Understanding the enablers and barriers to implementing smoke-free NHS sites across acute care trusts in Greater Manchester: results of a hospital staff survey.

INTRODUCTION: The current study aims to identify enablers and barriers to implementing smoke-free NHS hospital grounds through a hospital staff survey. METHODS: Staff members from eight acute care NHS trusts in Greater Manchester were invited to complete a 15-minute web-based questionnaire. RESULTS: Five-hundred and eighty-eight participants completed the questionnaire. Nineteen per cent (114/588) of respondents were current smokers and 10% (61/588) were currently vaping. Sixty per cent (68/114) smoked at work and 66% (40/61) vaped at work. Sixty-seven per cent (314/468) supported dedicated on-site tobacco addiction treatment services for hospital staff with specific support for drop-in clinics and free pharmacotherapy for staff. Sixty-one per cent (290/477) and 67% (318/477) strongly agreed / agreed that patients/visitors and staff, respectively, should not smoke on hospital grounds. Seventeen per cent (83/484) had received training in very brief advice. Thirty-five per cent (190/547) felt vaping was less harmful than smoking, 19% (92/472) felt exhaled vapour was likely to be safe to bystanders, 36% (172/475) would support vaping-friendly hospital grounds and 31% (37/120) felt confident in discussing vaping. DISCUSSION: Enablers to a smoke-free NHS site include dedicated tobacco addiction services for staff and empowering staff through appropriate training to support smokers on the hospital grounds. Barriers include the lack of awareness and support for the harm reduction benefits of vaping.

Health economic analysis for the 'CURE Project' pilot: a hospital-based tobacco dependency treatment service in Greater Manchester.

INTRODUCTION: Treating tobacco dependency in patients admitted to acute care National Health Service (NHS) trusts is a key priority in the NHS 10-year plan. This paper sets out the results of a health economic analysis for 'The CURE Project' pilot; a new hospital-based tobacco dependency service. METHODS: A health economic analysis to understand the costs of the intervention (both for the inpatient service and postdischarge costs), the return on investment (ROI) and the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of the CURE Project pilot in Greater Manchester. ROI and cost per QALY were calculated using the European Study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco and Greater Manchester Cost Benefit Analysis Tools. RESULTS: The total intervention costs for the inpatient service in the 6-month CURE pilot were £96 224 with a cost per patient who smokes of £40.21. The estimated average cost per patient who was discharged on pharmacotherapy was £97.40. The cost per quit (22% quit rate for smokers at 12 weeks post discharge) was £475. The gross financial ROI ratio was £2.12 return per £1 invested with a payback period of 4 years. The cashable financial ROI ratio was £1.06 return per £1 invested with a payback period of 10 years. The public value ROI ratio was £30.49 per £1 invested. The cost per QALY for this programme was £487. DISCUSSION: The CURE Project pilot has been shown to be exceptionally cost-effective with highly significant ROI in this health economic analysis. This supports the NHS priority to embed high-quality tobacco addiction treatment services in acute NHS trusts, and the CURE Project provides a blueprint and framework to achieve this.

Prevalence of nodal metastases in lymph node stations 8 & 9 in a large UK lung cancer surgical centre without routine pre-operative EUS nodal staging.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) allows access to the inferior mediastinal lymph node stations (8 and 9) which are beyond the reach of endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS). The addition of EUS to EBUS procedures requires cost and resource investment. This study sought to describe the prevalence of station 8/9 nodal metastases from intra-operative lymph node sampling in a UK region where routine pre-operative EUS is not available. METHODS: A retrospective review of all lung cancer resections at the University Hospital South Manchester from 2011 to 2014. Surgical variables, pre-operative PET variables and survival outcomes were collected and analysed. RESULTS: 1421 surgical resections were performed in the study period. Lymph node stations 8 and/or 9 were sampled in 52% (736/1421) of patients. Overall, there were 34 patients with lymph node metastases at station 8/9. This represents 2.4% of the study populations and 4.6% of patients in whom stations 8/9 were sampled intra-operatively. Of those patients with station 8/9 metastases, 65% (22/34) had multi-station N2 disease and the majority of the additional N2 disease was present in EBUS-accessible areas (lymph node stations 2, 4 and 7). Two percent (16/736) of patients in whom station 8/9 lymph nodes were sampled intra-operatively had N2 disease that was only accessible endoscopically with EUS. There was no significant difference in overall survival in patients with pathological N2 disease stratified according to whether stations 8/9 were involved or not. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of lymph node metastases in stations 8/9 in this UK surgical centre where routine pre-operative EUS is not performed is low at approximately 5%. Given the identification of N2 disease in two-thirds of these patients can potentially be achieved through EBUS alone, this questions whether the resource implications of EUS are justified by the impact on patient management.