10 free EMT practice questions: Reassessment & Trending

The patient is stable; these are normal variations within acceptable vital sign ranges: This looks tempting because each single value, 124/80, heart rate 108, respirations 20, still falls inside a textbook normal range for an adult. The skin turning pale and cool between the two checks is not normal variation, it is a directional change that signals early shock, not stability.

The patient is improving, as evidenced by the decrease in blood pressure: A blood pressure drop from 132/86 to 124/80 can look like improvement in isolation, since falling pressure sometimes reflects resolving pain, but heart rate rose from 96 to 108, respirations from 16 to 20, and skin turned pale and cool, all signaling compensation, not recovery. One improving number cannot stand alone when the other three are moving toward shock.

The vital signs are within normal limits, so no change in transport priority is needed: Individual numbers, blood pressure 124/80 and heart rate 108, still sit near normal adult ranges, so this can look safe to call unchanged. The skin turning pale and cool from the first check to the second is the finding that raises transport priority regardless of what the raw numbers say.

The patient's condition is worsening despite oxygen therapy: This anchors on the retractions and accessory muscle use still being present, reading any visible distress as deterioration. The reassessment numbers move the opposite direction: respiratory rate fell from 26 to 22, retractions eased, and pulse oximetry rose from 88% to 92%, all consistent with improvement, not worsening.

The patient is improving and transport can be safely delayed: A genuinely improving patient looks stable enough to hold on scene. The better speech pattern and 92% saturation reflect response to oxygen, not resolution of the asthma exacerbation, which can rebound once the NRB comes off or bronchospasm worsens; transport stays the priority regardless of how well the patient answers to this one intervention.

The initial vital signs were unreliable and should be disregarded: The initial 88% reading and rate of 26 look like flawed numbers now disproven by improvement. Both sets of vitals are accurate; the second set reflects the same patient after 5 minutes of high-flow oxygen, not a correction of faulty initial data.

Apply firm pressure over the abdomen to relieve the distention: This pushes the stomach air back out. Manual decompression of the abdomen is a last-resort measure only, because it invites vomiting and aspiration in an unresponsive patient with an unprotected airway. The instruction is to continue slow ventilation without attempting to expel stomach contents.

Increase the rate to 1 breath every 3 seconds: This answers a falling oxygen saturation during ventilation with more breaths. The rate is already correct for an adult, and the finding is inadequate volume per breath, not too few breaths. Ventilating faster is one of the two ways gastric distention is created, so this makes the distention and the poor chest rise worse.

Squeeze the bag more forcefully with each ventilation: This solves poor chest rise by squeezing harder. Forceful ventilation is the other recognized cause of gastric distention; the standard is a slow, gentle breath delivered over 1 second, just enough to produce visible chest rise. Adding force pushes more air into the stomach and further limits diaphragm movement.

An anxiety reaction, because the respiratory rate has not changed: This calls restlessness in a young trauma patient emotional. Anxiety does not produce pale, cool skin or a pulse that climbs from 92/min to 124/min across ten minutes, and restlessness is itself one of the earliest listed findings of compensated shock rather than an argument against it.

Rising intracranial pressure, because the pulse pressure is widening: This is the inversion good preparation produces: the two directions of pulse pressure change get swapped. A widening pulse pressure belongs to rising intracranial pressure, and this patient's pulse pressure is going the other way, from 52 to 24. Rising intracranial pressure also drives the pulse down rather than up, and the question states there is no head injury.

Stable perfusion, because the systolic pressure has held: This takes a systolic pressure inside the normal range as proof perfusion is holding. Blood pressure is often the last measurable value to change in shock, and it is being maintained here by the same vasoconstriction that is raising the diastolic pressure, narrowing the pulse pressure, and making the skin pale and cool.

The patient has settled into ordinary sleep after the reversal: This writes drowsiness after a reversal off as the patient resting. Ordinary sleep does not come with a respiratory rate of 6/min, shallow chest movement, an oxygen saturation of 84% on high-flow oxygen, and pupils that have returned to pinpoint. Those findings describe returning respiratory depression, not sleep.

