Sustainability of an Opt-Out Electronic-Health Record-based Tobacco Treatment Consult Service at a large safety-net hospital: A 6-year Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Our safety-net hospital implemented a hospital-based tobacco treatment intervention in 2016. We previously showed the intervention, an "opt-out" Electronic Health Record (EHR)-based Best Practice Alert (BPA)+order-set that triggers consultation to an inpatient Tobacco Treatment Consult (TTC) service for all patients who smoke, improves smoking abstinence. We now report on sustainability, 6 years after inception. METHODS: We analyzed data collected between July 2016-June 2022 of patients documented as 'currently smoking' in the EHR. Across the 6 years, we used Pearson's correlation analysis to compare Adoption (clinician acceptance of the BPA+order-set, thus generating consultation to the TTC service); Reach (number of consultations completed by the TTC service); and Effectiveness (receipt of pharmacotherapy orders between patients receiving and not receiving consultations). RESULTS: Among 39,558 adult admissions (July 2016-June 2022) with "currently smoking" status in the EHR for whom the BPA triggered, clinicians accepted the TTC order-set on 50.4% (19,932/39,558), though acceptance varied across services [e.g., Cardiology (71%) and Obstetrics-Gynecology (12%)]. The TTC service consulted on 17% (6779/39,558) of patients due to staffing constraints. Consultations ordered (r=-0.28, p=0.59) and completed (r= 0.45, p=0.37) remained stable over six-years. Compared to patients not receiving consultations, patients receiving consultations were more likely to receive pharmacotherapy orders overall (inpatient: 50.8% vs 35.1%, p<.0001; at discharge: 27.1% vs 10%, p<.0001) and in each year. CONCLUSIONS: The "opt-out" EHR-based TTC service is sustainable, though many did not receive consultations due to resource constraints. Healthcare systems should elevate priority of hospital-based tobacco treatment programs to increase reach to underserved populations. IMPLICATIONS: Our study shows that opt-out approaches that utilize the EHR are a sustainable approach to provide evidence-based tobacco treatment to all hospitalized individuals who smoke, regardless of readiness to stop smoking and clinical condition.

A Financial Incentives Program to Promote Smoking Cessation Among Recently Hospitalized Individuals: Feasibility and Acceptability Study.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization is an opportunity to engage underserved individuals in tobacco treatment who may not otherwise have access to it. Tobacco treatment interventions that begin during hospitalization and continue for at least 1 postdischarge month are effective in promoting smoking cessation. However, there is low usage of postdischarge tobacco treatment services. Financial incentives for smoking cessation are an intervention in which participants receive incentives, such as cash payments or vouchers for goods, to encourage individuals to stop smoking or to reward individuals for maintaining abstinence. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a novel postdischarge financial incentive intervention that uses a smartphone application paired to measurements of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) concentration levels to promote smoking cessation in individuals who smoke cigarettes. METHODS: We collaborated with Vincere Health, Inc. to tailor their mobile application that uses facial recognition features, a portable breath test CO monitor, and smartphone technology to deliver financial incentives to a participant's digital wallet after the completion of each CO test. The program includes 3 racks. Track 1: Noncontingent incentives for conducting CO tests. Track 2: Combination of noncontingent and contingent incentives for CO levels <10 parts per million (ppm). Track 3: Contingent incentives only for CO levels <10 ppm. After obtaining informed consent, we pilot-tested the program from September to November 2020 with a convenience sample of 33 hospitalized individuals at Boston Medical Center, a large safety-net hospital in New England. Participants received text reminders to conduct CO tests twice daily for 30 days postdischarge. We collected data on engagement, CO levels, and incentives earned. We measured feasibility and acceptability quantitatively and qualitatively at 2 and 4 weeks. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent (25/33) completed the program and 61% (20/33) conducted at least 1 breath test each week. Seven patients had consecutive CO levels <10 ppm during the last 7 days of the program. Engagement with the financial incentive intervention as well as in-treatment abstinence was highest in Track 3 that delivered financial incentives contingent on CO levels <10 ppm. Participants reported high program satisfaction and that the intervention helped motivate smoking cessation. Participants suggested increasing program duration to at least 3 months and adding supplemental text messaging to increase motivation to stop smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives paired to measurements of exhaled CO concentration levels is a novel smartphone-based tobacco cessation approach that is feasible and acceptable. Future studies should examine the efficacy of the intervention after it is refined to add a counseling or text-messaging component.

