Semi-Automatic Electronic Stent Register: a novel approach to preventing ureteric stents lost to follow up.

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.

Comparison of cost of care for tethered versus non-tethered ureteric stents in the management of uncomplicated upper urinary tract stones.

BACKGROUND: Many surgeons use a stent after ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL). For short-term stenting purposes, a surgeon has the choice of either a tethered or a non-tethered stent. Stents may be associated with complications that entail an additional cost to their use. There is a paucity of data on the direct healthcare cost of using stent type after either primary or secondary URSL. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records for patients who underwent URSL for uncomplicated urolithiasis between January 2013 and December 2013 at two tertiary referral hospitals. Costs data was sourced from the costing department with complete data available for 134 patients. The overall medical care cost was estimated by computing the cost of surgery, stent-related emergency department presentations, re-admissions and stent removal. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients had tethered stents and 21 had non-tethered stents, with similar age and gender composition between the two groups and complications rates. The mean cost of URSL and stent placement was A$3071.7 ± A$906.8 versus A$3423.8 ± A$808.4 (P = 0.049), mean cost of managing complications was A$309.4 ± A$1744.8 versus A$31.3 ± A$98.9 (P = 0.096), mean cost of out-patient clinic stent removal was A$222.5 ± A$60 versus A$1013.6 ± A$75.4 (P < 0.001) for endoscopic stent removal, overall mean cost of care was A$3603.6 ± A$1896.7 versus A$4468.1 ± A$820.8 (P = 0.042) for tethered and non-tethered stents, respectively. CONCLUSION: It is cheaper to use a tethered ureteric stent compared with non-tethered stents for short-term stenting after uncomplicated URSL, with a mean cost saving of A$864.5.