Feasibility of implementation, diagnostic accuracy, and end-user impact of an electronic health record (EHR)-based ureteral stent tracking tool in a pediatric population.
INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES: Ureteral stent tracking systems have reduced stent retention in adults, but their accuracy and impact in pediatrics have been minimally explored. With low event rates in children, such tools may yield high false positives, raising questions on balancing event prevention with provider burden. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility, diagnostic accuracy, and end-user impact of an Electronic Surveillance Tool for Evaluating Nephroureteral stent Tracking (eSTENT) at our institution. STUDY DESIGN: eSTENT, implemented in 1/2024, flags ureteral stents at risk for retention based on implant documentation, expected explant date, and explant documentation. Monthly reports are generated for stents missing explant documentation. We retrospectively evaluated the diagnostic performance of eSTENT from 1/2024-8/2025 at our pediatric hospital. A usability survey including a validated 1-7 implementation score (higher = easier implementation) was distributed to pediatric urologists and operating room nurses. RESULTS: Of 172 cases with ureteral stent placement, eSTENT flagged 28 events (16%) in 24 patients. Of these, 26 represented documentation gaps where explant had been appropriate. Two flags had no documentation of explant, representing near miss events that were identified. No retained stents occurred, consistent with high sensitivity and modest specificity. There were no flags in the last 6 months of the study period. Survey response rate was 100% for surgeons and 55% for nurses. Before eSTENT, stents were not routinely tracked. All surgeons and 93% of nurses reported no added burden, despite occasional misidentification of retained stents. Three surgeons found eSTENT beneficial, four were neutral, and free-text responses generally cited eSTENT's "fail safe" nature as positive. Nurses suggested improvements, including user support and integrated documentation reminders. The average implementation score among both groups was 6/7, indicating easy adoption. DISCUSSION: While the impact of stent tracking tools in adult literature has been positive, our study emphasizes the feasibility of broader adoption at a pediatric hospital. Integration of eSTENT may avoid the potentially devastating consequences of a retained stent. Prioritizing sensitivity over specificity appears acceptable for a "never event" in patient safety. Our study is limited by the retrospective nature of data collection and survey bias. CONCLUSIONS: Though no stents were retained in the study period, eSTENT appropriately flagged two cases without added burden to most end-users. Further optimization is warranted, but adoption in pediatric centers may enhance care reliability.