Hospitalization as an opportunity to engage underserved individuals in shared decision-making for lung cancer screening: results from two randomized pilot trials.

PURPOSE: Medicare requires tobacco dependence counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement. We hypothesized that initiating SDM during inpatient tobacco treatment visits would increase LCS among patients with barriers to proactively seeking outpatient preventive care. METHODS: We collected baseline assessments and performed two pilot randomized trials at our safety-net hospital. Pilot 1 tested feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a nurse practitioner initiating SDM for LCS during hospitalization (Inpatient SDM). We collected qualitative data on barriers encountered during Pilot 1. Pilot 2 added a community health worker (CHW) to address barriers to LCS completion (Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation). For both studies, preliminary efficacy was an intention-to-treat analysis of LCS completion at 3 months between intervention and comparator (furnishing of LCS decision aid only) groups. RESULTS: Baseline assessments showed that patients preferred in-person LCS discussions versus self-reviewing materials; overall 20% had difficulty understanding written information. In Pilot 1, 4% (2/52) in Inpatient SDM versus 2% (1/48, comparator) completed LCS (p = 0.6), despite 89% (89/100) desiring LCS. Primary care providers noted that competing priorities and patient factors (e.g., social barriers to keeping appointments) prevented the intervention from working as intended. In Pilot 2, 50% (5/10) in Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation versus 9% (1/11, comparator) completed LCS (p < 0.05). Many patients were ineligible due to recent diagnostic chest CT (Pilot 1: 255/659; Pilot 2: 239/527). CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation shows promise to improve LCS rates among underserved patients who smoke, but feasibility is limited by recent diagnostic chest CT among inpatients. Implementing CHW-navigation in other clinical settings may facilitate LCS for underserved patients. TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03276806 (8 September 2017); NCT03793894 (4 January 2019).

A mixed methods study to inform and evaluate a longitudinal nurse practitioner/community health worker intervention to address social determinants of health and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease self-management.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with low socioeconomic status experience higher prevalence and worse outcomes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We undertook a quality improvement initiative at our safety net hospital in which a nurse practitioner (NP)/community health worker (CHW) team followed patients with COPD, frequent admissions, and unmet SDOH needs from hospitalization through one month post-discharge. We report our mixed methods approach to inform development and preliminary evaluation of this intervention. METHODS: We first assessed characteristics of patients admitted with COPD in 2018 (n = 1811), performing multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with ≥ 2 admissions per year. We then tested a standardized tool to screen for unmet SDOH needs in a convenience sample of 51 frequently hospitalized patients with COPD. From January-July 2019, we pilot tested the NP/CHW intervention with 57 patients, reviewed NP/CHW logs, and conducted qualitative interviews with 16 patient participants to explore impressions of the intervention. RESULTS: Patients with Medicaid insurance, mental health disorders, cardiac disease, and substance use disorder had increased odds of having ≥ 2 admissions. COPD severity, comorbidities, and unmet SDOH needs made COPD self-management challenging. Seventy-four percent of frequently admitted patients with COPD completing SDOH screening had unmet SDOH needs. Patients perceived that the NP/CHW intervention addressed these barriers by connecting them to resources and providing emotional support. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with COPD admitted at our safety-net hospital experience unmet SDOH needs that impede COPD self-management. A longitudinal NP/CHW intervention to address unmet SDOH needs following discharge appears feasible and acceptable.