I was thinking about doing risk for infection for a pt that is post op a total hip replacement. The pt has HIV and type 2 diabetes which would make this a great diagnosis. BUT the pt's temp was 99.9 but went back down to98.2 within a couple of hrs. Her WBC was also elevated to 14.8 with the first 24 hrs post op but I was thinking this may be due to inflammation. Could I still do RISK FOR? Or would it be actual?
Specializes in Infusion, Med/Surg/Tele, Outpatient.
You could probably get away with a risk-for-infection dx. But far better would be to focus on your pt's actual problems. Total Hip? Much worse risk would be to throw a clot. Impaired mobility? Acute pain? Self-care deficit? Activity intolerance? Education needs?
So to ask the question- why wouldn't infection risk be on the list? Maybe it's not the #1, or even #5, priority, but wouldn't we want to prevent it from becoming an ACTUAL if we could?
Sjump
3 Posts
I was thinking about doing risk for infection for a pt that is post op a total hip replacement. The pt has HIV and type 2 diabetes which would make this a great diagnosis. BUT the pt's temp was 99.9 but went back down to98.2 within a couple of hrs. Her WBC was also elevated to 14.8 with the first 24 hrs post op but I was thinking this may be due to inflammation. Could I still do RISK FOR? Or would it be actual?