Implementation of HIT-Enhanced Tobacco Treatment for Hospitalized Smokers

Cigarette smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and illness in the United States. In 2008, 20.6% of all American adults smoked, and 435,000 died from smoking-related illnesses. Economic costs of smoking dependence are estimated at $193 billion/year and have far-reaching implications for the individual, workplace, society and the healthcare system. However, treatment is associated with significant individual and society benefits, and both counseling and pharmacotherapy have been demonstrated to be effective treatments. Along with poverty and low education, smoking causes a greater loss of quality-adjusted life years than race, uninsurance, overweight, or binge drinking. Smokers are admitted to acute care hospital more than nonsmokers. Using estimates from a number of sources, we estimate that approximately 6.1-12.5 million hospitalizations occur annually among adult smokers. This represents 20-41% of the 29.8 million annual inpatient stays in US acute care hospitals among adults age 18 and older unrelated to pregnancy or childbirth. Put another way, the nation's 46 million smokers represent 20% of the adult population, but account for 20-40% of all hospitalizations unrelated to pregnancy. Given that US hospitals are now smoke-free (per Joint Commission regulations), and many of these admissions are for tobacco-related conditions, the hospital admission represents a profound opportunity-a "teachable moment"-for tobacco control. Recent "core measure" regulations by the Joint Commission and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services require hospitals to report publicly their tobacco screening for patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia. Although many hospitals have improved their performance considerably on these smoking measures, sometimes this has resulted from "gaming," e.g. giving all discharged patients a preprinted instruction sheet that includes boilerplate text about smoking cessation. Thus, although most hospitals assess inpatients for tobacco use (either through a nursing assessment or the physician's initial history and physical examination), there are often no systems in place to initiate or sustain tobacco treatment for smokers. This gap in service delivery prevents millions of smokers from accessing the many effective, evidence-based treatments for tobacco dependence during a period in which they may be particularly receptive to an intervention. Hence, the overarching goal of this project is to implement and study the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a tobacco intervention for hospitalized adults that begins during inpatient treatment and continues after discharge. To enhance dissemination, we will use resources currently available to most acute care hospitals: computerized physician order entry, physician and nurse education, staff meetings for physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals, online learning capabilities, faxing to primary care providers (PCPs), and the telephone counseling and support available from a state smokers' quitline (QL). In the final year, a toolkit will be disseminated by professional societies. We hypothesize that the proposed intervention is clinically effective, cost effective, sustainable, and generalizable. All interventions are evidence-based and consistent with the 2008 Public Health Service clinical practice guideline for tobacco dependence treatment. The Specific Aims of the proposed project are to: Primary Aims: Determine whether Academic Detailing (AD) and an Integrated Tobacco Order Set (ITOS) compared to AD alone improves biologically verified smoking cessation at 12 months post-quit in a cohort of 960 smokers age > 18 years admitted to Yale New Haven Hospital (YNHH). Secondary Aims: Study ITOS's ability to encourage smokers to use treatment services and reduce consumption. Study ITOS's ability to enhance provider delivery of tobacco screening and treatment. Conduct an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of the intervention. Our associated hypotheses are: Subjects treated by physicians in the AD+ITOS arm will have a higher rate of biochemically verified 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 12 months post-quit than subjects treated by physicians in the AD arm, in a cohort of adult smokers admitted to the inpatient units of Yale-New Haven Hospital. Subjects treated by AD+ITOS physicians will have made more quit attempts, and experienced greater reduction in daily cigarette consumption, than smokers treated by AD physicians. A higher proportion of patients treated by AD+ITOS physicians will have tobacco treatment initiated in hospital than patients treated by AD physicians. Societal costs of AD+ITOS, per abstinent smoker, will be cost-effective relative to AD.