"Risk For" Diagnoses

[am0r803]

After reading through many, many posts I've seen it mentioned that a "Risk for" diagnosis is not written the same way as a regular diagnosis. Correct me if I'm wrong - but it's supposed to be just the Risk for and related factor? Just wanted to double check before I wrote one, because every time I have done a Risk for - such as Risk for infection, I have always done risk for infection as evidenced by something related to something else. I was never corrected on this. But after thinking about it, it doesn't make sense to have a risk for diagnosis with as evidenced by because there's no real evidence there right?? I dont know, Im just rambling... Been doing school work all weekend and my words are starting to get scrambled up in my head!!

But please, let me know if I'm on the right track as far as eliminating the evidenced by part of the diagnosis!

THANKS!!

[hypocaffeinemia, BSN, RN]

I think you answered your own question.

Simply, if there were evidence to support a particular diagnosis, it wouldn't be a risk; it'd be a reality.

[elkpark]

In the programs in which I've taught, we've always required students to write the "risk for" dxs the same as all the others, and include evidence of the "risk for" part -- what is the evidence/data that led you to decide that this client is at risk of a particular problem? One could make the argument that any and all of us are at risk of anything (I'm "at risk of" getting hit by a bus tomorrow!), but what are the reasons why you think that this client is at risk of this problem enough to include it in a care plan? And, if you can't construct a concrete rationale for why the person is at risk of a particular problem, they're probably not really at risk of it (or you're not thinking it through clearly enough -- this is a great "critical thinking" exercise).

However, you should definitely write the dxs however your school wants you to ...

[Daytonite, BSN, RN]

This comes up so much that I wrote a post addressing it:

• https://allnurses.com/forums/2751313-post8.html

[am0r803]

Great! Well, here is what I have come up with.... I put this one off to the side though, because I'm not really sure how I feel about using it... but if anyone wants to let me know what they think - feel free.

Risk for infection related to inadequate primary defense (broken skin, traumatized tissue) and inadequate secondary defense (decreased Hgb count 7.2)

My interventions are to Keep current Stage 4 pressure ulcer clean and covered according to hospital standards, Monitor for S/S of infection and notify primary doctor if any occur, Encourage diet high in protein and vitamins to help increase hgb count, and maybe some testing to find out why Hgb count is dropping??

[Daytonite, BSN, RN]

list out the actual signs and symptoms of infection to look for in your intervention. we can't order lab tests. i don't get the connection between hgb and infection for this patient (the pathophysiology) and i know the inflammation/infection response pretty well. i think you need to establish a perfusion/circulation problem to make the connection between the low hgb and infection and i don't know if you can do that with an ulcer on the sacrum like you can with an ulcer on a diabetic's foot. i can see monitoring a sed rate which is a nonspecific test for the possible presence of infection.

[nurseADR09]

I havent read the other responses, but Can I write Risk for blank r/t blank?

Example: Risk for Falls r/t previous fall or hip fracture AEB .....

[Daytonite, BSN, RN]

I havent read the other responses, but Can I write Risk for blank r/t blank?

Example: Risk for Falls r/t previous fall or hip fracture AEB .....

Yes, but I wouldn't use "hip fracture" as a risk factor. I'd use something that is more descriptive of the reason they are falling all the time like "impaired ability to walk" or "impaired ability to maintain balance" instead.

[classicdame, MSN, EdD]

an actual problem requires an actual intervention

a "risk" requires monitoring, education and the potential for intervention