Is it not time to make smoking a vital sign?

Is making smoking status a vital sign sufficient to increase cessation support actions in clinical practice?

BACKGROUND

There is widespread belief that adding smoking status to the list of vital signs in medical practice will lead to an increased likelihood that physicians will offer more cessation support for smokers during office visits. This article evaluates the impact of introducing routine use of smoking status as a vital sign on clinician cessation support in a primary care setting.

METHODS

A total of 429 adult health plan members who were smokers and recent quitters from 2 primary care clinics in Minneapolis, Minn, were administered a 28-item questionnaire by telephone. The instrument included questions about patient health status, smoking status, advice about smoking, clinic actions during the most recent visit, satisfaction with clinic actions, and intention to change smoking. Comparisons were made with a cohort of smoking patients before and after smoking status was used as a vital sign, using 2-tailed t tests for continuous variables and chi-square analysis for categorical variables.

RESULTS

Patient self-report of receiving advice about smoking in the past year (about 66%) was unchanged after smoking status was implemented as a vital sign. Medical chart documentation of tobacco use increased from 38.0% to 78.4% of all encounters, whereas documentation of advice about smoking decreased from 33.5% to 18.8%. Except for identification of tobacco use before implementation of the guideline, none of the specific activities recommended in the guideline occurred at very high levels.

CONCLUSION

Implementing smoking status as a vital sign appears to have increased the documentation of tobacco use but had little effect on specific implementation actions. Overall, the findings suggest that more consistent identification of tobacco use alone will not lead to guideline-recommended changes in cessation support actions by clinicians. Greater environmental changes will be needed if tobacco guideline goals are to be achieved.

Paying for quality improvement: compliance with tobacco cessation guidelines

BACKGROUND

Identification and treatment of routine tobacco use in medical practice is an effective intervention but is not used consistently. A study was conducted at HealthPartners, a large network-model health plan in Minnesota, to determine the effect of an outcomes recognition strategy that involved bonus funds and the rates at which network physicians document that tobacco users are identified and advised to quit.

METHODS

Audits of 14,489 ambulatory patient records from 19-20 medical groups were conducted to determine the proportion of charts from each medical group that demonstrated identification of smoking status and counseling to encourage quitting at the most recent office visit in each year.

RESULTS

Overall mean tobacco use identification increased from 49% +/- 7% (95% confidence interval [CI]) in 1996 to 73% +/- 7% in 1999 (p < .001), while advice to quit increased from 32% +/- 10% in 1996 to 53% +/- 10% CI in 1999 (p < .005). The number of medical groups with tobacco status identified at > 80% of visits and > 80% of tobacco users advised to quit increased from 0 in 1996 to 8 in 1999.

DISCUSSION

Data feedback combined with a financial incentive appear to be an effective way for a health plan to improve physician compliance with the tobacco treatment guideline. Other health plans might consider similar reporting and incentive approaches to effectively engage medical group leadership and to improve the health of their members who use tobacco.

Patient satisfaction and discussion of smoking cessation during clinical visits

OBJECTIVE

To learn whether patients who smoke and who receive smoking cessation information during medical office visits were less likely to be satisfied with the smoking cessation help they received than patients who smoke but who did not receive such information.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 3703 current cigarette smokers were identified by a mailing in November 1998 to 163,596 members of 2 Minnesota health plans, and 2714 (77.3%) responses to a 44-item questionnaire were available for analysis. Using hierarchical analysis to control confounding variables, we assessed the relationship between patient-reported smoking cessation support actions at the last physician visit and satisfaction "with the help received from your doctor about quitting smoking."

RESULTS

Smokers were very satisfied (12.0%), satisfied (25.3%), neutral (48.6%), and dissatisfied or very dissatisfied (13.5%) with physician help. After controlling for other characteristics, the 1898 patients who reported that they had been asked about tobacco use or advised to quit during the latest visit had 10 percentage point greater satisfaction ratings and 5 percentage point less dissatisfaction than those not reporting such discussions (P<.001). Smokers reporting no interest in quitting at the time of the latest visit also demonstrated greater satisfaction in association with these actions.

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation interventions during physician visits were associated with increased patient satisfaction with their care among those who smoke. This information should reduce concerns of physicians or nurses about providing tobacco cessation assistance to patients during office visits.