Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Respiratory rate varied between 16 breaths/min and 32 breaths/min, with the latest value 31 breaths/min; the latest systolic BP is 121 mmHg; the latest respiratory rate is 31 breaths/min.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Respiratory rate varied between 16 breaths/min and 32 breaths/min, with the latest value 31 breaths/min; the latest MAP is 79 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 72 bpm.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Respiratory rate varied between 16 breaths/min and 32 breaths/min, with the latest value 31 breaths/min; the latest systolic BP is 121 mmHg; the latest respiratory rate is 31 breaths/min.
D. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Respiratory rate varied between 16 breaths/min and 32 breaths/min, with the latest value 31 breaths/min; the latest MAP is 79 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 72 bpm.

Answer: B


Question:
From the available ICU observations, decide whether to escalate monitoring now or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Respiratory rate varied between 16 breaths/min and 32 breaths/min, with the latest value 31 breaths/min; the latest systolic BP is 121 mmHg; the latest respiratory rate is 31 breaths/min.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Respiratory rate varied between 16 breaths/min and 32 breaths/min, with the latest value 31 breaths/min; the latest systolic BP is 121 mmHg; the latest respiratory rate is 31 breaths/min.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. Respiratory rate varied between 16 breaths/min and 32 breaths/min, with the latest value 31 breaths/min; the latest heart rate is 72 bpm; the latest MAP is 79 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. Respiratory rate varied between 16 breaths/min and 32 breaths/min, with the latest value 31 breaths/min; the latest heart rate is 72 bpm; the latest MAP is 79 mmHg.

Answer: A


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. Urine output most recently reached 0 mL after low intervals down to 0 mL; respiratory rate varied between 6 breaths/min and 17 breaths/min, with the latest value 12 breaths/min; the current values include systolic BP 132 mmHg and respiratory rate 12 breaths/min.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Respiratory rate varied between 6 breaths/min and 17 breaths/min, with the latest value 12 breaths/min; the latest MAP is 85 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 108 bpm.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. Urine output most recently reached 0 mL after low intervals down to 0 mL; respiratory rate varied between 6 breaths/min and 17 breaths/min, with the latest value 12 breaths/min; the most recent entries show systolic BP 132 mmHg and respiratory rate 12 breaths/min.
D. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Respiratory rate varied between 6 breaths/min and 17 breaths/min, with the latest value 12 breaths/min; the latest MAP is 85 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 108 bpm.

Answer: D


Question:
From the available ICU observations, decide whether to escalate monitoring now or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Urine output most recently reached 0 mL after low intervals down to 0 mL; respiratory rate varied between 6 breaths/min and 17 breaths/min, with the latest value 12 breaths/min; the latest bedside set shows heart rate 108 bpm and MAP 85 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Urine output most recently reached 0 mL after low intervals down to 0 mL; respiratory rate varied between 6 breaths/min and 17 breaths/min, with the latest value 12 breaths/min; the current values include systolic BP 132 mmHg and respiratory rate 12 breaths/min.
C. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Urine output most recently reached 0 mL after low intervals down to 0 mL; respiratory rate varied between 6 breaths/min and 17 breaths/min, with the latest value 12 breaths/min; the most recent entries show heart rate 108 bpm and MAP 85 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Urine output most recently reached 0 mL after low intervals down to 0 mL; respiratory rate varied between 6 breaths/min and 17 breaths/min, with the latest value 12 breaths/min; the last snapshot shows systolic BP 132 mmHg with respiratory rate 12 breaths/min.

Answer: B


Question:
Based on the observed ICU data so far, choose the next monitoring step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. SpO2 varied between 85% and 100%, with the latest value 97%; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 122 bpm, with the latest value 67 bpm; the latest bedside set shows MAP 77 mmHg and systolic BP 130 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. SpO2 varied between 85% and 100%, with the latest value 97%; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 122 bpm, with the latest value 67 bpm; the current values include MAP 77 mmHg and systolic BP 130 mmHg.
C. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. Heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 122 bpm, with the latest value 67 bpm; respiratory rate varied between 16 breaths/min and 30 breaths/min, with the latest value 26 breaths/min; the last snapshot shows MAP 77 mmHg with heart rate 67 bpm.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. Heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 122 bpm, with the latest value 67 bpm; respiratory rate varied between 16 breaths/min and 30 breaths/min, with the latest value 26 breaths/min; the most recent entries show MAP 77 mmHg and heart rate 67 bpm.

Answer: B


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. SpO2 varied between 85% and 100%, with the latest value 97%; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 122 bpm, with the latest value 67 bpm; the latest bedside set shows MAP 77 mmHg and systolic BP 130 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. SpO2 varied between 85% and 100%, with the latest value 97%; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 122 bpm, with the latest value 67 bpm; the current values include MAP 77 mmHg and systolic BP 130 mmHg.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. Respiratory rate varied between 16 breaths/min and 30 breaths/min, with the latest value 26 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 18.3 K/uL; the last snapshot shows heart rate 67 bpm with MAP 77 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Respiratory rate varied between 16 breaths/min and 30 breaths/min, with the latest value 26 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 18.3 K/uL; the most recent entries show heart rate 67 bpm and MAP 77 mmHg.

Answer: C


Question:
Based on the observed ICU data so far, choose the next monitoring step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Respiratory rate ended at 25 breaths/min after a recent low of 18 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the latest bedside set shows MAP 72 mmHg and systolic BP 138 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. The recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the latest MAP is 72 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 75 bpm.
C. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. The recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the latest MAP is 72 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 75 bpm.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. Respiratory rate ended at 25 breaths/min after a recent low of 18 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the current values include MAP 72 mmHg and systolic BP 138 mmHg.

Answer: D


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Respiratory rate ended at 25 breaths/min after a recent low of 18 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the current values include systolic BP 138 mmHg and respiratory rate 25 breaths/min.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. The recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the latest MAP is 72 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 75 bpm.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Respiratory rate ended at 25 breaths/min after a recent low of 18 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the latest bedside set shows systolic BP 138 mmHg and respiratory rate 25 breaths/min.
D. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. The recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the latest MAP is 72 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 75 bpm.

