Telephone care co-ordination for tobacco cessation: randomised trials testing proactive versus reactive models.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted two parallel studies evaluating the effectiveness of proactive and reactive engagement approaches to telephone treatment for smoking cessation. METHODS: Patients who smoked and were interested in quitting were referred to this study and were eligible if they were current smokers and had an address and a telephone number. The data were collected at 35 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites, part of four VA medical centres in both California and Nevada. In study 1, participants received multisession counselling from the California Smokers' Helpline (quitline). In study 2, they received self-help materials only. Patients were randomly assigned by week to either proactive or reactive engagement, and primary care staff were blind to this assignment. Providers gave brief advice and referred them via the electronic health record to a tobacco co-ordinator. All patients were offered cessation medications. OUTCOME: Using complete case analysis, in study 1 (quitline), patients in the proactive condition were more likely than those in the reactive condition to report abstinence at 6 months (21.0% vs 16.4%, p=0.03). No difference was found between conditions in study 2 (self-help) (16.9% vs 16.5%, p=0.88). Proactive outreach resulted in increased use of cessation medications in both the quitline (70.1% vs 57.6%, p<0.0001) and the self-help studies (74.5% vs 48.2%, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Proactive outreach with quitline intervention was associated with greater long-term abstinence. Both studies resulted in high rates of medication use. Sites should use a proactive outreach approach and provide counselling whenever possible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00123682.

A Qualitative Evaluation of Web-Based Cancer Care Quality Improvement Toolkit Use in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Disease severity, complexity, and patient burden highlight cancer care as a target for quality improvement (QI) interventions. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented a series of disease-specific online cancer care QI toolkits. OBJECTIVES: To describe characteristics of the toolkits, target users, and VHA cancer care facilities that influenced toolkit access and use and assess whether such resources were beneficial for users. METHODS: Deductive content analysis of detailed notes from 94 telephone interviews with individuals from 48 VHA facilities. We evaluated toolkit access and use across cancer types, participation in learning collaboratives, and affiliation with VHA cancer care facilities. RESULTS: The presence of champions was identified as a strong facilitator of toolkit use, and learning collaboratives were important for spreading information about toolkit availability. Identified barriers included lack of personnel and financial resources and complicated approval processes to support tool use. CONCLUSIONS: Online cancer care toolkits are well received across cancer specialties and provider types. Clinicians, administrators, and QI staff may benefit from the availability of toolkits as they become more reliant on rapid access to strategies that support comprehensive delivery of evidence-based care. Toolkits should be considered as a complement to other QI approaches.

Implementing a user-driven online quality improvement toolkit for cancer care.

PURPOSE: Peer-to-peer collaboration within integrated health systems requires a mechanism for sharing quality improvement lessons. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) developed online compendia of tools linked to specific cancer quality indicators. We evaluated awareness and use of the toolkits, variation across facilities, impact of social marketing, and factors influencing toolkit use. METHODS: A diffusion of innovations conceptual framework guided the collection of user activity data from the Toolkit Series SharePoint site and an online survey of potential Lung Cancer Care Toolkit users. RESULTS: The VA Toolkit Series site had 5,088 unique visitors in its first 22 months; 5% of users accounted for 40% of page views. Social marketing communications were correlated with site usage. Of survey respondents (n = 355), 54% had visited the site, of whom 24% downloaded at least one tool. Respondents' awareness of the lung cancer quality performance of their facility, and facility participation in quality improvement collaboratives, were positively associated with Toolkit Series site use. Facility-level lung cancer tool implementation varied widely across tool types. CONCLUSION: The VA Toolkit Series achieved widespread use and a high degree of user engagement, although use varied widely across facilities. The most active users were aware of and active in cancer care quality improvement. Toolkit use seemed to be reinforced by other quality improvement activities. A combination of user-driven tool creation and centralized toolkit development seemed to be effective for leveraging health information technology to spread disease-specific quality improvement tools within an integrated health care system.

Assessing the structure of smoking cessation care in the Veterans Health Administration.

PURPOSE: National smoking cessation practice guidelines offer recommendations regarding the processes and structure of care. Facilities routinely measure the processes of care but not the structure of care. This pilot study assessed the structure of smoking cessation care at Veterans Health Administration facilities. METHODS: Key informants at 18 sites completed a brief checklist survey adapted from national smoking cessation guidelines. Responses were compared with detailed site surveys. RESULTS: Guideline adherence was seen in identifying smokers and treating inpatient smokers. Areas of low adherence include offering incentives and defining staff responsibilities. The checklist survey showed poor correspondence with the detailed survey, with low agreement on systematic screening (kappa = .21) and higher agreement on primary care prescribing authority (kappa = .53). DISCUSSION: This pilot survey provides a potential rapid method for assessing adherence to systems recommendations from the national smoking cessation guidelines. The relatively low agreement with a more detailed survey suggests that the two surveys may have been measuring different aspects of smoking cessation care.