Wynnyee Tom1, Brooke Harris2, Arthur Shen3, Lizeth Rivas4, Denise Williams5, Seham El-Diwany1, Edan Wernik6, Andrew Nguyen1, Gabriella Jones1, Chynna Bantug1. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center, San Jose, CA. 2. Department of Graduate Medical Education, Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center, San Jose, CA. 3. Department of Strategic Initiatives and Technology, Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center, San Jose, CA. 4. Department of Member Outreach, Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center, San Jose, CA. 5. Department of Medical Office Controllers, Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center, San Jose, CA. 6. Department of Family Medicine, Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center, San Jose, CA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: E-cigarette/vaping use in adolescents has increased 77.8% among high schoolers and 48.5% among middle schoolers in 2017-2018. As such, there is need for an effective workflow for screening for vaping. We aimed to increase screening rates of e-cigarette/vaping users from less than 1% to at least 50% in 6 months. METHODS: Screening for vaping in youth was implemented in a pediatric clinic in Northern California beginning in the summer of 2019 for 6 months. Depending on comorbidity, severity, and readiness to quit, patients were referred to treatment. Outcomes included screening rates, process measure included positive screening rates, and balancing measure was provider time. RESULTS: The clinic completed 1414 physicals with an average screening rate of 76% and a positive rate of 7.9%. The average age of patients was 15 (standard deviation = 1.3), 48% were female and 29% were Asian/Pacific Islander, 23% Hispanic, and 23% White. After 6 months, we met our goal in all but 1 plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycle. DISCUSSION: We created a standardized workflow that identified teens who vaped. When compared to other studies, the positive rate for this study was low which is likely due to misinterpretation by staff of screening questions as well as the fact that data were collected during a clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to find ways in which providers can mitigate this epidemic given the alarming increase in e-cigarette/vaping use among adolescents. This study furthers the effort to develop a screening method that is simple and brief, allowing physicians to intervene if necessary.
INTRODUCTION: E-cigarette/vaping use in adolescents has increased 77.8% among high schoolers and 48.5% among middle schoolers in 2017-2018. As such, there is need for an effective workflow for screening for vaping. We aimed to increase screening rates of e-cigarette/vaping users from less than 1% to at least 50% in 6 months. METHODS: Screening for vaping in youth was implemented in a pediatric clinic in Northern California beginning in the summer of 2019 for 6 months. Depending on comorbidity, severity, and readiness to quit, patients were referred to treatment. Outcomes included screening rates, process measure included positive screening rates, and balancing measure was provider time. RESULTS: The clinic completed 1414 physicals with an average screening rate of 76% and a positive rate of 7.9%. The average age of patients was 15 (standard deviation = 1.3), 48% were female and 29% were Asian/Pacific Islander, 23% Hispanic, and 23% White. After 6 months, we met our goal in all but 1 plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycle. DISCUSSION: We created a standardized workflow that identified teens who vaped. When compared to other studies, the positive rate for this study was low which is likely due to misinterpretation by staff of screening questions as well as the fact that data were collected during a clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to find ways in which providers can mitigate this epidemic given the alarming increase in e-cigarette/vaping use among adolescents. This study furthers the effort to develop a screening method that is simple and brief, allowing physicians to intervene if necessary.
Authors: Sharon M Kelly; Jan Gryczynski; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Arethusa Kirk; Kevin E O'Grady; Robert P Schwartz Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Yasmeen M Butt; Maxwell L Smith; Henry D Tazelaar; Laszlo T Vaszar; Karen L Swanson; Matthew J Cecchini; Jennifer M Boland; Melanie C Bois; James H Boyum; Adam T Froemming; Andras Khoor; Isabel Mira-Avendano; Aiyub Patel; Brandon T Larsen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Laura Kann; Tim McManus; William A Harris; Shari L Shanklin; Katherine H Flint; Barbara Queen; Richard Lowry; David Chyen; Lisa Whittle; Jemekia Thornton; Connie Lim; Denise Bradford; Yoshimi Yamakawa; Michelle Leon; Nancy Brener; Kathleen A Ethier Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2018-06-15
Authors: Adam M Leventhal; David R Strong; Matthew G Kirkpatrick; Jennifer B Unger; Steve Sussman; Nathaniel R Riggs; Matthew D Stone; Rubin Khoddam; Jonathan M Samet; Janet Audrain-McGovern Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Sharon M Kelly; Jan Gryczynski; C Patrick Myers; Kevin E O'Grady; Arethusa S Kirk; Robert P Schwartz Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2014 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Karen A Cullen; Bridget K Ambrose; Andrea S Gentzke; Benjamin J Apelberg; Ahmed Jamal; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Andrea S Gentzke; MeLisa Creamer; Karen A Cullen; Bridget K Ambrose; Gordon Willis; Ahmed Jamal; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Evanthia P Perikleous; Paschalis Steiropoulos; Emmanouil Paraskakis; Theodoros C Constantinidis; Evangelia Nena Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2018-03-26