Answer: B


Question:
From the available ICU observations, decide whether to escalate monitoring now or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Respiratory rate ended at 25 breaths/min after a recent low of 18 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the most recent entries show systolic BP 138 mmHg and respiratory rate 25 breaths/min.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. Respiratory rate ended at 25 breaths/min after a recent low of 18 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the current values include heart rate 75 bpm and MAP 72 mmHg.
C. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Respiratory rate ended at 25 breaths/min after a recent low of 18 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the latest bedside set shows heart rate 75 bpm and MAP 72 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. Respiratory rate ended at 25 breaths/min after a recent low of 18 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the last snapshot shows systolic BP 138 mmHg with respiratory rate 25 breaths/min.

Answer: A


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Respiratory rate ended at 25 breaths/min after a recent low of 18 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the most recent entries show heart rate 75 bpm and MAP 72 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Respiratory rate ended at 25 breaths/min after a recent low of 18 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the current values include MAP 72 mmHg and systolic BP 138 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Respiratory rate ended at 25 breaths/min after a recent low of 18 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the latest bedside set shows MAP 72 mmHg and systolic BP 138 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Respiratory rate ended at 25 breaths/min after a recent low of 18 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 17.4 K/uL; the last snapshot shows heart rate 75 bpm with MAP 72 mmHg.

Answer: D


Question:
Based on the observed ICU data so far, choose the next monitoring step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Diastolic BP recovered to 60 mmHg after a recent low of 43 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the recent WBC reading was 15.5 K/uL; the last snapshot shows MAP 78 mmHg with heart rate 83 bpm.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. MAP recovered to 78 mmHg after a recent low of 53 mmHg below 65 mmHg; diastolic BP recovered to 60 mmHg after a recent low of 43 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the latest bedside set shows MAP 78 mmHg and systolic BP 133 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Diastolic BP recovered to 60 mmHg after a recent low of 43 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the recent WBC reading was 15.5 K/uL; the current values include MAP 78 mmHg and heart rate 83 bpm.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. MAP recovered to 78 mmHg after a recent low of 53 mmHg below 65 mmHg; diastolic BP recovered to 60 mmHg after a recent low of 43 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the most recent entries show MAP 78 mmHg and systolic BP 133 mmHg.

Answer: B


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. MAP recovered to 78 mmHg after a recent low of 53 mmHg below 65 mmHg; the recent WBC reading was 15.5 K/uL; the last snapshot shows systolic BP 133 mmHg with respiratory rate 17 breaths/min.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Diastolic BP recovered to 60 mmHg after a recent low of 43 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the recent WBC reading was 15.5 K/uL; the latest bedside set shows MAP 78 mmHg and heart rate 83 bpm.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. MAP recovered to 78 mmHg after a recent low of 53 mmHg below 65 mmHg; the recent WBC reading was 15.5 K/uL; the most recent entries show systolic BP 133 mmHg and respiratory rate 17 breaths/min.
D. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Diastolic BP recovered to 60 mmHg after a recent low of 43 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the recent WBC reading was 15.5 K/uL; the current values include MAP 78 mmHg and heart rate 83 bpm.

Answer: D


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. Diastolic BP recovered to 60 mmHg after a recent low of 43 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the recent WBC reading was 15.5 K/uL; the most recent entries show heart rate 83 bpm and MAP 78 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Diastolic BP recovered to 60 mmHg after a recent low of 43 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the recent WBC reading was 15.5 K/uL; the last snapshot shows heart rate 83 bpm with MAP 78 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. MAP recovered to 78 mmHg after a recent low of 53 mmHg below 65 mmHg; diastolic BP recovered to 60 mmHg after a recent low of 43 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the current values include MAP 78 mmHg and systolic BP 133 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. MAP recovered to 78 mmHg after a recent low of 53 mmHg below 65 mmHg; diastolic BP recovered to 60 mmHg after a recent low of 43 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the latest bedside set shows MAP 78 mmHg and systolic BP 133 mmHg.

Answer: B


Question:
From the available ICU observations, decide whether to escalate monitoring now or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Respiratory rate varied between 10 breaths/min and 19 breaths/min, with the latest value 14 breaths/min; the latest systolic BP is 124 mmHg; the latest respiratory rate is 14 breaths/min.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Respiratory rate varied between 10 breaths/min and 19 breaths/min, with the latest value 14 breaths/min; the latest heart rate is 85 bpm; the latest MAP is 76 mmHg.
C. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Respiratory rate varied between 10 breaths/min and 19 breaths/min, with the latest value 14 breaths/min; the latest systolic BP is 124 mmHg; the latest respiratory rate is 14 breaths/min.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Respiratory rate varied between 10 breaths/min and 19 breaths/min, with the latest value 14 breaths/min; the latest heart rate is 85 bpm; the latest MAP is 76 mmHg.

Answer: A


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Respiratory rate varied between 10 breaths/min and 19 breaths/min, with the latest value 14 breaths/min; the latest MAP is 76 mmHg; the latest systolic BP is 124 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Respiratory rate varied between 10 breaths/min and 19 breaths/min, with the latest value 14 breaths/min; the latest heart rate is 85 bpm; the latest MAP is 76 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Respiratory rate varied between 10 breaths/min and 19 breaths/min, with the latest value 14 breaths/min; the latest MAP is 76 mmHg; the latest systolic BP is 124 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Respiratory rate varied between 10 breaths/min and 19 breaths/min, with the latest value 14 breaths/min; the latest heart rate is 85 bpm; the latest MAP is 76 mmHg.

Answer: D


Question:
Based on the observed ICU data so far, choose the next monitoring step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Respiratory rate varied between 14 breaths/min and 39 breaths/min, with the latest value 20 breaths/min; creatinine came back to 2.4 mg/dL after reaching 2.6 mg/dL; the current values include MAP 61 mmHg and systolic BP 92 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. Creatinine came back to 2.4 mg/dL after reaching 2.6 mg/dL; MAP recovered to 61 mmHg after a recent low of 61 mmHg below 65 mmHg; the last snapshot shows MAP 61 mmHg with heart rate 93 bpm.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Respiratory rate varied between 14 breaths/min and 39 breaths/min, with the latest value 20 breaths/min; creatinine came back to 2.4 mg/dL after reaching 2.6 mg/dL; the latest bedside set shows MAP 61 mmHg and systolic BP 92 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. Creatinine came back to 2.4 mg/dL after reaching 2.6 mg/dL; MAP recovered to 61 mmHg after a recent low of 61 mmHg below 65 mmHg; the most recent entries show MAP 61 mmHg and heart rate 93 bpm.

