Implementing guidelines for smoking cessation: comparing the efforts of nurses and medical assistants.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how different types of intake clinicians (registered nurses [RNs], and less costly licensed practical nurses [LPNs] and medical assistants [MAs]) compare in the performance of smoking-cessation activities recommended in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) smoking-cessation clinical practice guideline. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of guideline implementation was performed. Exit interviews of consecutive adult smokers who presented to nine primary care clinics for routine, non-emergency care were conducted during the period February 2000 to May 2001; a total of 1221 patients with adequate data were analyzed. Intake clinicians were surveyed prior to guideline training. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to determine the association between type of intake clinician and performance of cessation counseling at the clinic visit, after adjustment for patient-level covariates, intake clinicians' characteristics, and study site. RESULTS: Performance of all guideline-recommended counseling activities were significantly greater for all intake clinicians at test versus control sites. MAs were significantly less likely to assess willingness to quit (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.2-0.8, p =0.005) and tended to offer advice and assistance in quitting less often than RNs. Similar findings were observed for LPNs (AOR=0.5, 95% CI=0.3-1.0, p =0.03, for assessing willingness to quit). Subset analysis in subjects with complete survey data revealed that being seen by a MA was no longer associated with statistically significant differences in performance, after accounting for personal beliefs, self-efficacy, and role satisfaction in cessation counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Although both MAs and LPNs showed marked improvements in performance in response to the guideline intervention, patients seen by these intake clinicians were less likely to receive guideline-recommended counseling, compared to those patients seen by RNs. Given their important role in the delivery of preventive care, MAs and LPNs should receive proper training in cessation counseling, should have strong physician and administrative support, and should be included in efforts to implement smoking-cessation guidelines in primary care.

Effectiveness of implementing the agency for healthcare research and quality smoking cessation clinical practice guideline: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Smoking Cessation Clinical Practice Guideline recommends that all clinicians strongly advise their patients who use tobacco to quit. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of the effectiveness of Guideline implementation at eight community-based primary care clinics in southern Wisconsin (four test sites, four control sites) among 2163 consecutively enrolled adult patients who smoked at least one cigarette per day and presented for nonemergency care during the baseline period (June 16, 1999, to June 20, 2000) or the intervention period (from June 21, 2000, to May 3, 2001). After collecting baseline data, staff at test sites implemented the intervention over a 2-month period. The intervention included a tutorial for intake clinicians, group and individual performance feedback for intake clinicians, use of a modified vital signs stamp, an offer of free nicotine replacement therapy, and proactive telephone counseling. Staff at control sites received only general information about the AHRQ Guideline. Self-reported abstinence from smoking was determined by telephone interviews at 2- and 6-month follow-up assessments. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for treatment assignment after adjustment for patient characteristics. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in smoking cessation rates between participants at test and control sites during the baseline period. Among participants treated during the intervention period, those at test sites were more likely than those at control sites to report being abstinent at the 2-month (16.4% versus 5.8%; adjusted OR = 3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.9 to 5.6; P<.001) and 6-month (15.4% versus 9.8%; adjusted OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.2 to 2.6; P =.009) follow-up assessments and to report continuous abstinence, that is, abstinence at both 2 and 6 months (10.9% versus 3.8%; adjusted OR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.8 to 6.3; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a guideline-based smoking cessation intervention by intake clinicians in primary care is associated with higher abstinence among smokers.

Effectiveness of a clinic-based strategy for implementing the AHRQ Smoking Cessation Guideline in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Smoking Cessation Practice Guideline recommends systematic assessment of smoking status and counseling of smokers at every visit, but the actual effectiveness of the guideline in primary care practice is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a nonrandomized, controlled before-after trial of a guideline-derived intervention that includes routine identification and brief counseling of smokers by nurses and medical assistants, coupled with free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and telephone counseling of those smokers who are willing to make a quit attempt, and feedback on performance of guideline-recommended activities. The intervention was pilot tested at 1 family practice (FP) clinic over a 2-month period; patterns of usual care were observed concurrently at four control FP clinics. We obtained exit interviews of 651 consecutive adult smokers who presented for routine, nonemergency care. Abstinence (7-day point prevalence) was determined by telephone interview during 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Concordance with guidelines was significantly greater for all recommended actions at the test site during the intervention versus baseline (P < or = 0.05). Significantly more intervention versus baseline patients at the test site reported abstinence at 2-month follow-up (21 vs. 4%, P = 0.0004), and more patients tended to be abstinent at 6-month follow-up (21 vs. 11%, P = 0.08). No significant differences in 2- or 6-month quit rates between intervention and baseline patients were observed at the control sites. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a guideline-driven smoking cessation intervention that focuses primarily on smokers who are interested in making a quit attempt is associated with increased abstinence in primary care practice.