Search

Background: Despite clinical practice guidelines recommending the provision of smoking cessation care to all smokers in hospital, the provision of such care can be sub-optimal. A study was conducted to assess the impact of an intervention on the provision of smoking cessation care to nicotine-dependent smokers across a network of hospitals.Methods: A 4-year interrupted time series study was undertaken in a single health district in New South Wales, Australia. A multi-component intervention was implemented over a 2-year period in all 37 public general hospitals. Outcome data were collected from eight randomly selected hospitals via medical record audit. Logistic regression analyses assessed differences between baseline, intervention and follow-up periods in the provision of seven measures of care: brief advice, offer and provision of inpatient and discharge nicotine replacement therapy, and offer and acceptance of referral to a Quitline.Results: Approximately 164,250 patients were discharged from the hospitals during the study, 16 % of whom were smokers. Of the selected smokers, 56.12 % (n = 2072) were nicotine-dependent. The prevalence of smoking cessation care increased significantly for all seven measures between baseline and intervention periods, and for six of the seven measures between the baseline and follow-up periods. The odds of receiving care at follow-up were between 1.7 (CI 1.18-2.58, p = 0.0004) and 6.2 (CI 2.84-13.85, p < 0.0001) times greater than at baseline. At follow-up, 53, 16 and 7 of smokers were offered inpatient NRT, discharge NRT and a Quitline referral, respectively.Conclusions: Significant gains in the provision of smoking cessation care were indicated. However, at best, slightly more than half of the patients received smoking cessation care. Additional care enhancement strategies are required if all smokers are to obtain the intended benefits of smoking cessation care guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with a mental illness experience substantial disparities in health, including increased rates of morbidity and mortality caused by potentially preventable chronic diseases. One contributing factor to such disparity is a higher prevalence of modifiable health risk behaviors, such as smoking, inadequate fruit and vegetable intake, harmful alcohol consumption, and inadequate physical activity. Evidence supports the effectiveness of preventive care in reducing such risks, and guidelines recommend that preventive care addressing such risks be incorporated into routine clinical care. Although community-based mental health services represent an important potential setting for ensuring that people with a mental illness receive such care, research suggests its delivery is currently sub-optimal. A study will be undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of a clinical practice change intervention in increasing the routine provision of preventive care by clinicians in community mental health settings.Methods/design: A two-group multiple baseline design will be utilized to assess the effectiveness of a multi-strategic intervention implemented over 12 months in increasing clinician provision of preventive care. The intervention will be implemented sequentially across the two groups of community mental health services to increase provision of client assessment, brief advice, and referral for four health risk behaviors (smoking, inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption, harmful alcohol consumption, and inadequate physical activity). Outcome measures of interest will be collected via repeated cross-sectional computer-assisted telephone interviews undertaken on a weekly basis for 36 months with community mental health clients.Discussion: This study is the first to assess the effectiveness of a multi-strategic clinical practice change intervention in increasing routine clinician provision of preventive care for chronic disease behavioral risk factors within a network of community mental health services. The results will inform future policy and practice regarding the ability of clinicians within mental health settings to improve preventive care provision as a result of such interventions.Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12613000693729. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity are the primary behavioral risks for common causes of mortality and morbidity. Evidence and guidelines support routine clinician delivery of preventive care. Limited evidence describes the level delivered in community health settings. The objective was to determine the: prevalence of preventive care provided by community health clinicians; association between client and service characteristics and receipt of care; and acceptability of care. This will assist in informing interventions that facilitate adoption of opportunistic preventive care delivery to all clients. Methods: In 2009 and 2010 a telephone survey was undertaken of 1284 clients across a network of 56 public community health facilities in one health district in New South Wales, Australia. The survey assessed receipt of preventive care (assessment, brief advice, and referral/follow-up) regarding smoking, inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption, alcohol overconsumption, and physical inactivity; and acceptability of care. Results: Care was most frequently reported for smoking (assessment: 59.9%, brief advice: 61.7%, and offer of referral to a telephone service: 4.5%) and least frequently for inadequate fruit or vegetable consumption (27.0%, 20.0% and 0.9% respectively). Sixteen percent reported assessment for all risks, 16.2% received brief advice for all risks, and 0.6% were offered a specific referral for all risks. The following were associated with increased care: diabetes services, number of appointments, being male, Aboriginal, unemployed, and socio-economically disadvantaged. Acceptability of preventive care was high (76.0%-95.3%). Conclusions: Despite strong client support, preventive care was not provided opportunistically to all, and was preferentially provided to select groups. This suggests a need for practice change strategies to enhance preventive care provision to achieve adherence to clinical guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The introduction of total smoking bans represents an important step in addressing the smoking and physical health of people with mental illness. Despite evidence indicating the importance of staff support in the successful implementation of