Cargando…

Impact of vital signs screening & clinician prompting on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates: a pre-post intervention comparison

BACKGROUND: Though screening and intervention for alcohol and tobacco misuse are effective, primary care screening and intervention rates remain low. Previous studies have increased intervention rates using vital signs screening for tobacco misuse and clinician prompts for screen-positive patients f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Seale, J Paul, Shellenberger, Sylvia, Velasquez, Mary M, Boltri, John M, Okosun, Ike, Guyinn, Monique, Vinson, Dan, Cornelius, Monica, Johnson, J Aaron
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2844356/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20205740
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-11-18
_version_ 1782179292447244288
author Seale, J Paul
Shellenberger, Sylvia
Velasquez, Mary M
Boltri, John M
Okosun, Ike
Guyinn, Monique
Vinson, Dan
Cornelius, Monica
Johnson, J Aaron
author_facet Seale, J Paul
Shellenberger, Sylvia
Velasquez, Mary M
Boltri, John M
Okosun, Ike
Guyinn, Monique
Vinson, Dan
Cornelius, Monica
Johnson, J Aaron
author_sort Seale, J Paul
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Though screening and intervention for alcohol and tobacco misuse are effective, primary care screening and intervention rates remain low. Previous studies have increased intervention rates using vital signs screening for tobacco misuse and clinician prompts for screen-positive patients for both alcohol and tobacco misuse. This pilot study's aims were: (1) To determine the feasibility of combined vital signs screening for tobacco and alcohol misuse, (2) To assess the impact of vital signs screening on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates, and (3) To assess the additional impact of tobacco assessment prompts on intervention rates. METHODS: In five outpatient practices, nurses measuring vital signs were trained to routinely ask a single tobacco question, a prescreening question that identified current drinkers, and the single alcohol screening question for current drinkers. After 4-8 weeks, clinicians were trained in tobacco intervention and nurses were trained to give tobacco abusers a tobacco questionnaire which also served as a clinician intervention prompt. Screening and intervention rates were measured using patient exit interviews (n = 622) at baseline, during the "screening only" period, and during the tobacco prompting phase. Changes in screening and intervention rates were compared using chi square analyses and test of linear trends. Clinic staff were interviewed regarding patient and staff acceptability. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of nurse screening on clinician intervention, the impact of alcohol intervention on concurrent tobacco intervention, and the impact of tobacco intervention on concurrent alcohol intervention. RESULTS: Alcohol and tobacco screening rates and alcohol intervention rates increased after implementing vital signs screening (p < .05). During the tobacco prompting phase, clinician intervention rates increased significantly for both alcohol (12.4%, p < .001) and tobacco (47.4%, p = .042). Screening by nurses was associated with clinician advice to reduce alcohol use (OR 13.1; 95% CI 6.2-27.6) and tobacco use (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.3-5.2). Acceptability was high with nurses and patients. CONCLUSIONS: Vital signs screening can be incorporated in primary care and increases alcohol screening and intervention rates. Tobacco assessment prompts increase both alcohol and tobacco interventions. These simple interventions show promise for dissemination in primary care settings.
