Geschreven door studenten die geslaagd zijn Direct beschikbaar na je betaling Online lezen of als PDF Verkeerd document? Gratis ruilen 4,6 TrustPilot
logo-home
Document preview thumbnail
Voorbeeld 4 van de 393 pagina's
Tentamen (uitwerkingen)

HIGH-LEVEL EVALUATION

Document preview thumbnail
Voorbeeld 4 van de 393 pagina's

HIGH-LEVEL EVALUATION Strengths Clear alignment with ADPIE + clinical judgment Strong emphasis on prioritization and individualization Mostly single-best-answer, non-ambiguous items Good use of realistic cues and distractors Opportunities for refinement Increase cognitive load slightly (add competing cues or subtle distractors) Reduce obvious “textbook” answers (especially where one option is clearly idealized) Strengthen distractor plausibility Tighten outcome vs intervention distinctions Avoid repeated phrasing patterns (“best action,” “best response”) ️ ITEM-BY-ITEM PRECISION IMPROVEMENTS Item 1 — Individualizing a Care Plan Status: Strong Refinement: Add objective fatigue cue to deepen reasoning Suggested stem upgrade: “…prefers short, frequent rest periods and becomes short of breath after minimal exertion.” Enhances clinical realism + justification for modification Item 2 — Prioritization (Gas Exchange) Status: Excellent No changes needed Strong ABC prioritization Good competing cues ️ Item 3 — Clinical Judgment Challenge Issue: Option B is too obviously correct Improve distractor strength: Replace Option C with: C. Notify the provider immediately about suspected neglect Now tests premature escalation vs continued assessment Item 4 — Optimizing Care Status: Strong Refinement: Add measurable element to option B Improved Option B: “Encourage participation using small, measurable goals tied to current function” ️ Item 5 — Various Clinical Problems Issue: Slightly predictable (confusion = always priority) Improve discrimination: Add subtle competing urgency: Stem enhancement: “…new confusion after surgery with restlessness and pulling at IV lines…” Introduces safety + delirium risk Item 6 — Quality & Safety Status: High-quality Strong real-world scenario Excellent safety emphasis ️ Item 7 — Quality Improvement Issue: Distractors are too weak (obvious wrong answers) Upgrade distractors: Replace: C → “Implement double-checks at shift change immediately” D → “Provide additional education on medication policies” Now tests data-first vs premature intervention Item 8 — Patient Education Materials Status: Strong Clear literacy alignment ️ Item 9 — Purpose of Care Plans Issue: Slightly conceptual vs applied Improve clinical relevance: Revised stem: “A new nurse is caring for multiple patients and is unsure how to organize priorities…” Anchors concept in practice Item 10 — Individualized Intervention Status: Excellent Strong patient-centered reasoning ️ Item 11 — Evaluation of Interventions Issue: Option B is clearly correct but could be more nuanced Enhancement: Add competing “partial success” option: D. The patient remains in bed but verbalizes understanding of fall risk Forces distinction between knowledge vs behavior Item 12 — Measurable Outcome Status: Excellent Strong NOC alignment Item 13 — Prioritization (Oxygen) Status: Excellent Clean ABC prioritization ️ Item 14 — Plan Revision Issue: Could include risk cue Stem enhancement: “…becomes dizzy and requires support to prevent falling…” Reinforces safety + need for revision ️ Item 15 — Quality Improvement Data Issue: Slightly straightforward Upgrade Option C: C. Reinforce turning schedules during staff meetings Makes distractor more realistic Item 16 — Patient Education Materials Status: Strong Practical and realistic ️ Item 17 — Nursing Responsibility Issue: Slightly didactic Improve application: Revised stem: “A student nurse fails to update a care plan after assessment changes…” Moves from theory → clinical accountability ️ Item 18 — Evaluation Interpretation Issue: Could better test partial vs full outcome logic Enhancement: Add expected goal reference: “…goal: ambulate 20 feet independently…” Makes evaluation more precise Item 19 — Safety & Individualization Status: Excellent Strong real-world applicability ️ Item 20 — Comprehensive Clinical Judgment Issue: Option B slightly broad Refine Option B: “Prioritize assessment of physical and psychosocial needs, then individualize the care plan” Improves clarity + aligns with ADPIE

Voorbeeld van de inhoud

NURSING CARE PLANS
DIAGNOSES, INTERVENTIONS, AND
OUTCOMES
11TH EDITION
• AUTHOR(S)MEG GULANICK;
JUDITH L. MYERS



TEST BANK
Reference: Chapter 1 — Prioritizing nursing diagnoses
Clinical stem:
A postoperative patient reports incisional pain rated 8/10 and
asks for medication. While assessing the patient, the nurse
notes shallow respirations at 8/min and oxygen saturation of
88% on room air. The patient is drowsy but arousable. Which
nursing diagnosis should the nurse address first?

