The role of preoperative instructions in parents' understanding of preoperative fasting for outpatient pediatric urology procedures.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of modifications in preoperative instructions on parental understanding of preoperative fasting guidelines. METHODS: A prospective postoperative parental survey was conducted to assess parental understanding of preoperative fasting requirements in patients undergoing surgery before and after institution of instructions that included visual aids. Data regarding demographics, procedure type, and time to surgery from preoperative visit were also captured. Survey data were compared between pre- and post-intervention groups using Chi-squared tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. RESULTS: 173 parents in the pre-intervention group and 162 parents in the post-intervention group were included in the analysis. Parent identification of aspiration risk as the reason for fasting almost doubled after intervention (72.2% vs. 38.2%). There was some evidence of demographic differences between groups; however, in an adjusted model, there was strong evidence (p < 0.001) that parents in the post-intervention group were more likely to identify aspiration as the reason for preoperative fasting (OR 4.73; 95% CI 2.93-7.63). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of visual aids in preoperative instructions was associated with improvement in parents' understanding of the rationale behind preoperative fasting instructions. Further studies are needed to determine whether improved understanding is associated with improved adherence.

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

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.

Research prioritization of men's health and urologic diseasess

ABSTRACT Objectives We sought to determine whether disease representation in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) reflects disease burden, measured by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study as disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Materials and Methods Two investigators performed independent assessment of ten men’s health and urologic diseases (MHUDs) in CDSR for systematic review and protocol representation, which were compared with percentage of total 2010 DALYs for the ten conditions. Data were analyzed for correlation using Spearman rank analysis. Results Nine of ten MHUDs were represented by at least one CDSR review. There was a poor and statistically insignificant positive correlation between CDSR representation and disease burden (rho = 0.42, p = 0.23). CDSR representation was aligned with disease burden for three conditions, greater than disease burden for one condition, and less than disease burden for six conditions. Conclusions These results yield high-quality estimates to inform future research prioritization for MHUDs. While prioritization processes are complex and multi-faceted, disease burden should be strongly considered. Awareness of research priority setting has the potential to minimize research disparities on a global scale.

Research prioritization of men's health and urologic diseases.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether disease representation in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) reflects disease burden, measured by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study as disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two investigators performed independent assessment of ten men's health and urologic diseases (MHUDs) in CDSR for systematic review and protocol representation, which were compared with percentage of total 2010 DALYs for the ten conditions. Data were analyzed for correlation using Spearman rank analysis. RESULTS: Nine of ten MHUDs were represented by at least one CDSR review. There was a poor and statistically insignificant positive correlation between CDSR representation and disease burden (rho = 0.42, p = 0.23). CDSR representation was aligned with disease burden for three conditions, greater than disease burden for one condition, and less than disease burden for six conditions. CONCLUSIONS: These results yield high-quality estimates to inform future research prioritization for MHUDs. While prioritization processes are complex and multi-faceted, disease burden should be strongly considered. Awareness of research priority setting has the potential to minimize research disparities on a global scale.