Nursing care plan help

[laurelwoods94]

I am making a NCP for my pt. he is 88y/o and very HOHx2. I've started it and my nursing Dx is:

at risk for falls r/t lack of awareness of environmental hazards secondary to maturational age and hearing impairment,

supportive data:

age

wears hearing aids

confusion

chronic back pain

inability to hear/understand what is being spoken to (pt. name)

requires SBA

requires 4w walker

partial assist self care

my goal: relate few to no falls.

outcome: this is where i have trouble. i'm not sure how to do the outcomes or what is needed.

any help would be appreciated, as well as any feedback or constructive criticism on my cp.

thanks!

[nurseprnRN, BSN, RN]

OK, you have diagnosed that this person is at risk for falls. You will do (X,Y,Z) to decrease his risk. Your goal is fewer/no falls. Your outcome measure of your plan's effectiveness is, therefore .... Yes, it really is that simple.

[PaulBaxter]

My nursing diagnosis book has suggested outcome statements in it. I always just steal those if they are appropriate. They are usually pretty basic. Risk for infection---> patient remains free of infection, etc.

[dorkypanda]

My nursing diagnosis book has suggested outcome statements in it. I always just steal those if they are appropriate. They are usually pretty basic. Risk for infection---> patient remains free of infection, etc.

Hi paul what book did you use?

Did you buy the book the program recommended to you or did you buy what book you wanted to buy based on reviews?

did you like the book the program recommended and do you recommend it to others?

[PsychNurseWannaBe, BSN, RN]

Does your professor care if you do a risk for care plan versus an actual care plan? For example he has pain.

[nurseprnRN, BSN, RN]

Does your professor care if you do a risk for care plan versus an actual care plan? For example he has pain.

AAAAAAAAACCCKKKKK! I can't stand it.

Another program that has somehow allowed its student to think that a nursing plan of care for a risk situation is somehow not "actual."

The people who say that "risk for" diagnoses are somehow not "real" or are less significant because they are "potential problems and not actual problems" are dead wrong, and they have only to look at the NANDA-I book to learn that. Just about every one of the Safety diagnoses is a "risk for..." and I am sure that no real nurse would think safety not an actual, ongoing, very real nursing duty and responsibility. The NANDA-I may be changing the wording for these to "Vulnerable to..." in hopes that faculty will stop filling students' heads with that misrepresentation (we all got to vote on that) (I am a member; any RN can be).

I posted this recently in a thread about a nursing diagnosis for a normal newborn:

I hate this. I hate it that faculty are somehow giving students the idea that "risk for" diagnoses are somehow inferior or not important.

If that were your baby girl lying in the bassinet next to your bed, would you think that a nurse who considers that she could be at risk for body temp imbalance/hypothermia, infection, aspiration, or injury was being substandard or lazy or somehow giving your infant short shrift because those weren't "actual" diagnoses? If you don't have the NANDA-I 2015-2017, you are missing the big picture (and not just with healthy newborns). There's an entire section on safety in there, and most of the diagnoses in it begin with "risk for..." If you don't think safety and protection from possible injury are among the biggest duties a nurse owes a patient, then ... then ... aw, hell, I'm speechless.