Volume 3, Issue 3 (July 2024)
Health Science Monitor 2024, 3(3): 252-260 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Naghizadeh S, Farshid S, Rahimi B, Jebraeily M. Determining minimum data set for implementation of a ureteral stent registry system. Health Science Monitor 2024; 3 (3) :252-260
URL: http://hsm.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-161-en.html
URL: http://hsm.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-161-en.html
Department of Health Information Technology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran
Abstract: (410 Views)
Background & Aims: The primary treatment for ureteric obstruction in modern urological practice is the placement of a ureteral stent. Likewise, a standard tool is needed for collecting the data to ensure the ureteral stent is removed. The purpose of this study is to identify the minimum data set (MDS) required for the ureteral stent registry at Urmia University of Medical Sciences.
Materials & Methods: This research is a cross-sectional descriptive study conducted in two phases. The first phase extracted relevant data elements based on previous studies. In the second phase, a Delphi questionnaire was compiled and given to 20 urologists and experts in medical informatics and health information management using the data elements obtained from the first phase. The MDS of the system was determined during two Delphi steps. This study used descriptive statistics and SPSS software for data analysis.
Results: A total of 78 data items were identified through analyzing various articles. After evaluating the results of the two stages of the Delphi questionnaire, the MDS for the ureteral stent registry was finalized with 63 data elements in 7 categories, including demographic information, social history, medical history, clinical information, diagnostic measures, treatment measures, and patient discharge.
Conclusion: This study aimed to propose a MDS for the ureteral stent registry system. This data can greatly assist in effectively organizing information, supporting evidence-based decision-making, and facilitating high-quality clinical research. Furthermore, it enables the evaluation of treatment outcomes, monitoring of progress, and comparison of care standards.
Materials & Methods: This research is a cross-sectional descriptive study conducted in two phases. The first phase extracted relevant data elements based on previous studies. In the second phase, a Delphi questionnaire was compiled and given to 20 urologists and experts in medical informatics and health information management using the data elements obtained from the first phase. The MDS of the system was determined during two Delphi steps. This study used descriptive statistics and SPSS software for data analysis.
Results: A total of 78 data items were identified through analyzing various articles. After evaluating the results of the two stages of the Delphi questionnaire, the MDS for the ureteral stent registry was finalized with 63 data elements in 7 categories, including demographic information, social history, medical history, clinical information, diagnostic measures, treatment measures, and patient discharge.
Conclusion: This study aimed to propose a MDS for the ureteral stent registry system. This data can greatly assist in effectively organizing information, supporting evidence-based decision-making, and facilitating high-quality clinical research. Furthermore, it enables the evaluation of treatment outcomes, monitoring of progress, and comparison of care standards.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Advanced Sciences and Technologies in Public Health
Received: 2024/02/6 | Accepted: 2024/06/18 | Published: 2024/07/8
Received: 2024/02/6 | Accepted: 2024/06/18 | Published: 2024/07/8
References
1. Bernasconi V, Tozzi M, Pietropaolo A, De Coninck V, Somani BK, Tailly T, et al. Comprehensive overview of ureteral stents based on clinical aspects, material and design. Central European Journal of Urology. 2023;76(1):49. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. Ulker V, Atalay HA, Cakmak O, Yucel C, Celik O, Kozacioglu Z. Smartphone-based stent tracking application for prevention of forgotten ureteral double-J stents: a prospective study. International braz j urol. 2019;45:376-83. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Aggarwal S, Lau HM, Brooks AJ, Bariol SV, Drummond M, Patel MI, et al. UIJ-The Efficacy of a Manual Database System for Tracking Ureteric Stent Placement and Removal. [URL]
4. Thomas A, Casey R, Grainger R, McDermott T, Flynn R, Thornhill J. The forgotten ureteric JJ stent and its prevention: a prospective audit of the value of a ureteric stent logbook. Irish Journal of Medical Science. 2007;176:117-9. [DOI] [PMID]
5. Molina WR, Pessoa R, Donalisio da Silva R, Kenny MC, Gustafson D, Nogueira L, et al. A new patient safety smartphone application for prevention of "forgotten" ureteral stents: results from a clinical pilot study in 194 patients. Patient safety in surgery. 2017;11(1):1-4. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Lange D, Bidnur S, Hoag N, Chew BH. Ureteral stent-associated complications-where we are and where we are going. Nature Reviews Urology. 2015;12(1):17-25. [DOI] [PMID]
