Anyone know of a good priority book? Not LaCharity - I finished this.NCLEX land HELP!

[jcutler]

Am taking nclex in 2 weeks. Finished the lacharity book and Saunders. BUT, does not have priority question when everyone is dying like almost all the priority Q's on the nclex. I know cause I have taken the nclex twice. Saunders does but only 75 of these questions on the CD. I need questions with Airway breathing circulation Neuro changes, VS changes, Electrolyte changes. I don't know which order to go with.

E.g.

If I have a vomiting patient, would that take priority over a person with DKA or a patient with critically low BP.

If I have a change in LOC pt. and Pt. with tachycardia, would I see the tachycardia pt. since it is circulation.

If I have a extremely hyperkalemia pt. with arrythmias vs. someone with dig toxicity with nausea, who would take priority.

My question is is there a schematic with ABC's Neuro, VS changes, and Electrolytes. Which take priority, and most importatantly...how much of a priority is a sudden change in LOC. I know it is critical, but does it take priority over a vomiting patient or patients with critical circulation problems.

Any help appreciated. Cause in my experience, the questions are always...all the patients dying.

Sorry for being so meticulous. I have a job lined up for me. I have to pass. I have $200 in my bank account. I am desperate.

[nicenrse]

This post may help you, https://allnurses.com/nclex-discussion-forum/how-pass-nclex-244996.html

[jjjoy, LPN]

Very good questions! Those are the kind of discussions I would've liked to have had as a student. I could come up with different rationales for different answers being the priority since there are so many variables and unknowns involved. In my limited experience, many instructors and nursing colleagues tend to discourage further questioning of a given rationale, implying if not outright saying that "if it's not obvious to you why X is a priority, then I doubt your intelligence and competence". But without previous experience or a wider context to pull from, it's not always so obvious. When someone refuses to allow further questioning, I have to wonder if it's because I'm missing something or if they don't really understand the underlying rationale and pathophys any better than I do. And that doesn't mean the person's not knowledgeable or competent. A person can be a great clinician without having a FULL grasp of underlying rationales. There's just too much to know out there and still enough unknowns out there to expect everyone to know everything.

[caliotter3]

The only resource out there at this time is the LaCharity book, unless something else is recently published. If anyone has seen a new book, they should share it.