P E Schofield1, D J Hill. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Sydney, New South Wales. psch1898@mail.usyd.edu.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of self-reported in-patient smoking status data collected by admissions staff. METHOD: Smoking status of new inpatients was recorded on to the computer registration screen. Urine samples collected from the patients (n = 167) were analysed for the presence of cotinine. RESULTS: Only 63% (95% CI 46%-81%) of the patients classified as smokers on the basis of urinary cotinine levels were recorded as smokers on the computerised record created by hospital admissions staff. CONCLUSIONS: Admissions staff do not obtain reliable data on smoking status. However, most patients entered as non-smokers by admissions staff but registering high cotinine levels were subsequently recorded as smokers by their doctor in their medical record. IMPLICATIONS: This study suggests that inpatients are more likely to report their smoking status accurately to their doctor than an admissions clerk, but about two-thirds of smokers will be correctly identified at admission and so could be targeted in computer-driven smoking-cessation interventions.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of self-reported in-patient smoking status data collected by admissions staff. METHOD: Smoking status of new inpatients was recorded on to the computer registration screen. Urine samples collected from the patients (n = 167) were analysed for the presence of cotinine. RESULTS: Only 63% (95% CI 46%-81%) of the patients classified as smokers on the basis of urinary cotinine levels were recorded as smokers on the computerised record created by hospital admissions staff. CONCLUSIONS: Admissions staff do not obtain reliable data on smoking status. However, most patients entered as non-smokers by admissions staff but registering high cotinine levels were subsequently recorded as smokers by their doctor in their medical record. IMPLICATIONS: This study suggests that inpatients are more likely to report their smoking status accurately to their doctor than an admissions clerk, but about two-thirds of smokers will be correctly identified at admission and so could be targeted in computer-driven smoking-cessation interventions.
Authors: Scarlett L Gomez; Ellen T Chang; Sarah J Shema; Kari Fish; Jennette D Sison; Peggy Reynolds; Christelle Clément-Duchêne; Margaret R Wrensch; John L Wiencke; Heather A Wakelee Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-01-14 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Amanda Blackford; Giovanni Parmigiani; Thomas W Kensler; Christopher Wolfgang; Siân Jones; Xiaosong Zhang; D Willams Parsons; Jimmy Cheng-Ho Lin; Rebecca J Leary; James R Eshleman; Michael Goggins; Elizabeth M Jaffee; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue; Anirban Maitra; Alison Klein; John L Cameron; Kelly Olino; Richard Schulick; Jordan Winter; Bert Vogelstein; Victor E Velculescu; Kenneth W Kinzler; Ralph H Hruban Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-04-07 Impact factor: 12.701