Semi‐Automatic Electronic Stent Register: a novel approach to preventing ureteric stents lost to follow up. Issue 10 (2nd August 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Macneil, James W. H.; Michail, Peter; Patel, Manish I.; Ashbourne, Julie; Bariol, Simon V.; Ende, David A.; Hossack, Tania A.; Lau, Howard; Wang, Audrey C.; Brooks, Andrew J.
• Is Part Of: ANZ journal of surgery. Volume 87:Issue 10(2017)
• Page Start: 837
• Page End: 841
• Publication Date: 2017-08-02
• Subjects: equipment safety -- registries -- risk management -- ureteric stent; Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.005
• DOI: 10.1111/ans.14126
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1445-1433

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Ureteric stents are indispensable tools in modern urology; however, the risk of them not being followed‐up once inserted poses medical and medico‐legal risks. Stent registers are a common solution to mitigate this risk; however, manual registers are logistically challenging, especially for busy units. Methods: Western Sydney Local Health District developed a novel Semi‐Automatic Electronic Stent Register (SAESR) utilizing billing information to track stent insertions. To determine the utility of this system, an audit was conducted comparing the 6 months before the introduction of the register to the first 6 months of the register. Results: In the first 6 months of the register, 457 stents were inserted. At the time of writing, two of these are severely delayed for removal, representing a rate of 0.4%. In the 6 months immediately preceding the introduction of the register, 497 stents were inserted, and six were either missed completely or severely delayed in their removal, representing a rate of 1.2%. A non‐inferiority analysis found this to be no worse than the results achieved before the introduction of the register. Conclusion: The SAESR allowed us to improve upon our better than expected rate of stents lost to follow up or severely delayed. We demonstrated non‐inferiority in the rate of lost or severely delayed stents, and a number of other advantages including savings in personnel costs. The semi‐automatic register represents an effective way of reducing the risk associated with a common urological procedure. We believe that this methodology could be implemented elsewhere.