Clinician perceptions of factors influencing referrals to a smoking cessation program

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Referral of patients to smoking cessation telephone counseling (i.e., quitline) is an underutilized resource by primary care physicians. Previously, we conducted a randomized trial to determine the effectiveness of benchmarked feedback on clinician referrals to a quitline. Subsequently, we sought to understand the successful practices used by the high-referring clinicians, and the perceptions of the barriers of referring patients to a quitline among both high and non-referring clinicians in the trial.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a qualitative sub-study with subjects from the randomized trial, comparing high- and non-referring clinicians. Structured interviews were conducted and two investigators employed a thematic analysis of the transcribed data. Themes and included categories were organized into a thematic framework to represent the main response sets.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>As compared to non-referring clinicians, high-referring clinicians more often reported use of the quitline as a primary source of referral, an appreciation of the quitline as an additional resource, reduced barriers to use of the quitline referral process, and a greater personal motivation related to tobacco cessation. Time and competing demands were critical barriers to initiating smoking cessation treatment with patients for all clinicians. Clinicians reported that having one referral source, a referral coordinator, and reimbursement for tobacco counseling (as a billable code) would aid referral.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Further research is needed to test the effectiveness of new approaches in improving the connection of patients with smoking cessation resources.</p> <p>Trial Registration Number</p> <p>Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00529256</p

Nature’s nations: the shared conservation history of Canada and the USA

Historians often study the history of conservation within the confines of national borders, concentrating on the bureaucratic and political manifestations of policy within individual governments. Even studies of the popular expression of conservationist ideas are generally limited to the national or sub-national (province, state, etc.) scale. This paper suggests that conservationist discourse, policy and practice in Canada and the USA were the products of a significant cross-border movement of ideas and initiatives derived from common European sources. In addition, the historical development of common approaches to conservation in North America suggests, contrary to common assumptions, that Canada did not always lag behind the USA in terms of policy innovation. The basic tenets of conservation (i.e. state control over resource, class-based disdain for subsistence hunters and utilitarian approaches to resource management) have instead developed at similar time periods and along parallel ideological paths in Canada and the USA

Practice-Based Referrals to a Tobacco Cessation Quit Line: Assessing the Impact of Comparative Feedback vs General Reminders

PURPOSE We undertook a study to assess the impact of comparative feedback vs general reminders on practice-based referrals to a tobacco cessation quit line and estimated costs for projected quit responses. METHODS We conducted a group-randomized clinical trial comparing the impact of 6 quarterly (18 months) feedback reports (intervention) with that of general reminders (control) on practice-based clinician referrals to a quit-line service. Feedback reports were based on an Achievable Benchmark of Care approach using baseline practice, clinician, and patient survey responses, and referrals per quarter. Comparable quit responses and costs were estimated. RESULTS Three hundred eight clinicians participated (171 family medicine, 88 internal medicine, 49 obstetrics-gynecology) from 87 primary care practices in Michigan. After 18 months, there were more referrals from the intervention than from the control practices (484 vs 220; P <.001). Practice facsimile (fax) referrals (84%, n = 595) exceeded telephone referrals (16%, n = 109), but telephone referrals resulted in greater likelihood of enrollment (77% telephone vs 44% fax, P <.001). The estimated number of smokers who quit based on the level of services utilized by referred smokers was 66 in the feedback and 36 in the gentle reminder practices. CONCLUSION Providing comparative feedback on clinician referrals to a quit-line service had a modest impact with limited increased costs

Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools: a 10-year follow-up survey

PURPOSE: To determine how U.S. MD-granting medical schools manage, fund, and evaluate faculty affairs/development functions and to determine the evolution of these offices between 2000 and 2010. METHOD: In December 2010, the authors invited faculty affairs designees at 131 U.S. MD-granting medical schools to complete a questionnaire developed by the Association of American Medical Colleges Group on Faculty Affairs, based on a 2000 survey. Schools were asked about core functions, budget, staffing, and performance metrics. The authors analyzed the data using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 111 schools (84.7%) responded. Fifty percent of the offices were established since 2000. Seventy-eight percent reported their top core function as administrative support for appointments, promotions, and tenure, as in 2000. Faculty policies, appointments, databases, governance support, grievance proceedings, management issues, and annual trend analyses continued as major functions. All 11 core functions identified in 2000 remain predominantly provided by central offices of faculty affairs, except support of major leadership searches. Web site communication emerged as a new core function. Similar to 2000, several other offices were responsible for some faculty development functions. Office size and budget correlated positively with size of the faculty and age of the office (P \u3c .05 for all). Thirty-five schools (31.5%) reported formally evaluating their faculty affairs office. CONCLUSIONS: The number of faculty affairs offices and their responsibilities have substantially increased since 2000. Most major core functions have not changed. These offices are now an established part of the central administration of most medical schools