Nursing diagnosis question: Why not "risk for.."?

[bebu]

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this, and I would love it if someone could clarify...

If a person is overweight, has HTN, has family hx of DM and MI, is sedentary, and eats high fat foods, why is there no way to say "risk for CAD" in nice, certifiable NANDA language--at least that I can see?

I can see the Heart Attack DX: "Ineffective tissue perfusion (cardiopulmonary) r/t dec cellular exchange". But there is no "risk for" associated with this DX. You are either having a heart attack, or you don't need a DX.

What is the way to diagnose the body's response to the narrowing blood vessels, or to say there is a risk for a negative response?

I can't find this answer after a long while searching. Surely I am not the only one to try and answer this question! :oP

I know many nurses eat their young. I assure you I am too old and tough to eat, so if you don't want to give an answer that can explain how I can see these things better (and particularly this question), please don't make snarky comments. I want to LEARN, not just get free answers. I have been reading all kinds of DXs, but don't understand this point yet.

Thanks!

[canchaser, BSN, RN]

Because " CAD" is a medical diagnosis. Your are wanting NANDA diagnosis which are nursing DX. Nursing DX are symptomology DX. For example: potential for decreased cardiac output, anxiety R/t, ineffective tissue perfusion. Everything you would see as a result of the Disease without a medical DX. Hope this helps.

[bebu]

Thanks for replying. :)

I realize now the main comment got deleted. I'll try and add it here.

What with knowing that about all the risks for CAD, and of course we don't write a nsg dx for CAD, just the symptoms, is there a reason we can't say "risk for decreased cardiac output"? Or "risk for acute pain"?

The rules for risk dxs seem very arbitrary to me at this point.

Another example: We can say "risk for loneliness" but there is no actual dx for "loneliness". Why not just say "risk for...(various human responses to loneliness)" instead of using the word loneliness, if we are trying to focus on resonses?

There must be a big secret as to why, but I've not figured it out yet. LOL

[canchaser, BSN, RN]

When I was in school 18 some years ago. We did not use "risk for" it was potential for as in potential for deceased cardiac output. As far as the anxiety question I have no idea.?