,Options:
A. Acute Pain
B. Impaired Gas Exchange
C. Anxiety
D. Deficient Knowledge
Correct answer: B. Impaired Gas Exchange
Rationale — Correct answer:
Impaired gas exchange is the priority because the patient has an
immediate breathing problem, shown by low oxygen saturation,
shallow respirations, and drowsiness. Using airway and
breathing priorities, the nurse must act on the most urgent
physiologic threat first.
Rationale — Incorrect options:
A. Acute pain is important, but it does not take priority over
compromised oxygenation.
C. Anxiety may be present, but it is not the most urgent
problem.
D. Deficient knowledge is not the priority when the patient
shows signs of respiratory compromise.
Teaching point:
ABCs and oxygenation come before pain, teaching, or
psychosocial concerns.
Citation:
Gulanick, M., & Myers, J. (2026). Nursing Care Plans: Diagnoses,

,Interventions, and Outcomes (11th ed.). Chapter 1: Prioritizing
nursing diagnoses.


2. Individualizing a care plan
Reference: Chapter 1 — Individualizing a care plan
Clinical stem:
A nurse is planning discharge teaching for an older adult newly
diagnosed with heart failure. The patient says, “I do not read
well, and my daughter helps me manage my medicines.” Which
nursing action best individualizes the care plan?
Options:
A. Use the same written handout given to all patients with heart
failure
B. Ask the daughter to attend teaching and use simple verbal
instructions
C. Tell the patient to read the material at home and call with
questions
D. Focus only on medication names because that is the most
important topic
Correct answer: B. Ask the daughter to attend teaching and
use simple verbal instructions
Rationale — Correct answer:
This response individualizes the care plan by matching teaching
to the patient’s learning needs and support system. It reflects

, patient-centered care and improves the likelihood of
understanding and follow-through.
Rationale — Incorrect options:
A. A standard handout may not match the patient’s literacy
level or learning needs.
C. This assumes the patient can read and self-teach, which is
unsafe.
D. Education should be broader than medication names and
adapted to the patient’s needs.
Teaching point:
Individualized care plans reflect the patient’s abilities,
preferences, and support systems.
Citation:
Gulanick, M., & Myers, J. (2026). Nursing Care Plans: Diagnoses,
Interventions, and Outcomes (11th ed.). Chapter 1:
Individualizing a care plan.


3. Writing a measurable outcome
Reference: Chapter 1 — How to use nursing care plans:
diagnoses, interventions, and outcomes
Clinical stem:
A nurse is writing an outcome for a patient with impaired
mobility after surgery. Which outcome is best written?

Gekoppeld boek
 image
Meg Gulanick Nursing Care Plans
Uitgever: 2016 ISBN: 9781974801954 Druk: Onbekend

Documentinformatie

Geüpload op
19 maart 2026
Aantal pagina's
393
Geschreven in
2025/2026
Type
Tentamen (uitwerkingen)
Bevat
Vragen en antwoorden
$32.49

Verkeerd document? Gratis ruilen Binnen 14 dagen na aankoop en voor het downloaden kan je een ander document kiezen. Je kan het bedrag gewoon opnieuw besteden.
Geschreven door studenten die geslaagd zijn
Direct beschikbaar na je betaling
Online lezen of als PDF

Verkocht
4
Volgers
0
Items
246
Laatst verkocht
2 maanden geleden



Waarom studenten kiezen voor Stuvia

Gemaakt door medestudenten, geverifieerd door reviews

Kwaliteit die je kunt vertrouwen: geschreven door studenten die slaagden en beoordeeld door anderen die dit document gebruikten.

Niet tevreden? Kies een ander document

Geen zorgen! Je kunt voor hetzelfde geld direct een ander document kiezen dat beter past bij wat je zoekt.

Betaal zoals je wilt, start meteen met leren

Geen abonnement, geen verplichtingen. Betaal zoals je gewend bent via Bancontact, iDeal of creditcard en download je PDF-document meteen.

Student with book image

“Gekocht, gedownload en geslaagd. Zo eenvoudig kan het zijn.”

Alisha Student

Bezig met je bronvermelding?

Maak nauwkeurige citaten in APA, MLA en Harvard met onze gratis bronnengenerator.

Bezig met je bronvermelding?

Veelgestelde vragen