Targeting Primary Care Referrals to Smoking Cessation Clinics Does Not Improve Quit Rates: Implementing Evidence-Based Interventions into Practice

VA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D Center of Excellence, Sepulveda VA Ambulatory Care Center (152), 16111 Plummer Street, Sepulveda, CA 91343, USA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.78). 06/2008; 43(5 Pt 1):1637-61. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00865.x
Source: PubMed


To evaluate the impact of a locally adapted evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) approach to implementation of smoking cessation guidelines into routine practice.
We used patient questionnaires, practice surveys, and administrative data in Veterans Health Administration (VA) primary care practices across five southwestern states.
In a group-randomized trial of 18 VA facilities, matched on size and academic affiliation, we evaluated intervention practices' abilities to implement evidence-based smoking cessation care following structured evidence review, local priority setting, quality improvement plan development, practice facilitation, expert feedback, and monitoring. Control practices received mailed guidelines and VA audit-feedback reports as usual care.
To represent the population of primary care-based smokers, we randomly sampled and screened 36,445 patients to identify and enroll eligible smokers at baseline (n=1,941) and follow-up at 12 months (n=1,080). We used computer-assisted telephone interviewing to collect smoking behavior, nicotine dependence, readiness to change, health status, and patient sociodemographics. We used practice surveys to measure structure and process changes, and administrative data to assess population utilization patterns.
Intervention practices adopted multifaceted EBQI plans, but had difficulty implementing them, ultimately focusing on smoking cessation clinic referral strategies. While attendance rates increased (p<.0001), we found no intervention effect on smoking cessation.
EBQI stimulated practices to increase smoking cessation clinic referrals and try other less evidence-based interventions that did not translate into improved quit rates at a population level.

Download full-text


Available from: Barbara F Simon, Oct 01, 2015
15 Reads
  • Source
    • "Both sets of researchers attempted to evaluate ''real-world'' settings where the leadership and resources and actions emanated from the organizations themselves rather than being undergirded or provided totally by the researchers. Elizabeth Yano, Lisa Rubenstein, Melissa Farmer, Bruce Chernof, Brian Mittman, Andrew Lanto, Barbara Simon, Martin Lee, and Scott Sherman evaluated a quality-improvement based effort to help Veterans quit smoking (Yano et al. 2008). Eighteen VA facilities were randomized to receive quality improvement assistance (structured evidence review, local priority setting, quality improvement plan development, practice facilitation, expert feedback and monitoring) or mailed guidelines and VA audit-feedback reports. "
    Health Services Research 10/2008; 43(5 Pt 1):1457-63. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00903.x · 2.78 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "For example, in the Substance Use Disorders (SUD) QUERI, a process evaluation of organizational barriers in a multi-state group randomized trial of evidence-based quality improvement strategies for implementing smoking cessation guidelines led to a redesign of key intervention components (Table 4). During the trial, qualitative evaluation of organizational processes identified patient reluctance to attend smoking cessation clinics, inconsistent provider readiness to counsel in primary care, and variable ease in referral and capacity in behavioural health sessions [91]. Quantitative surveys and analysis of the organizational factors (e.g., formulary changes, smoking cessation clinic availability) influencing smoking cessation clinic referral practices across the 18 participating sites also were conducted [92,93]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Health care organizations exert significant influence on the manner in which clinicians practice and the processes and outcomes of care that patients experience. A greater understanding of the organizational milieu into which innovations will be introduced, as well as the organizational factors that are likely to foster or hinder the adoption and use of new technologies, care arrangements and quality improvement (QI) strategies are central to the effective implementation of research into practice. Unfortunately, much implementation research seems to not recognize or adequately address the influence and importance of organizations. Using examples from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), we describe the role of organizational research in advancing the implementation of evidence-based practice into routine care settings. Using the six-step QUERI process as a foundation, we present an organizational research framework designed to improve and accelerate the implementation of evidence-based practice into routine care. Specific QUERI-related organizational research applications are reviewed, with discussion of the measures and methods used to apply them. We describe these applications in the context of a continuum of organizational research activities to be conducted before, during and after implementation. Since QUERI's inception, various approaches to organizational research have been employed to foster progress through QUERI's six-step process. We report on how explicit integration of the evaluation of organizational factors into QUERI planning has informed the design of more effective care delivery system interventions and enabled their improved "fit" to individual VA facilities or practices. We examine the value and challenges in conducting organizational research, and briefly describe the contributions of organizational theory and environmental context to the research framework. Understanding the organizational context of delivering evidence-based practice is a critical adjunct to efforts to systematically improve quality. Given the size and diversity of VA practices, coupled with unique organizational data sources, QUERI is well-positioned to make valuable contributions to the field of implementation science. More explicit accommodation of organizational inquiry into implementation research agendas has helped QUERI researchers to better frame and extend their work as they move toward regional and national spread activities.
    Implementation Science 06/2008; 3(1):29. DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-3-29 · 4.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most primary care patients have at least 1 major behavioral risk: smoking, risky drinking, low physical activity, or unhealthy diet. We studied the effectiveness of a medical assistant-based program to identify and refer patients with risk behaviors to appropriate interventions. We undertook a randomized control trial in a practice-based research network. The trial included 864 adult patients from 6 primary care practices. Medical assistants screened patients for 4 risk behaviors and applied behavior-specific algorithms to link patients with interventions. Primary outcomes were improved risk behaviors on standardized assessments. Secondary outcomes included participation in a behavioral intervention and the program's effect on the medical assistants' workflow and job satisfaction. Follow-up data were available for 55% of participants at a mean of 12 months. The medical assistant referral arm referred a greater proportion of patients than did usual care (67.4 vs 21.8%; P <.001) but did not achieve a higher success rate for improved behavioral outcomes (21.7 vs 16.9%; P=0.19). Qualitative interviews found both individual medical assistant and organizational effects on program adoption. Engaging more primary care team members to address risk behaviors improved referral rates. More extensive medical assistant training, changes in practice culture, and sustained behavioral interventions will be necessary to improve risk behavior outcomes.
    The Annals of Family Medicine 11/2009; 7(6):504-12. DOI:10.1370/afm.1059 · 5.43 Impact Factor
Show more