Publications

BACKGROUND

Poor communication between referring clinicians and specialists may lead to inefficient use of specialist services. San Francisco General Hospital implemented an electronic referral system (eReferral) that facilitates iterative pre-visit communication between referring and specialty clinicians to improve the referral process.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study was to determine the impact of eReferral (compared with paper-based referrals) on specialty referrals.

DESIGN

The study was based on a visit-based questionnaire appended to new patient charts at randomly selected specialist clinic sessions before and after the implementation of eReferral.

PARTICIPANTS

Specialty clinicians.

MAIN MEASURES

The questionnaire focused on the self-reported difficulty in identifying referral question, referral appropriateness, need for and avoidability of follow-up visits.

KEY RESULTS

We collected 505 questionnaires from speciality clinicians. It was difficult to identify the reason for referral in 19.8% of medical and 38.0% of surgical visits using paper-based methods vs. 11.0% and 9.5% of those using eReferral (p-value 0.03 and <0.001). Of those using eReferral, 6.4% and 9.8% of medical and surgical referrals using paper methods vs. 2.6% and 2.1% were deemed not completely appropriate (p-value 0.21 and 0.03). Follow-up was requested for 82.4% and 76.2% of medical and surgical patients with paper-based referrals vs. 90.1% and 58.1% of eReferrals (p-value 0.06 and 0.01). Follow-up was considered avoidable for 32.4% and 44.7% of medical and surgical follow-ups with paper-based methods vs. 27.5% and 13.5% with eReferral (0.41 and <0.001).

CONCLUSION

Use of technology to promote standardized referral processes and iterative communication between referring clinicians and specialists has the potential to improve communication between primary care providers and specialists and to increase the effectiveness of specialty referrals.

BACKGROUND

Tobacco dependence treatment efforts have focused on primary care physicians (PCPs), but evidence suggests that they are insufficient to help most smokers quit. Other health professionals also frequently encounter smokers, but their smoking prevalence, cessation practices, and beliefs are less well known.

METHODS

The study included 2,804 subjects from seven health professional groups: PCPs, emergency medicine physicians, psychiatrists, registered nurses, dentists, dental hygienists, and pharmacists. Outcomes included self-reported smoking status, smoking cessation practices, and beliefs. Multivariate regression was used to examine factors associated with health professionals (except pharmacists) self-reportedly performing the "5 A's": asking, advising, assessing, assisting, or arranging follow-up about tobacco.

RESULTS

Health professionals have a low smoking prevalence (<6%), except nurses (13%). Many health professionals report asking (87.3%-99.5%) and advising (65.6%-94.9%) about smoking but much less assessing smokers' interest (38.7%-84.8%), assisting (16.4%-63.7%), and arranging follow-up (1.3%-23.1%). Controlling for health professional and practice demographics, factors positively associated in the multivariate analyses with self-reportedly performing multiple components of the 5 A's include awareness of the Public Health Service guidelines, having had cessation training, and believing that treatment was an important professional responsibility. Negative associations include the health professional being a current smoker, not being a PCP, being uncomfortable asking patients if they smoke, believing counseling was not an appropriate service, and reporting competing priorities.

CONCLUSION

U.S. health professionals report not fully performing the 5 A's. The common barriers and facilitators identified may help inform strategies for increasing the involvement of all health professionals in conducting tobacco dependence treatments.

BACKGROUND

Low-tar cigarette smoking is gaining popularity in China. The China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC) promotes low-tar cigarettes as safer than regular cigarettes.

METHODS

A total of 543 male smokers smoking cigarettes with different tar yields (15 mg, regular cigarettes, 10-13 mg low-tar cigarettes and < 10 mg low-tar cigarettes) were recruited in Shanghai, China, who then completed a questionnaire on smoking behaviour and provided a urine sample for analysis of the nicotine metabolites cotinine and trans-3'-hydroxycotinine. A total of 177 urine samples were selected at random for the analysis of the carcinogens polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon metabolites (PAHs) (1-hydroxypyrene, naphthols, hydroxyfluorenes and hydroxyphenanthrenes) and the tobacco specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-butanone (NNK) metabolites, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-butanol (NNAL) and NNAL-glucuronide. Values were normalised by creatinine to correct for possible distortions introduced by dilution or concentration of the urine.

RESULTS

Smokers of low-tar cigarettes smoked fewer cigarettes per day (p=0.001) compared to smokers of regular cigarettes. Despite this lower reported consumption, levels of cotinine, trans-3'-hydroxycotinine and PAHs in urine of people smoking low-tar cigarettes were not correlated with nominal tar delivery of the cigarettes they smoked. Urine concentrations of NNAL were higher in smokers of lower tar than higher tar cigarettes.

CONCLUSIONS

Chinese low-tar cigarettes do not deliver lower doses of nicotine and carcinogens than regular cigarettes, therefore it is unlikely that there would be any reduction in harm. CNTC's promotion of low-tar cigarettes as 'less harmful' is a violation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which China ratified in 2005.