Raymond Boyle1, Leif I Solberg. 1. HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minn 55440-1524, USA. raymond.boyle@healthpartners.com
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Jennifer Irvin Vidrine; Vance Rabius; Margo Hilliard Alford; Yisheng Li; David W Wetter Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2010 Jul-Aug
Authors: Stephen P Fortmann; Steffani R Bailey; Neon B Brooks; Brian Hitsman; Sarah Stuart Rittner; Suzanne E Gillespie; Christian Nissen Hill; Michael C Leo; Phillip M Crawford; Weiming Hu; Dana S King; Conall O'Cleirigh; Jon Puro; Mary Ann McBurnie Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Steffani R Bailey; John D Heintzman; Miguel Marino; R Lorie Jacob; Jon E Puro; Jennifer E DeVoe; Tim E Burdick; Brian L Hazlehurst; Deborah J Cohen; Stephen P Fortmann Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Jennifer Irvin Vidrine; Sanjay Shete; Yumei Cao; Anthony Greisinger; Penny Harmonson; Barry Sharp; Lyndsay Miles; Susan M Zbikowski; David W Wetter Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-03-25 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Stephen F Rothemich; Steven H Woolf; Robert E Johnson; Amy E Burgett; Sharon K Flores; David W Marsland; Jasjit S Ahluwalia Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166