Answer: A


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Systolic BP recovered to 92 mmHg after a recent low of 92 mmHg below 90 mmHg; WBC ended at 14 K/uL after a recent low of 12.6 K/uL; the last snapshot shows heart rate 93 bpm with MAP 61 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. Systolic BP recovered to 92 mmHg after a recent low of 92 mmHg below 90 mmHg; WBC ended at 14 K/uL after a recent low of 12.6 K/uL; the most recent entries show heart rate 93 bpm and MAP 61 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Respiratory rate varied between 14 breaths/min and 39 breaths/min, with the latest value 20 breaths/min; creatinine came back to 2.4 mg/dL after reaching 2.6 mg/dL; the current values include MAP 61 mmHg and systolic BP 92 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. Respiratory rate varied between 14 breaths/min and 39 breaths/min, with the latest value 20 breaths/min; creatinine came back to 2.4 mg/dL after reaching 2.6 mg/dL; the latest bedside set shows MAP 61 mmHg and systolic BP 92 mmHg.

Answer: A


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. The recent WBC reading was 18.7 K/uL; the latest MAP is 91 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 92 bpm.
B. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. The recent WBC reading was 18.7 K/uL; the latest MAP is 91 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 92 bpm.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. The recent WBC reading was 18.7 K/uL; the latest systolic BP is 121 mmHg; the latest respiratory rate is 18 breaths/min.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. The recent WBC reading was 18.7 K/uL; the latest systolic BP is 121 mmHg; the latest respiratory rate is 18 breaths/min.

Answer: A


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. The recent WBC reading was 18.7 K/uL; the latest MAP is 91 mmHg; the latest systolic BP is 121 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. The recent WBC reading was 18.7 K/uL; the latest heart rate is 92 bpm; the latest MAP is 91 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. The recent WBC reading was 18.7 K/uL; the latest MAP is 91 mmHg; the latest systolic BP is 121 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. The recent WBC reading was 18.7 K/uL; the latest heart rate is 92 bpm; the latest MAP is 91 mmHg.

Answer: D


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. Creatinine ended at 7.2 mg/dL after dropping as low as 6.7 mg/dL; urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the current values include systolic BP 136 mmHg and respiratory rate 19 breaths/min.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the latest MAP is 75 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 66 bpm.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the latest MAP is 75 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 66 bpm.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. Creatinine ended at 7.2 mg/dL after dropping as low as 6.7 mg/dL; urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the latest bedside set shows systolic BP 136 mmHg and respiratory rate 19 breaths/min.

Answer: C


Question:
From the available ICU observations, decide whether to escalate monitoring now or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. Creatinine ended at 7.2 mg/dL after dropping as low as 6.7 mg/dL; urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the most recent entries show heart rate 66 bpm and MAP 75 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. Creatinine ended at 7.2 mg/dL after dropping as low as 6.7 mg/dL; urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the last snapshot shows heart rate 66 bpm with MAP 75 mmHg.
C. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Creatinine ended at 7.2 mg/dL after dropping as low as 6.7 mg/dL; urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the latest bedside set shows systolic BP 136 mmHg and respiratory rate 19 breaths/min.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Creatinine ended at 7.2 mg/dL after dropping as low as 6.7 mg/dL; urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the current values include systolic BP 136 mmHg and respiratory rate 19 breaths/min.

Answer: C


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. Creatinine ended at 7.2 mg/dL after dropping as low as 6.7 mg/dL; urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the current values include MAP 75 mmHg and systolic BP 136 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Creatinine ended at 7.2 mg/dL after dropping as low as 6.7 mg/dL; urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the last snapshot shows heart rate 66 bpm with MAP 75 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Creatinine ended at 7.2 mg/dL after dropping as low as 6.7 mg/dL; urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the most recent entries show heart rate 66 bpm and MAP 75 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. Creatinine ended at 7.2 mg/dL after dropping as low as 6.7 mg/dL; urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the latest bedside set shows MAP 75 mmHg and systolic BP 136 mmHg.

Answer: B


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. Heart rate varied between 45 bpm and 73 bpm, with the latest value 55 bpm; WBC ended at 20.7 K/uL after a recent low of 19.7 K/uL; the current values include MAP 80 mmHg and heart rate 55 bpm.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Heart rate varied between 45 bpm and 73 bpm, with the latest value 55 bpm; WBC ended at 20.7 K/uL after a recent low of 19.7 K/uL; the latest bedside set shows MAP 80 mmHg and heart rate 55 bpm.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. SpO2 ended at 98% after dropping as low as 88%; WBC ended at 20.7 K/uL after a recent low of 19.7 K/uL; the last snapshot shows systolic BP 125 mmHg with respiratory rate 18 breaths/min.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. SpO2 ended at 98% after dropping as low as 88%; WBC ended at 20.7 K/uL after a recent low of 19.7 K/uL; the most recent entries show systolic BP 125 mmHg and respiratory rate 18 breaths/min.

Answer: A


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. Urine output most recently reached 125 mL after low intervals down to 15 mL; diastolic BP recovered to 57 mmHg after a recent low of 47 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the current values include systolic BP 116 mmHg and respiratory rate 17 breaths/min.
B. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. Lactate ended at 2.8 mmol/L after dropping as low as 1.7 mmol/L; diastolic BP recovered to 57 mmHg after a recent low of 47 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the most recent entries show MAP 72 mmHg and heart rate 63 bpm.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. Urine output most recently reached 125 mL after low intervals down to 15 mL; diastolic BP recovered to 57 mmHg after a recent low of 47 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the latest bedside set shows systolic BP 116 mmHg and respiratory rate 17 breaths/min.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. Lactate ended at 2.8 mmol/L after dropping as low as 1.7 mmol/L; diastolic BP recovered to 57 mmHg after a recent low of 47 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the last snapshot shows MAP 72 mmHg with heart rate 63 bpm.