7. Lazem M, Sheikhtaheri A. Barriers and facilitators for disease registry systems: a mixed-method study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2022;22(1):1-19. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
8. Divakaruni N, Palmer CJ, Tek P, Bjurlin MA, Gage MK, Robinson J, et al. Forgotten ureteral stents: who's at risk? Journal of endourology. 2013;27(8):1051-4. [DOI] [PMID]
9. Lynch MF, Ghani KR, Frost I, Anson KM. Preventing the forgotten ureteric stent: results from the implementation of an electronic stent register. BJU international. 2007;99(2):245-6. [DOI] [PMID]
10. Tang VC, Gillooly J, Lee EW, Charig CR. Ureteric stent card register-a 5-year retrospective analysis. The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2008;90(2):156-9. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
11. Klinge B, Lundström M, Rosén M, Bertl K, Klinge A, Stavropoulos A. Dental Implant Quality Register-A possible tool to further improve implant treatment and outcome. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2018;29:145-51. [DOI] [PMID]
12. Mandavia R, Knight A, Phillips J, Mossialos E, Littlejohns P, Schilder A. What are the essential features of a successful surgical registry? A systematic review. BMJ open. 2017;7(9):e017373. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
13. Naemi R, Shahmoradi L, Rokn A, Sohrabi N, Barikani HR. Development of a Minimum Data Set for Dental Implants Registry. Frontiers in Dentistry. 2023;20. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
14. Jemt T. Implant Survival in the Edentulous Jaw-30 Years of Experience. Part I: A Retro-Prospective Multivariate Regression Analysis of Overall Implant Failure in 4,585 Consecutively Treated Arches. The International journal of prosthodontics. 2018;31(5):425-35. [DOI] [PMID]
15. Kordbacheh Changi K, Finkelstein J, Papapanou PN. Peri‐implantitis prevalence, incidence rate, and risk factors: A study of electronic health records at a US dental school. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2019;30(4):306-14. [DOI] [PMID]
16. Ahmadi M, Alipour J, Mohammadi A, Khorami F. Development a minimum data set of the information management system for burns. Burns. 2015;41(5):1092-9. [DOI] [PMID]
17. Poss J, Jutan N, Hirdes J, Fries B, Morris J, Teare G, et al., editors. A review of evidence on the reliability and validity of Minimum Data Set data. Healthcare Management Forum; 2008: Elsevier. [DOI] [PMID]
18. Cai S, Mukamel DB, Veazie P, Temkin-Greener H. Validation of the Minimum Data Set in identifying hospitalization events and payment source. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2011;12(1):38-43. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
19. Spisla C. Enhancement of interoperability of disaster-related data collection using Disaster Nursing Minimum Data Set. Studies in health technology and informatics. 2009;146:780-1. [Google Scholar]
20. McNeil A, Evans Sue M, Clissold B, Cameron P. Guidelines for the establishment and management of clinical registries. Proceedings of the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. 2009.
21. Mirbagheri E, Shafiee M, Shanbezadeh M, Kazemi-Arpanahi H. Developing the required data set for the integration of breast cancer registry systems in Iran. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked. 2022;32:101011. [DOI]
22. Kowal PR, Wolfson LJ, Dowd JE. Creating a minimum data set on ageing in sub-Saharan Africa. southern African journal of Gerontology. 2000;9(2):18-23. [DOI]
23. Akhlaghi A, Langarizadeh M, Rahimzadeh N, Rostami Z. From designing minimum data set to developing kidney transplantation registry in Iran. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care. 2023;12(11):2590-5. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
24. Andreu-Perez J, Poon CC, Merrifield RD, Wong ST, Yang G-Z. Big data for health. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics. 2015;19(4):1193-208. [DOI] [PMID]
25. Harron K, Dibben C, Boyd J, Hjern A, Azimaee M, Barreto ML, et al. Challenges in administrative data linkage for research. Big data & society. 2017;4(2):2053951717745678. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
26. Jebraeily M, Ghazisaeidi M, Safdari R, Makhdoomi K, Rahimi B. Hemodialysis adequacy monitoring information system: Minimum data set and capabilities required. Acta Informatica Medica. 2015;23(4):239. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
27. Indrajit Rana IR, Jugindra Sorokhaibam JS. A retrospective, comparative study of ureteric stent registry systems and review of hospital policy to minimize incidence of forgotten stents. 2016. [Google Scholar]
28. Østergaard M, Møller-Bisgaard S. Optimal use of MRI in clinical trials, clinical care and clinical registries of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014;32(5 Suppl 85):22. [Google Scholar]
29. Abdelhak M. Health information: management of a strategic resource: Saunders WB Co; 2000. [Google Scholar]
30. Vittozzi L, Gainotti S, Mollo E, Donati C, Taruscio D. A model for the European platform for rare disease registries. Public Health Genomics. 2014;16(6):299-304. [DOI] [PMID]
31. Narayan P, Wood H, Mukhtar S, Papikinos P. 114 Urology Stent Recall Registry. British Journal of Surgery. 2022;109(Supplement_1):znac039. 62. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
