Published Sep 29, 2010
all4ofus, ASN, RN
99 Posts
Does anyone know why "Risk for Electrolyte Imbalance" is a valid nursing diagnosis, but an actual "Electrolyte Imbalance" is not? The same applies to Risk for Infection vs. an actual Infection, and I am sure there are others. This is frustrating to me because I am working on a care plan for a patient who has electrolyte imbalances, not just a risk for them (due to kidney failure). If you have any insight, please let me know.
cjar107013
40 Posts
I believe it is because Electrolyte Imbalance and Infection are both medical diagnoses.
anonymous1919, LPN
249 Posts
I believe she/he is right as well.
afox
135 Posts
yep, thats how my instructor made it sound. I'm under the impression you can still use the "risk for" even though they actually have it, but I could be wrong.
DayDreamin ER CRNP
640 Posts
I agree with the above posters that "electrolyte imbalance" and "infection" are medical diagnoses.
Our teachers don't allow us to use that. If they have it, they have it and you can't use "risk for."
I think you could use "Risk for nutritional deficit lower than body requirements r/t electrolyte imbalance secondary to.....xyz" If they have a specific electrolyte that is above/below the normal range you could focus on what the ND might be r/t that particular deficit.
Clear as mud?
m
jjjoy, LPN
2,801 Posts
Great question! If the reasoning is that infection and electrolyte imbalance are medical dx, then wouldn't any "Risk for (any medical diagnosis)" be alright?
Exactly! It's also my understanding that none of the NANDA nursing diagnoses can even use medical diagnoses in them, which means that electrolyte imbalance or infection can't be true medical diagnoses.