Implementing and complying with the Smoke-free Hospitals Project in Catalonia, Spain.

Cancer Prevention and Control Unit, Institut d'Investigacio Biomedicale Bellvitge (IDIBELL), Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain.
European Journal of Cancer Prevention (Impact Factor: 2.76). 10/2006; 15(5):446-52. DOI: 10.1097/00008469-200610000-00010
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective of the study was to describe the implementation of measures for preventing tobacco consumption developed in the Catalan Network of Smoke-free Hospitals. Information from 25 hospitals that are actively involved in the Catalan Network of Smoke-free Hospitals (April 2004) was used. The degree of implementation of the Smoke-free Hospitals Project was analysed by means of the Self-Audit Questionnaire of the European Network for Smoke-free Hospitals; each hospital was analysed globally and according to the duration of its Network membership (<1 year: implementation stage; > or =1 year: consolidation stage). In terms of global indicators, there were high levels of commitment (64.8%), communication (74.7%), tobacco control (77.4%) and implementation of smoke-free environments (81.0%). A lower degree of implementation (<50%) was found in education and training, health promotion and healthy workplaces. According to the duration of Network membership, significant differences were observed for communication, environment, healthy workplaces and follow-up. Deficits were observed in areas such as specialist training and cessation support, and further input is required here. By identifying areas needing attention, providing a guide for policy development and by administering it periodically, one can ensure that progress is kept on track.


Available from: Cristina Martínez, Jun 10, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article analyzes tobacco control policies in hospitals based on the experience of the Catalan Network of Smoke-Free Hospitals, Spain. The objective is to understand through this case study how tobacco policies are designed and implemented in health care organizations. Because tobacco control is a public health issue, governmental, institutional, and professional involvement is necessary. This article identifies and examines the structure and relationships among the different actors involved in the tobacco control policies in health care organizations using Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Development framework.This theory helps one understand the policy failures and rethink the future challenges. Critical issues should be reviewed to enhance implementation of smoke-free hospitals-such as assuring the compliance of nonsmoking areas and introducing compulsory tobacco cessation activities that are promoted and monitored by the public administration. The author suggests that relying primarily on an organization's interpretation of rules leads to irregular implementation.
    Policy Politics &amp Nursing Practice 11/2009; 10(3):224-32. DOI:10.1177/1527154409346736
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diverse projects and guidelines to assist hospitals towards the attainment of comprehensive smoke-free policies have been developed. In 2006, Spain government passed a new smoking ban that reinforce tobacco control policies and banned completely smoking in hospitals. This study assesses the progression of tobacco control policies in the Catalan Network of Smoke-free Hospitals before and after a comprehensive national smoking ban. We used the Self-Audit Questionnaire of the European Network for Smoke-free Hospitals to score the compliance of 9 policy standards (global score = 102). We used two cross-sectional surveys to evaluate tobacco control policies before (2005) and after the implementation of a national smoking ban (2007) in 32 hospitals of Catalonia, Spain. We compared the means of the overall score in 2005 and 2007 according to the type of hospital, the number of beds, the prevalence of tobacco consumption, and the number of years as a smoke-free hospital. The mean of the implementation score of tobacco control policies was 52.4 (95% CI: 45.4-59.5) in 2005 and 71.6 (95% CI: 67.0-76.2) in 2007 with an increase of 36.7% (p < 0.01). The hospitals with greater improvement were general hospitals (48% increase; p < 0.01), hospitals with > 300 beds (41.1% increase; p < 0.01), hospitals with employees' tobacco consumption prevalence 35-39% (72.2% increase; p < 0.05) and hospitals that had recently implemented smoke-free policies (74.2% increase; p < 0.01). The national smoking ban appears to increase tobacco control activities in hospitals combined with other non-bylaw initiatives such as the Smoke-free Hospital Network.
    BMC Public Health 05/2009; 9:160. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-9-160 · 2.32 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ObjectiveTo assess changes in secondhand smoke exposure by means of airborne nicotine concentrations in public hospitals of Catalonia (Spain) before and after a comprehensive national smoking ban.MethodsWe monitored vapor-phase nicotine concentrations in 44 public hospitals in Catalonia (Spain) before the smoking ban (September–December 2005) and one year after (September–December 2006). We installed 5–7 sampling devices per hospital for 7 days in different places (228 pairs of samples), and 198 pairs of samples were available for the final analysis.ResultsThe median nicotine concentration declined from 0.23 μg/m3 (interquartile range: 0.13–0.63) before the law to 0.10 μg/m3 (interquartile range: 0.02–0.19) after the law (% decline = 56.5, p < 0.01). We observed significant reductions in the median nicotine concentrations in all hospital locations, although secondhand smoke exposure was still present in some places (main hospital entrance, emergency department waiting rooms, fire escapes, and cafeterias).ConclusionsSecondhand smoke in hospitals has decreased after the ban. Assessment of airborne nicotine concentrations appears to be an objective and feasible system to monitor and reinforce the compliance of smoke-free legislations in this setting.
    Preventive Medicine 12/2008; DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.09.003 · 2.93 Impact Factor