MP50-12 RESULTS OF THE IMPERIAL COLLEGE INTEGRATED STENT REGISTRATION SYSTEM

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Epidemiology & Evaluation II1 Apr 2018MP50-12 RESULTS OF THE IMPERIAL COLLEGE INTEGRATED STENT REGISTRATION SYSTEM Hamid Abboudi, Mitra Smith, Maryam Ahmed, Milad Hanna, Tamer El-Husseiny, and Ranan DasGupta Hamid AbboudiHamid Abboudi More articles by this author , Mitra SmithMitra Smith More articles by this author , Maryam AhmedMaryam Ahmed More articles by this author , Milad HannaMilad Hanna More articles by this author , Tamer El-HusseinyTamer El-Husseiny More articles by this author , and Ranan DasGuptaRanan DasGupta More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.1623AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES 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 as well as severe renal impairment leading to nephrectomy. Stent registers are a common solution to mitigate this risk; however, manual registers are logistically challenging and current electronic registers are not user friendly and often poorly managed. At Imperial College we use digital patient health records and digital medication management via the Cerner IT system. The system allows for electronic prescribing solution, bed management, localised and improved clinical documentation, real-time vital signs data input into patient charts, and improved clinical views of patient information.We sought to create a simple, easy to use ureteric stent register that is integrated into our current electronic patient record system to mitigate forgotten stents. METHODS An electronic ureteric stent register integrated into the Cerner IT system was developed between January and June 2017. Through 2 clicks a patient can be added to the register. At the time of stent removal 2 clicks removes the patient from the register. The stent dwell time is automatically tracked and updated.All elective and emergency stone-related stent insertions and removals from this new stent register between 26th July 2017 – 10th September 2017 were audited to assess its effectiveness and ease of use. RESULTS During the 6-week audit period 34 elective ureteroscopy and laser stone fragmentations were performed. Thirty-two ureteric stents were inserted. Nine emergency stents were inserted for obstructing ureteric stones. Forty-one stents were therefore eligible for stent registration. Prospective review identified 11 stents (27%) had not been registered. Furthermore 10 of the stents had not been removed from the register. Four patients were incorrectly added to the register. All cases that were not added to the register or those cases that were not removed from the register at time of stent removal were due to lack of awareness from the attending physicians as they were absent from the stent register training session. All eight residents and two consultant urologists reported that the register was user friendly. CONCLUSIONS Endourology can utilize digital health patient records through establishing simple, easy to use stent registers. However awareness of their use and implementation by all members of the urology team are required to ensure swift registration of cases and prompt removal. © 2018FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 199Issue 4SApril 2018Page: e680 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018MetricsAuthor Information Hamid Abboudi More articles by this author Mitra Smith More articles by this author Maryam Ahmed More articles by this author Milad Hanna More articles by this author Tamer El-Husseiny More articles by this author Ranan DasGupta More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...