Answer: B


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. Lactate ended at 2.8 mmol/L after dropping as low as 1.7 mmol/L; diastolic BP recovered to 57 mmHg after a recent low of 47 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the most recent entries show heart rate 63 bpm and MAP 72 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. Urine output most recently reached 125 mL after low intervals down to 15 mL; lactate ended at 2.8 mmol/L after dropping as low as 1.7 mmol/L; the current values include MAP 72 mmHg and systolic BP 116 mmHg.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. Urine output most recently reached 125 mL after low intervals down to 15 mL; lactate ended at 2.8 mmol/L after dropping as low as 1.7 mmol/L; the latest bedside set shows MAP 72 mmHg and systolic BP 116 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. Lactate ended at 2.8 mmol/L after dropping as low as 1.7 mmol/L; diastolic BP recovered to 57 mmHg after a recent low of 47 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the last snapshot shows heart rate 63 bpm with MAP 72 mmHg.

Answer: D


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. The recent WBC reading was 13.3 K/uL; the latest MAP is 109 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 87 bpm.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Creatinine came back to 2.1 mg/dL after reaching 3.7 mg/dL; the recent WBC reading was 13.3 K/uL; the current values include systolic BP 164 mmHg and respiratory rate 13 breaths/min.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Creatinine came back to 2.1 mg/dL after reaching 3.7 mg/dL; the recent WBC reading was 13.3 K/uL; the most recent entries show systolic BP 164 mmHg and respiratory rate 13 breaths/min.
D. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. The recent WBC reading was 13.3 K/uL; the latest MAP is 109 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 87 bpm.

Answer: A


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. Creatinine came back to 2.1 mg/dL after reaching 3.7 mg/dL; the recent WBC reading was 13.3 K/uL; the last snapshot shows heart rate 87 bpm with MAP 109 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. Creatinine came back to 2.1 mg/dL after reaching 3.7 mg/dL; the recent WBC reading was 13.3 K/uL; the latest bedside set shows MAP 109 mmHg and systolic BP 164 mmHg.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. Creatinine came back to 2.1 mg/dL after reaching 3.7 mg/dL; the recent WBC reading was 13.3 K/uL; the current values include MAP 109 mmHg and systolic BP 164 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. Creatinine came back to 2.1 mg/dL after reaching 3.7 mg/dL; the recent WBC reading was 13.3 K/uL; the most recent entries show heart rate 87 bpm and MAP 109 mmHg.

Answer: A


Question:
Based on the observed ICU data so far, choose the next monitoring step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Urine output most recently reached 250 mL after low intervals down to 30 mL; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 76 bpm, with the latest value 65 bpm; the last snapshot shows MAP 65 mmHg with heart rate 65 bpm.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. MAP recovered to 65 mmHg after a recent low of 62 mmHg below 65 mmHg; urine output most recently reached 250 mL after low intervals down to 30 mL; the current values include MAP 65 mmHg and systolic BP 102 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. MAP recovered to 65 mmHg after a recent low of 62 mmHg below 65 mmHg; urine output most recently reached 250 mL after low intervals down to 30 mL; the latest bedside set shows MAP 65 mmHg and systolic BP 102 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. Urine output most recently reached 250 mL after low intervals down to 30 mL; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 76 bpm, with the latest value 65 bpm; the most recent entries show MAP 65 mmHg and heart rate 65 bpm.

Answer: B


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. MAP recovered to 65 mmHg after a recent low of 62 mmHg below 65 mmHg; urine output most recently reached 250 mL after low intervals down to 30 mL; the current values include MAP 65 mmHg and systolic BP 102 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. SpO2 varied between 90% and 99%, with the latest value 98%; WBC returned to 13.5 K/uL after reaching 14.6 K/uL; the most recent entries show heart rate 65 bpm and MAP 65 mmHg.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. MAP recovered to 65 mmHg after a recent low of 62 mmHg below 65 mmHg; urine output most recently reached 250 mL after low intervals down to 30 mL; the latest bedside set shows MAP 65 mmHg and systolic BP 102 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. SpO2 varied between 90% and 99%, with the latest value 98%; WBC returned to 13.5 K/uL after reaching 14.6 K/uL; the last snapshot shows heart rate 65 bpm with MAP 65 mmHg.

Answer: D


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. MAP recovered to 41 mmHg after a recent low of 38 mmHg below 65 mmHg; urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 10 mL; the latest bedside set shows systolic BP 51 mmHg and respiratory rate 19 breaths/min.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Systolic BP recovered to 51 mmHg after a recent low of 51 mmHg below 90 mmHg; urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 10 mL; the last snapshot shows MAP 41 mmHg with heart rate 57 bpm.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Systolic BP recovered to 51 mmHg after a recent low of 51 mmHg below 90 mmHg; urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 10 mL; the most recent entries show MAP 41 mmHg and heart rate 57 bpm.
D. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. MAP recovered to 41 mmHg after a recent low of 38 mmHg below 65 mmHg; urine output most recently reached 20 mL after low intervals down to 10 mL; the current values include systolic BP 51 mmHg and respiratory rate 19 breaths/min.

Answer: C


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. MAP recovered to 41 mmHg after a recent low of 38 mmHg below 65 mmHg; systolic BP recovered to 51 mmHg after a recent low of 51 mmHg below 90 mmHg; the latest bedside set shows MAP 41 mmHg and systolic BP 51 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. WBC returned to 0.4 K/uL after reaching 81 K/uL; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 89 bpm, with the latest value 57 bpm; the last snapshot shows heart rate 57 bpm with MAP 41 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. WBC returned to 0.4 K/uL after reaching 81 K/uL; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 89 bpm, with the latest value 57 bpm; the most recent entries show heart rate 57 bpm and MAP 41 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. MAP recovered to 41 mmHg after a recent low of 38 mmHg below 65 mmHg; systolic BP recovered to 51 mmHg after a recent low of 51 mmHg below 90 mmHg; the current values include MAP 41 mmHg and systolic BP 51 mmHg.

