Understanding Patient/Practitioner Experience having Ureteric Stents
Understanding Patient/ Practitioner Experience in having Ureteric Stents – A Mixed-Methods observational Study
University of Southampton
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 8 months, 31 days
Ureteric stents and catheters are deployed clinically as temporary measures to restore urinary drainage, in patients with kidney stones, external ureteric compression from tumours or strictures. Prevalence of these increases with age.
The use of ureteric stents has increased secondary to a rise in renal stone disease and the wide variety of oncological treatments available for patients, who often need stents for urinary drainage. Considering only onco-urological patients, >30,000 stents are inserted every year across the NHS. Due to the need for regular stent replacement to reduce the risk of blockage, encrustation-and-biofilm-formation (E&B) and UTI (leading to stent failures), each patient undergoes 3 to 6 replacements, resulting in >90,000 stent replacements, annually. Under the current tariff-based system, hospitals are paid for each intervention, which cost >£3,500 each, bringing the total cost of replacements to ~£315m annually. Unnecessary replacements increase the number of bed-nights and use of anaesthetics. Despite all of the advancements in offering solutions to break this pathway (stent presence >> inflammation, pain and infection), there is still a significant prevalence of E&B , due to the lack of studies correlating fluid dynamic metrics with deposition of particles causing E&B.
This study aims to collect and analyze retrieved urine samples and ureteric stents, which are routinely removed, analyzed and thrown away as a part of the standard practice at hospitals. We would also like to gain a more in-depth understanding of patients’ experiences regarding ureteric stents, what matters most to them at various stages of the treatment, and their willingness to participate in a future clinical trial.
London - Harrow Research Ethics Committee
Date of REC Opinion
9 Jun 2022
Further Information Favourable Opinion