smoking bans, limited research has examined levels of staff support prior to the implementation of a ban in psychiatric settings, or factors that are associated with such support. This study aimed to examine the views of psychiatric inpatient hospital staff regarding the perceived benefits of and barriers to implementation of a successful total smoking ban in mental health services. Secondly, to examine the level of support among clinical and non-clinical staff for a total smoking ban. Thirdly, to examine the association between the benefits and barriers perceived by clinicians and their support for a total smoking ban in their unit.Methods: Cross-sectional survey of both clinical and non-clinical staff in a large inpatient psychiatric hospital immediately prior to the implementation of a total smoking ban.Results: Of the 300 staff, 183 (61%) responded. Seventy-three (41%) of total respondents were clinical staff, and 110 (92%) were non-clinical staff. More than two-thirds of staff agreed that a smoking ban would improve their work environment and conditions, help staff to stop smoking and improve patients' physical health. The most prevalent clinician perceived barriers to a successful total smoking ban related to fear of patient aggression (89%) and patient non-compliance (72%). Two thirds (67%) of all staff indicated support for a total smoking ban in mental health facilities generally, and a majority (54%) of clinical staff expressed support for a ban within their unit. Clinical staff who believed a smoking ban would help patients to stop smoking were more likely to support a smoking ban in their unit.Conclusions: There is a clear need to more effectively communicate to staff the evidence that consistently applied smoking bans do not increase patient aggression. There is also a need to communicate the benefits of smoking bans in aiding the delivery of smoking cessation care, and the benefits of both smoking bans and such care in aiding patients to stop smoking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The primary behavioural risks for the most common causes of mortality and morbidity in developed countries are tobacco smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity. Evidence, guidelines and policies support routine clinician delivery of care to prevent these risks within primary care settings. Despite the potential afforded by community health services for the delivery of such preventive care, the limited evidence available suggests it is provided at suboptimal levels. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a multi-strategic practice change intervention in increasing clinician's routine provision of preventive care across a network of community health services.Methods/design: A multiple baseline study will be conducted involving all 56 community health facilities in a single health district in New South Wales, Australia. The facilities will be allocated to one of three administratively-defined groups. A 12 month practice change intervention will be implemented in all facilities in each group to facilitate clinician risk assessment of eligible clients, and clinician provision of brief advice and referral to those identified as being 'at risk'. The intervention will be implemented in a non-random sequence across the three facility groups. Repeated, cross-sectional measurement of clinician provision of preventive care for four individual risks (smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity) will occur continuously for all three facility groups for 54 months via telephone interviews. The interviews will be conducted with randomly selected clients who have visited a community health facility in the last two weeks. Data collection will commence 12 months prior to the implementation of the intervention in the first group, and continue for six months following the completion of the intervention in the last group. As a secondary source of data, telephone interviews will be undertaken prior to and following the intervention with randomly selected samples of clinicians from each facility group to assess the reported provision of preventive care, and the acceptability of the practice change intervention and implementation.Discussion: The study will provide novel evidence regarding the ability to increase clinician's routine provision of preventive care across a network of community health facilities.Trial Registration: Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12611001284954 UNIVERSAL TRIAL NUMBER (UTN): U1111-1126-3465. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mental health inpatients smoke at higher rates than the general population and are disproportionately affected by tobacco dependence. Despite the advent of smoke free policies within mental health hospitals, limited systems are in place to support a cessation attempt post hospitalisation, and international evidence suggests that most smokers return to pre-admission smoking levels following discharge. This protocol describes a randomised controlled trial that will test the feasibility, acceptability and efficacy of linking inpatient smoking care with ongoing community cessation support for smokers with a mental illness., Methods/design: This study will be conducted as a randomised controlled trial. 200 smokers with an acute mental illness will be recruited from a large inpatient mental health facility. Participants will complete a baseline survey and will be randomised to either a multimodal smoking cessation intervention or provided with hospital smoking care only. Randomisation will be stratified by diagnosis (psychotic, non-psychotic). Intervention participants will be provided with a brief motivational interview in the inpatient setting and options of ongoing smoking cessation support post discharge: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT); referral to Quitline; smoking cessation groups; and fortnightly telephone support. Outcome data, including cigarettes smoked per day, quit attempts, and self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (validated by exhaled carbon monoxide), will be collected via blind interview at one week, two months, four months and six months post discharge. Process information will also be collected, including the use of cessation supports and cost of the intervention., Discussion: This study will provide comprehensive data on the potential of an integrated, multimodal smoking cessation intervention for persons with an acute mental illness, linking inpatient with community cessation support.