Answer: B


Question:
Based on the observed ICU data so far, choose the next monitoring step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. SpO2 varied between 88% and 100%, with the latest value 97%; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 61 bpm, with the latest value 60 bpm; the current values include MAP 92 mmHg and heart rate 60 bpm.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Creatinine was 3.5 mg/dL on the available recent reading; SpO2 varied between 88% and 100%, with the latest value 97%; the latest bedside set shows MAP 92 mmHg and systolic BP 148 mmHg.
C. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. Creatinine was 3.5 mg/dL on the available recent reading; SpO2 varied between 88% and 100%, with the latest value 97%; the most recent entries show MAP 92 mmHg and systolic BP 148 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. SpO2 varied between 88% and 100%, with the latest value 97%; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 61 bpm, with the latest value 60 bpm; the last snapshot shows MAP 92 mmHg with heart rate 60 bpm.

Answer: C


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Creatinine was 3.5 mg/dL on the available recent reading; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 61 bpm, with the latest value 60 bpm; the most recent entries show systolic BP 148 mmHg and respiratory rate 18 breaths/min.
B. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. SpO2 varied between 88% and 100%, with the latest value 97%; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 61 bpm, with the latest value 60 bpm; the latest bedside set shows MAP 92 mmHg and heart rate 60 bpm.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Creatinine was 3.5 mg/dL on the available recent reading; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 61 bpm, with the latest value 60 bpm; the current values include systolic BP 148 mmHg and respiratory rate 18 breaths/min.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. SpO2 varied between 88% and 100%, with the latest value 97%; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 61 bpm, with the latest value 60 bpm; the last snapshot shows MAP 92 mmHg with heart rate 60 bpm.

Answer: B


Question:
From the available ICU observations, decide whether to escalate monitoring now or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. Creatinine was 3.5 mg/dL on the available recent reading; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 61 bpm, with the latest value 60 bpm; the most recent entries show systolic BP 148 mmHg and respiratory rate 18 breaths/min.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. SpO2 varied between 88% and 100%, with the latest value 97%; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 61 bpm, with the latest value 60 bpm; the current values include heart rate 60 bpm and MAP 92 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. Creatinine was 3.5 mg/dL on the available recent reading; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 61 bpm, with the latest value 60 bpm; the last snapshot shows systolic BP 148 mmHg with respiratory rate 18 breaths/min.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. SpO2 varied between 88% and 100%, with the latest value 97%; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 61 bpm, with the latest value 60 bpm; the latest bedside set shows heart rate 60 bpm and MAP 92 mmHg.

Answer: A


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Respiratory rate ended at 22 breaths/min after a recent low of 8 breaths/min; MAP recovered to 72 mmHg after a recent low of 63 mmHg below 65 mmHg; the latest bedside set shows MAP 72 mmHg and systolic BP 110 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. Respiratory rate ended at 22 breaths/min after a recent low of 8 breaths/min; MAP recovered to 72 mmHg after a recent low of 63 mmHg below 65 mmHg; the current values include MAP 72 mmHg and systolic BP 110 mmHg.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. MAP recovered to 72 mmHg after a recent low of 63 mmHg below 65 mmHg; the recent WBC reading was 15.6 K/uL; the last snapshot shows heart rate 71 bpm with MAP 72 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. MAP recovered to 72 mmHg after a recent low of 63 mmHg below 65 mmHg; the recent WBC reading was 15.6 K/uL; the most recent entries show heart rate 71 bpm and MAP 72 mmHg.

Answer: C


Question:
Based on the observed ICU data so far, choose the next monitoring step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. The recent WBC reading was 30.4 K/uL; respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the last snapshot shows MAP 90 mmHg with systolic BP 129 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the latest MAP is 90 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 104 bpm.
C. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. Respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the latest MAP is 90 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 104 bpm.
D. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. The recent WBC reading was 30.4 K/uL; respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the most recent entries show MAP 90 mmHg and systolic BP 129 mmHg.

Answer: A


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the latest MAP is 90 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 104 bpm.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. The recent WBC reading was 30.4 K/uL; respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the current values include systolic BP 129 mmHg and respiratory rate 29 breaths/min.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the latest MAP is 90 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 104 bpm.
D. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. The recent WBC reading was 30.4 K/uL; respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the latest bedside set shows systolic BP 129 mmHg and respiratory rate 29 breaths/min.

Answer: A


Question:
From the available ICU observations, decide whether to escalate monitoring now or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. The recent WBC reading was 30.4 K/uL; respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the last snapshot shows systolic BP 129 mmHg with respiratory rate 29 breaths/min.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. The recent WBC reading was 30.4 K/uL; respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the latest bedside set shows heart rate 104 bpm and MAP 90 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. The recent WBC reading was 30.4 K/uL; respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the most recent entries show systolic BP 129 mmHg and respiratory rate 29 breaths/min.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. The recent WBC reading was 30.4 K/uL; respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the current values include heart rate 104 bpm and MAP 90 mmHg.

Answer: C


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. The recent WBC reading was 30.4 K/uL; respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the current values include MAP 90 mmHg and systolic BP 129 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. The recent WBC reading was 30.4 K/uL; respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the latest bedside set shows MAP 90 mmHg and systolic BP 129 mmHg.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. The recent WBC reading was 30.4 K/uL; respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the most recent entries show heart rate 104 bpm and MAP 90 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. The recent WBC reading was 30.4 K/uL; respiratory rate ended at 29 breaths/min after a recent low of 16 breaths/min; the last snapshot shows heart rate 104 bpm with MAP 90 mmHg.

Answer: D


Question:
Based on the observed ICU data so far, choose the next monitoring step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. SpO2 ended at 95% after dropping as low as 85%; systolic BP recovered to 97 mmHg after a recent low of 89 mmHg below 90 mmHg; the most recent entries show MAP 75 mmHg and heart rate 127 bpm.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. Heart rate ended at 127 bpm after a recent low of 40 bpm; SpO2 ended at 95% after dropping as low as 85%; the current values include MAP 75 mmHg and systolic BP 97 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Heart rate ended at 127 bpm after a recent low of 40 bpm; SpO2 ended at 95% after dropping as low as 85%; the latest bedside set shows MAP 75 mmHg and systolic BP 97 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. SpO2 ended at 95% after dropping as low as 85%; systolic BP recovered to 97 mmHg after a recent low of 89 mmHg below 90 mmHg; the last snapshot shows MAP 75 mmHg with heart rate 127 bpm.