The high-flow oxygen has suppressed the respiratory drive: This is the hypoxic-drive misconception, applied to a patient it was never about. The idea belongs to a small subset of patients with long-standing chronic lung disease, and the question states there is no such history. It also fails on the numbers, because a patient whose oxygen saturation is 84% on high-flow oxygen is not receiving too much oxygen.

An unrecognized head injury from the collapse is now progressing: This requires a new structural problem to explain a second declining level of consciousness. A progressing head injury would be expected to raise the blood pressure and would not restore pinpoint pupils, and the question states the secondary assessment found no signs of injury. Naming a new diagnosis here would delay recognition of the reversible cause already in front of the EMT.

Begin positive pressure ventilations for the falling reading: This escalates ventilatory support on a number from a monitor alone. Positive pressure ventilation is indicated for inadequate breathing, and the question describes unlabored breathing with good chest rise at 22/min in a patient who is answering questions. Escalating on an unreliable reading also displaces attention from the shock that is actually driving the picture.

Record 79% as the oxygen saturation and continue transport: This counts whatever the device displays as a measurement. A reading that flickers and repeatedly drops signal has not measured anything, and entering it as the oxygen saturation puts a false value into the very trend the reassessment is being performed to build.

Replace the pulse oximeter with a different device before rechecking: This blames the device for the bad reading. The limitation here belongs to the patient, not the equipment: the sensor needs a pulsating capillary bed, and vasoconstriction and low perfusion in shock remove it. A second device applied to the same cold fingertip behaves the same way, and swapping equipment costs time.

Improving, because the pulse rate has increased: This reaches the right conclusion for the wrong reason, which is the trap the paired options are built to expose. The rise from 104/min to 126/min is an expected effect of an inhaled beta-agonist, which can increase heart rate and cause palpitations. It is a side effect to note and monitor, not evidence that the treatment is working.

Worsening, because the pulse rate has increased: This ties every rising pulse to a deteriorating patient. Read against the rest of the reassessment, which shows full sentences, no accessory muscle use, full chest rise, and a saturation that has risen from 89% to 96%, a pulse that climbed shortly after a bronchodilator was given is the medication, not decompensation.

Worsening, because the respiratory rate has decreased: This applies the opposite pattern, where a falling respiratory rate in a tiring patient is ominous. That reading depends on the effort falling too, with shallower chest rise and a declining mental status. Here the chest rise is full and the speech has improved from three words to full sentences, so the slower rate reflects less air hunger rather than exhaustion.

Perform one final reassessment and then discontinue further reassessment: A confirmed change in condition sounds like the end of reassessing, once it's documented. Reassessment never stops mid-call for a deteriorating patient, it continues at shortened intervals until you hand the patient off to a higher level of care.

Continue reassessing every 15 minutes as originally planned: This matches the original plan made when the patient was stable, but the interval is set by the patient's current condition, not by what was decided earlier. The new confusion and pale, clammy skin mean the plan has to change to every 5 minutes.

Stop rechecking vital signs because the patient is deteriorating: This treats deterioration as a reason to stop monitoring, when deterioration is exactly when trending vital signs and mental status matters most to catch further decline and guide transport priority.

Every 5 minutes during transport: Every 5 minutes is the interval for unstable or critical patients, not a stable one.

Once, at the start of transport: Reassessment is ongoing throughout transport regardless of stability, not a single check at the start.

Only when a new symptom is reported: Reassessment is proactive on a set interval; waiting for the patient to report a change misses findings the patient may not notice, such as a slowly dropping blood pressure.

Reassess vital signs every 15 minutes: Addressed life threats read here as a stable patient. Every 15 minutes is the stable interval, and a possible spinal injury is exactly the thing that keeps a patient out of that category no matter how good they look right now.

Wait until arrival at the hospital to reassess vital signs: The short ride makes the reassessment feel optional. Twenty minutes is plenty of time for a patient to deteriorate, and arriving with a set of vital signs from the scene tells the hospital what this patient was, not what they are.

Reassess vital signs only if the patient reports new symptoms: This lets the patient tell you when to look. A patient with a spinal injury may not feel what is happening below the level of it, and a falling pressure is not something a patient reports.