How can hospitals change practice to better implement smoking cessation interventions? A systematic review

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of death, improves recovery, and reduces the risk of hospital readmission. Evidence and policy support hospital admission as an ideal time to deliver smoking-cessation interventions. However, this is not well implemented in practice. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the literature on smoking-cessation implementation strategies and evaluate their success to guide the implementation of best-practice smoking interventions into hospital settings. The CINAHL Complete, Embase, MEDLINE Complete, and PsycInfo databases were searched using terms associated with the following topics: smoking cessation, hospitals, and implementation. In total, 14,287 original records were identified and screened, resulting in 63 eligible articles from 56 studies. Data were extracted on the study characteristics, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes were guided by Proctor and colleagues' framework and included acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. The findings demonstrate that studies predominantly focused on the training of staff to achieve implementation. Brief implementation approaches using a small number of implementation strategies were less successful and poorly sustained compared with well resourced and multicomponent approaches. Although brief implementation approaches may be viewed as advantageous because they are less resource-intensive, their capacity to change practice in a sustained way lacks evidence. Attempts to change clinician behavior or introduce new models of care are challenging in a short time frame, and implementation efforts should be designed for long-term success. There is a need to embrace strategic, well planned implementation approaches to embed smoking-cessation interventions into hospitals and to reap and sustain the benefits for people who smoke.     

Collaborating toward equity in Pennsylvania: The Age-Friendly Care,PA project

Objective

To collaboratively implement the age-friendly health systems framework, known as the 4Ms: What Matters, Medication, Mentation, and Mobility, at The Primary Health Network (PHN), a federally qualified health center.

Data Sources

Data were collected from PHN electronic medical records (EMRs) for individuals over age 65 from December 30, 2019 to December 24, 2021 and from Project ECHO© attendance and evaluation surveys.

Study Design

The telementoring educational program, Project ECHO©, was used to engage PHN health care professionals working in rural areas of Pennsylvania to incorporate the 4Ms into their practice starting with the annual wellness visit (AWV). Project ECHO© was launched at three primary care sites. After 18 months, it was then disseminated to an additional 18 sites creating pilot and comparison groups. Outcomes included codesigned patient process metrics using EMR data and project ECHO© participant data.

Data Collection Methods

EMR data were generated by system reports created by PHN's quality assurance program manager. Project ECHO© data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools. Outcomes were aggregated, analyzed for trends over time, and compared between groups.

Principal Findings

All nine process outcomes increased from baseline to follow-up at the three initial sites, ranging from 4% to 43% g. At year two, the three initial sites had higher rates on AWVs (pilot 24%, comparison 12%; p < 0.0001), Advance Care Planning (New on file, pilot 8%, comparison 2%; Discussed with patient, pilot 18%, comparison 13%; Patient declined, pilot 0%, comparison 0%; p = 0.0001), Dementia Screening (pilot 24%, comparison 12%; p < 0.0001), Fall Risk Management (pilot 43%, comparison 10%; p < 0.0001), and Mobility Goal (pilot 19%, comparison 9%; p < 0.0001); and lower rates on High-Risk Medication Elimination (pilot 54%, comparison, 63%, p < 0.02).

Conclusions

Access to high-quality geriatric care for rural older adults can be improved by increasing health care professionals' knowledge of the 4Ms, beginning with its incorporation into the AWV.     

Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature

Patient navigation is a strategy for overcoming barriers to reduce disparities and to improve access and outcomes. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify, critically appraise, synthesize, and present the best available evidence to inform policy and planning regarding patient navigation across the cancer continuum. Systematic reviews examining navigation in cancer care were identified in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Epistemonikos, and Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databases and in the gray literature from January 1, 2012, to April 19, 2022. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised independently by two authors. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Review and Research Syntheses was used for quality appraisal. Emerging literature up to May 25, 2022, was also explored to capture primary research published beyond the coverage of included systematic reviews. Of the 2062 unique records identified, 61 systematic reviews were included. Fifty-four reviews were quantitative or mixed-methods reviews, reporting on the effectiveness of cancer patient navigation, including 12 reviews reporting costs or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Seven qualitative reviews explored navigation needs, barriers, and experiences. In addition, 53 primary studies published since 2021 were included. Patient navigation is effective in improving participation in cancer screening and reducing the time from screening to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment initiation. Emerging evidence suggests that patient navigation improves quality of life and patient satisfaction with care in the survivorship phase and reduces hospital readmission in the active treatment and survivorship care phases. Palliative care data were extremely limited. Economic evaluations from the United States suggest the potential cost-effectiveness of navigation in screening programs.