Answer: B


Question:
From the available ICU observations, decide whether to escalate monitoring now or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. SpO2 ended at 95% after dropping as low as 85%; systolic BP recovered to 97 mmHg after a recent low of 89 mmHg below 90 mmHg; the most recent entries show heart rate 127 bpm and MAP 75 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Heart rate ended at 127 bpm after a recent low of 40 bpm; systolic BP recovered to 97 mmHg after a recent low of 89 mmHg below 90 mmHg; the current values include systolic BP 97 mmHg and respiratory rate 23 breaths/min.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. SpO2 ended at 95% after dropping as low as 85%; systolic BP recovered to 97 mmHg after a recent low of 89 mmHg below 90 mmHg; the latest bedside set shows heart rate 127 bpm and MAP 75 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Heart rate ended at 127 bpm after a recent low of 40 bpm; systolic BP recovered to 97 mmHg after a recent low of 89 mmHg below 90 mmHg; the last snapshot shows systolic BP 97 mmHg with respiratory rate 23 breaths/min.

Answer: B


Question:
Based on the observed ICU data so far, choose the next monitoring step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. No strong recent threshold breach is recorded in the available variables; the latest MAP is 100 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 83 bpm.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. No strong recent threshold breach is recorded in the available variables; the latest MAP is 100 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 83 bpm.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. No strong recent threshold breach is recorded in the available variables; the latest MAP is 100 mmHg; the latest systolic BP is 153 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. No strong recent threshold breach is recorded in the available variables; the latest MAP is 100 mmHg; the latest systolic BP is 153 mmHg.

Answer: C


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. No strong recent threshold breach is recorded in the available variables; the latest MAP is 100 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 83 bpm.
B. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. No strong recent threshold breach is recorded in the available variables; the latest systolic BP is 153 mmHg; the latest respiratory rate is 20 breaths/min.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. No strong recent threshold breach is recorded in the available variables; the latest systolic BP is 153 mmHg; the latest respiratory rate is 20 breaths/min.
D. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. No strong recent threshold breach is recorded in the available variables; the latest MAP is 100 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 83 bpm.

Answer: A


Question:
From the available ICU observations, decide whether to escalate monitoring now or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. No strong recent threshold breach is recorded in the available variables; the latest heart rate is 83 bpm; the latest MAP is 100 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. No strong recent threshold breach is recorded in the available variables; the latest systolic BP is 153 mmHg; the latest respiratory rate is 20 breaths/min.
C. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. No strong recent threshold breach is recorded in the available variables; the latest heart rate is 83 bpm; the latest MAP is 100 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. No strong recent threshold breach is recorded in the available variables; the latest systolic BP is 153 mmHg; the latest respiratory rate is 20 breaths/min.

Answer: B


Question:
Based on the observed ICU data so far, choose the next monitoring step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. Respiratory rate ended at 30 breaths/min after a recent low of 19 breaths/min; WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the last snapshot shows MAP 87 mmHg with systolic BP 108 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. Respiratory rate ended at 30 breaths/min after a recent low of 19 breaths/min; WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the most recent entries show MAP 87 mmHg and systolic BP 108 mmHg.
C. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the latest MAP is 87 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 87 bpm.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the latest MAP is 87 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 87 bpm.

Answer: A


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the latest MAP is 87 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 87 bpm.
B. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the latest MAP is 87 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 87 bpm.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. Respiratory rate ended at 30 breaths/min after a recent low of 19 breaths/min; WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the last snapshot shows systolic BP 108 mmHg with respiratory rate 30 breaths/min.
D. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Respiratory rate ended at 30 breaths/min after a recent low of 19 breaths/min; WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the most recent entries show systolic BP 108 mmHg and respiratory rate 30 breaths/min.

Answer: A


Question:
From the available ICU observations, decide whether to escalate monitoring now or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Respiratory rate ended at 30 breaths/min after a recent low of 19 breaths/min; WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the current values include heart rate 87 bpm and MAP 87 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Respiratory rate ended at 30 breaths/min after a recent low of 19 breaths/min; WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the last snapshot shows systolic BP 108 mmHg with respiratory rate 30 breaths/min.
C. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Respiratory rate ended at 30 breaths/min after a recent low of 19 breaths/min; WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the latest bedside set shows heart rate 87 bpm and MAP 87 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Respiratory rate ended at 30 breaths/min after a recent low of 19 breaths/min; WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the most recent entries show systolic BP 108 mmHg and respiratory rate 30 breaths/min.

Answer: D


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Respiratory rate ended at 30 breaths/min after a recent low of 19 breaths/min; WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the current values include heart rate 87 bpm and MAP 87 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. Respiratory rate ended at 30 breaths/min after a recent low of 19 breaths/min; WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the most recent entries show MAP 87 mmHg and systolic BP 108 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Respiratory rate ended at 30 breaths/min after a recent low of 19 breaths/min; WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the latest bedside set shows heart rate 87 bpm and MAP 87 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. Respiratory rate ended at 30 breaths/min after a recent low of 19 breaths/min; WBC ended at 14.1 K/uL after a recent low of 13.8 K/uL; the last snapshot shows MAP 87 mmHg with systolic BP 108 mmHg.

Answer: C


Question:
Based on the observed ICU data so far, choose the next monitoring step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. SpO2 ended at 98% after dropping as low as 85%; diastolic BP recovered to 49 mmHg after a recent low of 45 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the latest bedside set shows MAP 61 mmHg and heart rate 68 bpm.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. MAP recovered to 61 mmHg after a recent low of 56 mmHg below 65 mmHg; SpO2 ended at 98% after dropping as low as 85%; the most recent entries show MAP 61 mmHg and systolic BP 97 mmHg.
C. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. MAP recovered to 61 mmHg after a recent low of 56 mmHg below 65 mmHg; SpO2 ended at 98% after dropping as low as 85%; the last snapshot shows MAP 61 mmHg with systolic BP 97 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. SpO2 ended at 98% after dropping as low as 85%; diastolic BP recovered to 49 mmHg after a recent low of 45 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the current values include MAP 61 mmHg and heart rate 68 bpm.

