While assessing a client, the nurse notices that the client's legs are asymmetrical. Which additional physical data should the nurse collect?

Choice A Reason:
Pupils equal, round, reacts to light, and accommodation (PERLA) is inappropriate. While PERLA includes accommodation, which involves constriction of the pupils when focusing on a near object, accommodation was not specifically assessed or mentioned in the scenario. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to include it in the documentation based solely on the information provided.
Choice B Reason:
Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 15 is inappropriate. The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) assesses the level of consciousness based on eye, verbal, and motor responses. However, the scenario does not provide information about the client's verbal or motor responses, so using the GCS score of 15 would not accurately reflect the findings described in the assessment of the pupils.
Choice C Reason:
Pupils equal, round, reacts to light (PERRL) is appropriate. This notation describes the key observations made during the assessment of the client's pupils. "PERRL" stands for Pupils Equal, Round, and Reactive to Light. In the given scenario, both pupils are equal in size, round, and demonstrate a brisk response to light, indicating normal pupillary function.
Choice D Reason:
Neurological status intact is inappropriate. While the assessment findings suggest normal pupillary function, documenting "neurological status intact" is a broader statement that encompasses various aspects of neurological function beyond just pupillary assessment. It may be accurate to describe the pupillary findings within the context of a broader neurological assessment, but it does not specifically address the pupil findings as described in the scenario. Therefore, option C is the most appropriate notation for documenting the assessment findings of the pupils.

Choice A Reason:
Performing passive range of motion and compare the findings is inappropriate. While assessing passive range of motion can provide information about joint mobility and flexibility, it may not directly address the asymmetry observed in the legs. Range of motion assessment is more relevant for evaluating joint function and flexibility rather than leg length asymmetry.
Choice B Reason:
Comparing measured circumferences of each extremity joint is inappropriate. Measuring circumferences of extremity joints may help identify differences in muscle mass or swelling, but it may not directly address the asymmetrical leg length observed. Circumference measurements are more relevant for assessing muscle bulk or detecting signs of edema rather than leg length asymmetry.
Choice C Reason:
Instructing client to walk across the room and observe the gait is inappropriate. Observing the client's gait can provide valuable information about their walking pattern and any abnormalities in movement. While an abnormal gait may be associated with leg length asymmetry, directly measuring leg length would provide more precise data for evaluation.
Choice D Reason:
Measuring the length of each leg and document the findings is appropriate. Measuring the length of each leg can help identify any significant differences in leg length, which could be contributing to the asymmetry observed. Leg length discrepancy can result from various musculoskeletal conditions such as scoliosis, hip dysplasia, or unequal growth rates. Documenting the findings allows for accurate tracking of changes over time and provides important information for healthcare providers to determine appropriate interventions, such as orthotic devices or physical therapy.