format Text
id pubmed-2844356
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28443562010-03-24 Impact of vital signs screening & clinician prompting on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates: a pre-post intervention comparison Seale, J Paul Shellenberger, Sylvia Velasquez, Mary M Boltri, John M Okosun, Ike Guyinn, Monique Vinson, Dan Cornelius, Monica Johnson, J Aaron BMC Fam Pract Research article BACKGROUND: Though screening and intervention for alcohol and tobacco misuse are effective, primary care screening and intervention rates remain low. Previous studies have increased intervention rates using vital signs screening for tobacco misuse and clinician prompts for screen-positive patients for both alcohol and tobacco misuse. This pilot study's aims were: (1) To determine the feasibility of combined vital signs screening for tobacco and alcohol misuse, (2) To assess the impact of vital signs screening on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates, and (3) To assess the additional impact of tobacco assessment prompts on intervention rates. METHODS: In five outpatient practices, nurses measuring vital signs were trained to routinely ask a single tobacco question, a prescreening question that identified current drinkers, and the single alcohol screening question for current drinkers. After 4-8 weeks, clinicians were trained in tobacco intervention and nurses were trained to give tobacco abusers a tobacco questionnaire which also served as a clinician intervention prompt. Screening and intervention rates were measured using patient exit interviews (n = 622) at baseline, during the "screening only" period, and during the tobacco prompting phase. Changes in screening and intervention rates were compared using chi square analyses and test of linear trends. Clinic staff were interviewed regarding patient and staff acceptability. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of nurse screening on clinician intervention, the impact of alcohol intervention on concurrent tobacco intervention, and the impact of tobacco intervention on concurrent alcohol intervention. RESULTS: Alcohol and tobacco screening rates and alcohol intervention rates increased after implementing vital signs screening (p < .05). During the tobacco prompting phase, clinician intervention rates increased significantly for both alcohol (12.4%, p < .001) and tobacco (47.4%, p = .042). Screening by nurses was associated with clinician advice to reduce alcohol use (OR 13.1; 95% CI 6.2-27.6) and tobacco use (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.3-5.2). Acceptability was high with nurses and patients. CONCLUSIONS: Vital signs screening can be incorporated in primary care and increases alcohol screening and intervention rates. Tobacco assessment prompts increase both alcohol and tobacco interventions. These simple interventions show promise for dissemination in primary care settings. BioMed Central 2010-03-05 /pmc/articles/PMC2844356/ /pubmed/20205740 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-11-18 Text en Copyright ©2010 Seale et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research article
Seale, J Paul
Shellenberger, Sylvia
Velasquez, Mary M
Boltri, John M
Okosun, Ike
Guyinn, Monique
Vinson, Dan
Cornelius, Monica
Johnson, J Aaron
Impact of vital signs screening & clinician prompting on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates: a pre-post intervention comparison
title Impact of vital signs screening & clinician prompting on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates: a pre-post intervention comparison
title_full Impact of vital signs screening & clinician prompting on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates: a pre-post intervention comparison
title_fullStr Impact of vital signs screening & clinician prompting on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates: a pre-post intervention comparison
title_full_unstemmed Impact of vital signs screening & clinician prompting on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates: a pre-post intervention comparison
title_short Impact of vital signs screening & clinician prompting on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates: a pre-post intervention comparison
title_sort impact of vital signs screening & clinician prompting on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates: a pre-post intervention comparison
topic Research article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2844356/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20205740
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-11-18
work_keys_str_mv AT sealejpaul impactofvitalsignsscreeningclinicianpromptingonalcoholandtobaccoscreeningandinterventionratesaprepostinterventioncomparison
AT shellenbergersylvia impactofvitalsignsscreeningclinicianpromptingonalcoholandtobaccoscreeningandinterventionratesaprepostinterventioncomparison
AT velasquezmarym impactofvitalsignsscreeningclinicianpromptingonalcoholandtobaccoscreeningandinterventionratesaprepostinterventioncomparison
AT boltrijohnm impactofvitalsignsscreeningclinicianpromptingonalcoholandtobaccoscreeningandinterventionratesaprepostinterventioncomparison
AT okosunike impactofvitalsignsscreeningclinicianpromptingonalcoholandtobaccoscreeningandinterventionratesaprepostinterventioncomparison
AT guyinnmonique impactofvitalsignsscreeningclinicianpromptingonalcoholandtobaccoscreeningandinterventionratesaprepostinterventioncomparison
AT vinsondan impactofvitalsignsscreeningclinicianpromptingonalcoholandtobaccoscreeningandinterventionratesaprepostinterventioncomparison
AT corneliusmonica impactofvitalsignsscreeningclinicianpromptingonalcoholandtobaccoscreeningandinterventionratesaprepostinterventioncomparison
AT johnsonjaaron impactofvitalsignsscreeningclinicianpromptingonalcoholandtobaccoscreeningandinterventionratesaprepostinterventioncomparison