Answer: C


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. MAP recovered to 61 mmHg after a recent low of 56 mmHg below 65 mmHg; diastolic BP recovered to 49 mmHg after a recent low of 45 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the most recent entries show systolic BP 97 mmHg and respiratory rate 22 breaths/min.
B. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. MAP recovered to 61 mmHg after a recent low of 56 mmHg below 65 mmHg; diastolic BP recovered to 49 mmHg after a recent low of 45 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the last snapshot shows systolic BP 97 mmHg with respiratory rate 22 breaths/min.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. SpO2 ended at 98% after dropping as low as 85%; diastolic BP recovered to 49 mmHg after a recent low of 45 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the current values include MAP 61 mmHg and heart rate 68 bpm.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. SpO2 ended at 98% after dropping as low as 85%; diastolic BP recovered to 49 mmHg after a recent low of 45 mmHg below 50 mmHg; the latest bedside set shows MAP 61 mmHg and heart rate 68 bpm.

Answer: C


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. MAP recovered to 61 mmHg after a recent low of 56 mmHg below 65 mmHg; SpO2 ended at 98% after dropping as low as 85%; the most recent entries show MAP 61 mmHg and systolic BP 97 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Systolic BP recovered to 97 mmHg after a recent low of 90 mmHg below 90 mmHg; the recent WBC reading was 13 K/uL; the latest bedside set shows heart rate 68 bpm and MAP 61 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. MAP recovered to 61 mmHg after a recent low of 56 mmHg below 65 mmHg; SpO2 ended at 98% after dropping as low as 85%; the last snapshot shows MAP 61 mmHg with systolic BP 97 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Systolic BP recovered to 97 mmHg after a recent low of 90 mmHg below 90 mmHg; the recent WBC reading was 13 K/uL; the current values include heart rate 68 bpm and MAP 61 mmHg.

Answer: B


Question:
Based on the observed ICU data so far, choose the next monitoring step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. Creatinine was 5.2 mg/dL on the available recent reading; the latest MAP is 74 mmHg; the latest systolic BP is 114 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. Creatinine was 5.2 mg/dL on the available recent reading; the latest MAP is 74 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 87 bpm.
C. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. Creatinine was 5.2 mg/dL on the available recent reading; the latest MAP is 74 mmHg; the latest systolic BP is 114 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. Creatinine was 5.2 mg/dL on the available recent reading; the latest MAP is 74 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 87 bpm.

Answer: A


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Creatinine was 5.2 mg/dL on the available recent reading; the latest MAP is 74 mmHg; the latest systolic BP is 114 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. Creatinine was 5.2 mg/dL on the available recent reading; the latest heart rate is 87 bpm; the latest MAP is 74 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Creatinine was 5.2 mg/dL on the available recent reading; the latest heart rate is 87 bpm; the latest MAP is 74 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Creatinine was 5.2 mg/dL on the available recent reading; the latest MAP is 74 mmHg; the latest systolic BP is 114 mmHg.

Answer: C


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. SpO2 ended at 100% after dropping as low as 85%; the recent WBC reading was 12.9 K/uL; the most recent entries show systolic BP 144 mmHg and respiratory rate 15 breaths/min.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 111 bpm, with the latest value 106 bpm; the recent WBC reading was 12.9 K/uL; the latest bedside set shows MAP 91 mmHg and heart rate 106 bpm.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 111 bpm, with the latest value 106 bpm; the recent WBC reading was 12.9 K/uL; the current values include MAP 91 mmHg and heart rate 106 bpm.
D. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. SpO2 ended at 100% after dropping as low as 85%; the recent WBC reading was 12.9 K/uL; the last snapshot shows systolic BP 144 mmHg with respiratory rate 15 breaths/min.

Answer: C


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. SpO2 ended at 100% after dropping as low as 85%; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 111 bpm, with the latest value 106 bpm; the most recent entries show MAP 91 mmHg and systolic BP 144 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. Heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 111 bpm, with the latest value 106 bpm; the recent WBC reading was 12.9 K/uL; the current values include heart rate 106 bpm and MAP 91 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. SpO2 ended at 100% after dropping as low as 85%; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 111 bpm, with the latest value 106 bpm; the last snapshot shows MAP 91 mmHg with systolic BP 144 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. Heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 111 bpm, with the latest value 106 bpm; the recent WBC reading was 12.9 K/uL; the latest bedside set shows heart rate 106 bpm and MAP 91 mmHg.

Answer: D


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Systolic BP recovered to 92 mmHg after a recent low of 92 mmHg below 90 mmHg; the recent WBC reading was 14.1 K/uL; the latest bedside set shows heart rate 74 bpm and MAP 75 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. Systolic BP recovered to 92 mmHg after a recent low of 92 mmHg below 90 mmHg; the recent WBC reading was 14.1 K/uL; the current values include heart rate 74 bpm and MAP 75 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Respiratory rate ended at 37 breaths/min after a recent low of 14 breaths/min; SpO2 came back to 88% after reaching 97%; the last snapshot shows MAP 75 mmHg with systolic BP 92 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. Respiratory rate ended at 37 breaths/min after a recent low of 14 breaths/min; SpO2 came back to 88% after reaching 97%; the most recent entries show MAP 75 mmHg and systolic BP 92 mmHg.

Answer: A


Question:
From the available ICU observations, decide whether to escalate monitoring now or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. The recent WBC reading was 15.1 K/uL; the latest heart rate is 149 bpm; the latest MAP is 69 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. The recent WBC reading was 15.1 K/uL; the latest heart rate is 149 bpm; the latest MAP is 69 mmHg.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. The recent WBC reading was 15.1 K/uL; the latest systolic BP is 112 mmHg; the latest respiratory rate is 17 breaths/min.
D. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. The recent WBC reading was 15.1 K/uL; the latest systolic BP is 112 mmHg; the latest respiratory rate is 17 breaths/min.

