Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Patient Safety in Surgery 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

A new patient safety smartphone application for prevention of “forgotten” ureteral stents: results from a clinical pilot study in 194 patients

Authors: Wilson R. Molina, Rodrigo Pessoa, Rodrigo Donalisio da Silva, McCabe C. Kenny, Diedra Gustafson, Leticia Nogueira, Mark E. Leo, Michael K. Yu, Fernando J. Kim

Published in: Patient Safety in Surgery | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Approximately 12% of all ureteral stents placed are retained or “forgotten.” Forgotten stents are associated with significant safety concerns as well as increased costs and legal issues. Retained ureteral stents (RUS) often occur due to lack of clinical follow-up, communication or language barriers, and economic concerns.

Methods

We describe a multiplatform application that facilitates data collection to prevent RUS. The “Stent Tracker” application can be installed on mobile devices and computers. The encrypted and password-protected information is accessible from any device and provides information about each procedure, stent placement and removal dates, as well as product description. This multicenter retrospective study included 194 patients who underwent stent placement between July and October 2015. Nominal data was tallied and ordinal data was divided into quartiles of 25, 50, and 75%.

Results

A total of 194 patients from three institutions underwent ureteral stent placement. Reasons for stent placement include 122 cases post ureteroscopy (63%), 8 cases post percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) (4%), 14 cases post extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) (7%), 18 cases of cancer-related ureteral obstruction (9%), 21 cases of hydronephrosis (11%), and 11 for other reasons (6%). Of these patients, only one patient was lost to follow-up (0.5%). On average, ureteral stents were removed within 14 days of placement (IQR: 8-26 days).

Conclusions

The “Stent Tracker” is a patient safety application that provides a secure and simplified interface, which can significantly reduce the incidence of RUS. Further developments could include automated notifications to patients and staff, color-coding, and integrated information with electronic patient charts.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lange D, Bidnur S, Hoag N, Chew BH. Ureteral stent-associated complications-where we are and where we are going. Nat Rev Urol. 2015;12(1):17–25.CrossRefPubMed Lange D, Bidnur S, Hoag N, Chew BH. Ureteral stent-associated complications-where we are and where we are going. Nat Rev Urol. 2015;12(1):17–25.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference el-Faqih SR, Shamsuddin AB, Chakrabarti A, Atassi R, Kardar AH, Osman MK, et al. Polyurethane internal ureteral stents in treatment of stone patients - morbidity related to indwelling times. J Urol. 1991;146(6):1487–91.PubMed el-Faqih SR, Shamsuddin AB, Chakrabarti A, Atassi R, Kardar AH, Osman MK, et al. Polyurethane internal ureteral stents in treatment of stone patients - morbidity related to indwelling times. J Urol. 1991;146(6):1487–91.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Lynch MF, Ghani KR, Frost I, Anson KM. Preventing the forgotten ureteric stent: results from the implementation of an electronic stent register. BJU Int. 2007;99(2):245–6.CrossRefPubMed Lynch MF, Ghani KR, Frost I, Anson KM. Preventing the forgotten ureteric stent: results from the implementation of an electronic stent register. BJU Int. 2007;99(2):245–6.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Sancaktutar AA, Soylemez H, Bozkurt Y, Penbegul N, Atar M. Treatment of forgotten ureteral stents: How much does it really cost? a cost-effectiveness study in 27 patients. Urol Res. 2012;40(4):317–25.CrossRefPubMed Sancaktutar AA, Soylemez H, Bozkurt Y, Penbegul N, Atar M. Treatment of forgotten ureteral stents: How much does it really cost? a cost-effectiveness study in 27 patients. Urol Res. 2012;40(4):317–25.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Ather MH, Talati J, Biyabani R. Physician responsibility for removal of implants: the case for a computerized program for tracking overdue double-J stents. Tech Urol. 2000;6(3):189–92.PubMed Ather MH, Talati J, Biyabani R. Physician responsibility for removal of implants: the case for a computerized program for tracking overdue double-J stents. Tech Urol. 2000;6(3):189–92.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Lynch MF, Ghani KR, Frost I, Anson KM. Preventing the forgotten ureteral stent: Implementation of a web-based Stent registry with automatic recall application. Urology. 2007;70(3):423–6.CrossRefPubMed Lynch MF, Ghani KR, Frost I, Anson KM. Preventing the forgotten ureteral stent: Implementation of a web-based Stent registry with automatic recall application. Urology. 2007;70(3):423–6.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Sancaktutar AA, Tepeler A, Soylemez H, Penbegul N, Atar M, Bozkurt Y, et al. A solution for medical and legal problems arising from forgotten ureteral stents: initial results from a reminder short message service (SMS). Urol Res. 2012;40(3):253–8.CrossRefPubMed Sancaktutar AA, Tepeler A, Soylemez H, Penbegul N, Atar M, Bozkurt Y, et al. A solution for medical and legal problems arising from forgotten ureteral stents: initial results from a reminder short message service (SMS). Urol Res. 2012;40(3):253–8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
12.
go back to reference Singh V, Srinivastava A, Kapoor R, Kumar A. Can the complicated forgotten indwelling ureteric stents be lethal? Int Urol Nephrol. 2005;37(3):541–6.CrossRefPubMed Singh V, Srinivastava A, Kapoor R, Kumar A. Can the complicated forgotten indwelling ureteric stents be lethal? Int Urol Nephrol. 2005;37(3):541–6.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Haleblian G, Kijvikai K, de la Rosette J, Premingert G. Ureteral stenting and urinary stone management: a systematic review. J Urol. 2008;179(2):424–30.CrossRefPubMed Haleblian G, Kijvikai K, de la Rosette J, Premingert G. Ureteral stenting and urinary stone management: a systematic review. J Urol. 2008;179(2):424–30.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Monga M. The dwell time of indwelling ureteral stents-the clock is ticking but when should We Set the alarm? J Urol. 2011;185(2):387.CrossRefPubMed Monga M. The dwell time of indwelling ureteral stents-the clock is ticking but when should We Set the alarm? J Urol. 2011;185(2):387.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Osman NI, Collins GN. Urological litigation in the UK National Health Service (NHS): an analysis of 14 years of successful claims. BJU Int. 2011;108(2):162–5.CrossRefPubMed Osman NI, Collins GN. Urological litigation in the UK National Health Service (NHS): an analysis of 14 years of successful claims. BJU Int. 2011;108(2):162–5.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference McCahy PJ, Ramsden PD. A computerized ureteric stent retrieval system. Br J Urol. 1996;77(1):147–8.CrossRefPubMed McCahy PJ, Ramsden PD. A computerized ureteric stent retrieval system. Br J Urol. 1996;77(1):147–8.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A new patient safety smartphone application for prevention of “forgotten” ureteral stents: results from a clinical pilot study in 194 patients
Authors
Wilson R. Molina
Rodrigo Pessoa
Rodrigo Donalisio da Silva
McCabe C. Kenny
Diedra Gustafson
Leticia Nogueira
Mark E. Leo
Michael K. Yu
Fernando J. Kim
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Patient Safety in Surgery / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1754-9493
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-017-0123-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Patient Safety in Surgery 1/2017 Go to the issue