Prospective quality improvement initiative demonstrates reduced smoking after radical cystectomy, highlighting the efficacy of inpatient tobacco treatment.
You have accessJournal of UrologyBladder Cancer: Epidemiology & Evaluation II (MP35)1 May 2024MP35-15 EFFICACY OF INPATIENT, EVIDENCE-BASED TOBACCO USE TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH BLADDER CANCER AFTER RADICAL CYSTECTOMY Hersh Trivedi, Hannah Kay, Katy Reines, Julie Hartzell, Eiman Newcomer, Shannon Meyers, Richard Matulewicz, Adam Goldstein, Kimberly Shoenbill, and Marc Bjurlin Hersh TrivediHersh Trivedi , Hannah KayHannah Kay , Katy ReinesKaty Reines , Julie HartzellJulie Hartzell , Eiman NewcomerEiman Newcomer , Shannon MeyersShannon Meyers , Richard MatulewiczRichard Matulewicz , Adam GoldsteinAdam Goldstein , Kimberly ShoenbillKimberly Shoenbill , and Marc BjurlinMarc Bjurlin View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001009372.61513.54.15AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Smoking cessation therapy for bladder cancer (BC) patients undergoing during treatment is significantly underutilized. Inpatient admission after surgery is a powerful teachable moment to provide tobacco treatment. We conducted a 12-month prospective quality improvement initiative to increase tobacco treatment consultations with BC patients who smoke and underwent radial cystectomy (RC). METHODS: From 6/2022 to 6/2023 patients who reported current smoking and underwent RC for BC were referred to our institution's inpatient tobacco treatment program. A baseline standardized assessment of tobacco dependence was conducted (Fagerström Test) post-operatively and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was prescribed both inpatient and upon discharge. Study endpoints included percentage of patients receiving inpatient tobacco treatment program consultation, patient and provider satisfaction, 1-month NRT prescription fill rates, tobacco usage and cessation rates, and quit attempts. RESULTS: All 16 patients who smoked received a tobacco treatment consultation (n=63 RCs) of which 15 accepted (14 smokers, 1 e-cigarette user). Mean pack year smoking history was 29 and mean Fagerström score was 3.3. Referrals to tobacco treatment increased from 20% at baseline to 100% after implementation of the intervention. 60% of participants filled NRT after discharge. At 1-month follow-up, there was a significant decrease in cigarette use (12.3 cigarettes/day to 6.4 cigarettes/day; p=0.005); 81% attempted to quit, and 27% successfully quit smoking. Participant surveys showed high levels of confidence to quit, stress reduction, desire to quit, and willingness to use NRT (Figure). 75% of providers were very satisfied with the tobacco treatment program and felt recommendations were easy to implement. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the successful implementation of an initiative to increase the use of inpatient tobacco treatment in patients with BC who smoke undergoing RC. There was good acceptability among patients, a significant increase in the number of patients who received a tobacco treatment consultation, a significant decrease in use of cigarettes after intervention, and high satisfaction from patients and bladder cancer providers. Download PPT Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e587 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Hersh Trivedi More articles by this author Hannah Kay More articles by this author Katy Reines More articles by this author Julie Hartzell More articles by this author Eiman Newcomer More articles by this author Shannon Meyers More articles by this author Richard Matulewicz More articles by this author Adam Goldstein More articles by this author Kimberly Shoenbill More articles by this author Marc Bjurlin More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Trivedi et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: