Performance Obligations to Improve Delivery of Hospital-Initiated Smoking Cessation Interventions: A Before-and-After Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated whether introducing performance obligations (a policy intervention) to service agreements between hospitals (n = 15) and their local health authority: (1) improved provision of an evidence-based tobacco cessation intervention (the "Ottawa Model" for Smoking Cessation) and (2) changed the quality of the cessation intervention being delivered. METHODS: Interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate the change in the proportion of smoker patients provided the Ottawa Model 3 years before and 3 years after introducing the performance obligations. Changes in secondary outcomes related to program quality were described using mean differences, risk differences, and risk ratios, as appropriate. RESULTS: The proportion and number of patients provided the Ottawa Model doubled in the 3-year period following introduction of the new policy-from 3453 patients (33.7%) in the year before to 6840 patients (62.8%) in the final assessment year. This resulted in a signification slope change (+9.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.5%, 13.9%; p = .01) between the pre- and post-obligation assessment periods, signifying the policy had a positive impact on performance. Quality and effectiveness of the in-hospital intervention remained steady. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of performance obligations by a healthcare funder increased delivery of an evidence-based smoking cessation intervention across multiple hospitals. Given the known health and economic impacts of smoking cessation interventions, health authorities and hospitals should consider pairing adoption of systematic interventions, like the Ottawa Model, with policy to enhance reach and impact. IMPLICATIONS: • The hospital-based Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation (OMSC) intervention has been shown to increase smoking abstinence, while reducing mortality and healthcare utilization.• The uptake of systematic, evidence-based interventions, like the OMSC, by hospitals has been relatively low despite the known positive impacts.• The introduction of smoking cessation performance obligations by a healthcare funder resulted in more patients receiving an OMSC intervention while in hospital, with no corresponding change in intervention quality or effectiveness.• Healthcare funders and hospitals should consider pairing the adoption of effective, systematic interventions, like the OMSC, with policy to enhance reach and impact.

Effectiveness of a hospital-initiated smoking cessation programme: 2-year health and healthcare outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco-related illnesses are leading causes of death and healthcare use. Our objective was to determine whether implementation of a hospital-initiated smoking cessation intervention would reduce mortality and downstream healthcare usage. METHODS: A 2-group effectiveness study was completed comparing patients who received the 'Ottawa Model' for Smoking Cessation intervention (n=726) to usual care controls (n=641). Participants were current smokers, >17 years old, and recruited during admission to 1 of 14 participating hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Baseline data were linked to healthcare administrative data. Competing-risks regression analysis was used to compare outcomes between groups. RESULTS: The intervention group experienced significantly lower rates of all-cause readmissions, smoking-related readmissions, and all-cause emergency department (ED) visits at all time points. The largest absolute risk reductions (ARR) were observed for all-cause readmissions at 30 days (13.3% vs 7.1%; ARR, 6.1% (2.9% to 9.3%); p<0.001), 1 year (38.4% vs 26.7%; ARR, 11.7% (6.7% to 16.6%); p<0.001), and 2 years (45.2% vs 33.6%; ARR, 11.6% (6.5% to 16.8%); p<0.001). The greatest reduction in risk of all-cause ED visits was at 30 days (20.9% vs 16.4%; ARR, 4.5% (0.4% to 8.7%); p=0.03). Reduction in mortality was not evident at 30 days, but significant reductions were observed by year 1 (11.4% vs 5.4%; ARR 6.0% (3.1% to 9.0%); p<0.001) and year 2 (15.1% vs 7.9%; ARR, 7.3% (3.9% to 10.7%); p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the relatively low cost, greater adoption of hospital-initiated tobacco cessation interventions should be considered to improve patient outcomes and decrease subsequent healthcare usage.