious complication in infants.
Choice D Reason:
A depth of 3.5 mm is considered too deep for a heel stick procedure and is likely to cause injury to the infant. This depth would almost certainly penetrate the bone in most infants, leading to severe pain, potential for infection, and other complications. It is well beyond the safe range recommended by CLSI and should be avoided.
Whether you are a student looking to ace your exams or a practicing nurse seeking to enhance your expertise , our nursing education contents will empower you with the confidence and competence to make a difference in the lives of patients and become a respected leader in the healthcare field.
Visit Naxlex, invest in your future and unlock endless possibilities with our unparalleled nursing education contents today
Report Wrong Answer on the Current Question
Do you disagree with the answer? If yes, what is your expected answer? Explain.
Kindly be descriptive with the issue you are facing.