Premium
Tobacco Screening Multicomponent Quality Improvement Network Program: Beyond Education
Author(s) -
Kimmel Sharon,
Smith Suzanne L.,
Sabino Judith N.,
Gertner Eric,
Dostal Julie,
Greenberg Marna Rayl
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
academic emergency medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.221
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1553-2712
pISSN - 1069-6563
DOI - 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00551.x
Subject(s) - medicine , documentation , descriptive statistics , psychological intervention , smoking cessation , health care , family medicine , intervention (counseling) , emergency department , population , quality management , test (biology) , brief intervention , nursing , environmental health , statistics , paleontology , management system , mathematics , management , pathology , computer science , economics , biology , programming language , economic growth
Objectives: Due to the addictive nature of the disease and interrelated societal influences on the behavior of tobacco use, repeated interventions are often required before people successfully stop using tobacco. Our objective was to implement a multicomponent clinical intervention initiative enabling health care providers to effectively screen for tobacco use. We also sought to describe changes in emergency medicine providers’ documentation of cessation advice to tobacco users. Methods: The intervention was conducted at three emergency departments (EDs) and four clinics at a community‐based teaching hospital and health network. Health care providers with the opportunity to identify and counsel tobacco‐using patients in ambulatory health care settings were the study population. The authors initiated a quality improvement initiative for tobacco screening that employed a multicomponent strategy to facilitate systemic changes that support 100% tobacco use identification, documentation, and counseling. Baseline, posteducation, and post–wrap‐around documented screening rates were compared within each site across the intervention. Cumulative ED baseline, posteducation, and post–wrap‐around rates of provider advice to tobacco users were compared across the intervention. Percentage of possible available gain was calculated in consideration of a 100% ceiling effect. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS and MetStat. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s chi‐square cell frequency were used to analyze and compare sites. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare those tests with a chi‐square cell frequency of five or less. The statistical tests used for pre‐/postintervention percentage comparisons by site had power between 80% and 90%, detecting differences of 10% and 20% or more at a 0.05 level of significance. Results: Significant increases in posteducation screening rates for all ED sites complemented significant increases in ED post–wrap‐around intervention screening rates. Significant increases in ED provider documented cessation advice were also noted. Conclusions: This initiative successfully changed tobacco screening behavior of health care providers at all sites. It was particularly successful in the ED, typically an environment less likely to be conducive to preventive health interventions.