Answer: D


Question:
Based on the observed ICU data so far, choose the next monitoring step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. SpO2 ended at 98% after dropping as low as 88%; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 74 bpm, with the latest value 68 bpm; the last snapshot shows MAP 75 mmHg with systolic BP 142 mmHg.
B. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. Heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 74 bpm, with the latest value 68 bpm; respiratory rate ended at 28 breaths/min after a recent low of 12 breaths/min; the latest bedside set shows MAP 75 mmHg and heart rate 68 bpm.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 74 bpm, with the latest value 68 bpm; respiratory rate ended at 28 breaths/min after a recent low of 12 breaths/min; the current values include MAP 75 mmHg and heart rate 68 bpm.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: The current cadence is reasonable for now. The latest values are stable, and the earlier abnormality is not paired with another current decline. SpO2 ended at 98% after dropping as low as 88%; heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 74 bpm, with the latest value 68 bpm; the most recent entries show MAP 75 mmHg and systolic BP 142 mmHg.

Answer: A


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. SpO2 ended at 98% after dropping as low as 88%; respiratory rate ended at 28 breaths/min after a recent low of 12 breaths/min; the most recent entries show systolic BP 142 mmHg and respiratory rate 28 breaths/min.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 74 bpm, with the latest value 68 bpm; respiratory rate ended at 28 breaths/min after a recent low of 12 breaths/min; the latest bedside set shows MAP 75 mmHg and heart rate 68 bpm.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Heart rate varied between 50 bpm and 74 bpm, with the latest value 68 bpm; respiratory rate ended at 28 breaths/min after a recent low of 12 breaths/min; the current values include MAP 75 mmHg and heart rate 68 bpm.
D. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. SpO2 ended at 98% after dropping as low as 88%; respiratory rate ended at 28 breaths/min after a recent low of 12 breaths/min; the last snapshot shows systolic BP 142 mmHg with respiratory rate 28 breaths/min.

Answer: C


Question:
Based on the observed ICU data so far, choose the next monitoring step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. Urine output most recently reached 125 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the latest MAP is 67 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 90 bpm.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Urine output most recently reached 125 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the latest MAP is 67 mmHg; the latest systolic BP is 112 mmHg.
C. Escalate monitoring now: More frequent checks are reasonable for now. Closer checks help confirm that the apparent recovery holds over the next interval. Urine output most recently reached 125 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the latest MAP is 67 mmHg; the latest systolic BP is 112 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Urine output most recently reached 125 mL after low intervals down to 20 mL; the latest MAP is 67 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 90 bpm.

Answer: B


Question:
Given the current observations, what is the next monitoring step: escalation or continued standard monitoring?

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. The recent WBC reading was 21.5 K/uL; the latest MAP is 93 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 75 bpm.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Creatinine was 4.7 mg/dL on the available recent reading; the recent WBC reading was 21.5 K/uL; the most recent entries show systolic BP 134 mmHg and respiratory rate 23 breaths/min.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Creatinine was 4.7 mg/dL on the available recent reading; the recent WBC reading was 21.5 K/uL; the current values include systolic BP 134 mmHg and respiratory rate 23 breaths/min.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. The recent WBC reading was 21.5 K/uL; the latest MAP is 93 mmHg; the latest heart rate is 75 bpm.

Answer: A


Question:
Based on the observed ICU data so far, choose the next monitoring step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: A higher monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. The recent window has more than one warning sign, so closer checks are reasonable. MAP recovered to 67 mmHg after a recent low of 61 mmHg below 65 mmHg; respiratory rate varied between 20 breaths/min and 33 breaths/min, with the latest value 21 breaths/min; the most recent entries show MAP 67 mmHg and systolic BP 111 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: The standard monitoring level is reasonable here. The last values do not show a pattern that calls for tighter checks. Respiratory rate varied between 20 breaths/min and 33 breaths/min, with the latest value 21 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 14.8 K/uL; the latest bedside set shows MAP 67 mmHg and heart rate 80 bpm.
C. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. MAP recovered to 67 mmHg after a recent low of 61 mmHg below 65 mmHg; respiratory rate varied between 20 breaths/min and 33 breaths/min, with the latest value 21 breaths/min; the last snapshot shows MAP 67 mmHg with systolic BP 111 mmHg.
D. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Respiratory rate varied between 20 breaths/min and 33 breaths/min, with the latest value 21 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 14.8 K/uL; the current values include MAP 67 mmHg and heart rate 80 bpm.

Answer: C


Question:
Using the observations up to now, select the appropriate next step: escalate monitoring or continue standard monitoring.

Options:
A. Escalate monitoring now: Closer monitoring is reasonable for the next interval. The concern is that the latest numbers look better but still follow a recent threshold breach. Respiratory rate varied between 20 breaths/min and 33 breaths/min, with the latest value 21 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 14.8 K/uL; the current values include heart rate 80 bpm and MAP 67 mmHg.
B. Continue standard monitoring for now: Routine bedside checks are reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading can be watched at the usual cadence while the bedside values remain steady. MAP recovered to 67 mmHg after a recent low of 61 mmHg below 65 mmHg; respiratory rate varied between 20 breaths/min and 33 breaths/min, with the latest value 21 breaths/min; the most recent entries show MAP 67 mmHg and systolic BP 111 mmHg.
C. Escalate monitoring now: Closer bedside trending is reasonable for the next interval. The abnormal reading is paired with another signal from the same period. MAP recovered to 67 mmHg after a recent low of 61 mmHg below 65 mmHg; respiratory rate varied between 20 breaths/min and 33 breaths/min, with the latest value 21 breaths/min; the last snapshot shows MAP 67 mmHg with systolic BP 111 mmHg.
D. Continue standard monitoring for now: No change in monitoring cadence is reasonable for now. Routine monitoring is reasonable while the current bedside picture is not worsening. Respiratory rate varied between 20 breaths/min and 33 breaths/min, with the latest value 21 breaths/min; the recent WBC reading was 14.8 K/uL; the latest bedside set shows heart rate 80 bpm and MAP 67 mmHg.

Answer: D