The Science Journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care

2010 OPEN FORUM Abstracts

EVALUATION OF BRIEF IN-PATIENT TOBACCO DEPENDENCE INTERVENTION TRAINING.

Georgianna Sergakis1, Andrea Yagodich2; 1Respiratory Therapy, School of Allied Medical Professions, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; 2Respiratory Therapy, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH

Background: Tobacco free policies prohibit hospitalized patients from using tobacco, thereby presenting both opportunity and challenge. First, this abstinence is an opportunity for the individual to discuss their willingness or unwillingness to quit and arrange action. The challenge involves the resultant nicotine withdrawal. Respiratory Therapists (RTs) are well positioned to provide assistance, especially when delivering other therapies related to the effects of continued tobacco use. Brief interventions are recommended to assist the individual regardless of willingness to quit, while pharmacotherapy addresses withdrawal. The purpose of the study was to evaluate RT training for brief in-patient tobacco dependence intervention at a large academic medical center. Method: A four hour training session facilitated by a Tobacco Treatment Specialist included an overview of the Clinical Practice Guideline for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence with emphasis on the 5As, 5Rs, pharmacotherapy and motivational interviewing. A multidimensional pre and post training survey of true/false questions and statements requesting responses on a 10-point Likert scale was administered to explore knowledge, beliefs, current practices and confidence in providing brief interventions. Data were compared using paired t-tests with significance level set at p < 0.05. Results: Participants (n=4) were all RRT with an average of 15.63 years work experience and no previous training in tobacco treatment. Prior to training, the RTs agreed that hospitalization is appropriate to discuss tobacco dependence and reported frequently witnessing the effects of nicotine withdrawal, but rarely discussing options with patients. Following training, there was a statistically significant difference in knowledge of tobacco treatment (p= .007), knowledge of pharmacotherapy (p=.002), belief that interventions are effective (p= .004), confidence discussing how to quit (p=.000), and confidence discussing pharmacotherapy options (p=.012). Conclusions: With training, RTs can become more positive and prepared to be proactive and counsel hospitalized tobacco users through brief interventions. Additional research is needed regarding tobacco dependence counseling by RTs. Such evidence would support the RTÂ’s role of lung health expert and continued contribution to chronic disease self-management. Sponsored Research - None