×

Waste not, want not – ethics, stewardship and patient care

By Dr Michael Gannon

When it comes to managing health care resources, doctors must balance their primary ethical obligation to care for the patient with their secondary obligation to use health care resources wisely.

At times, these obligations may conflict – but focussing on stewardship allows doctors to find an equitable and realistic balance between the needs of the patient and the need for the wider community to keep health care affordable.

The essence of stewardship is avoiding waste – it is not about denying care based on scarcity of resources, otherwise known as rationing.

How do we become effective stewards of health care and avoid waste without being seen to ration care?

How do we deal with health care administrators, third party payers and governments who place unreasonable constraints on our ability to make treatment recommendations based on our patients’ health care needs, rather than the cost of care?

How do we manage patients (and family members) who make unreasonable health care demands, requesting treatments that are simply ineffective or inappropriate for their health care needs?

And what about the ever present fear of litigation – isn’t ‘defensive medicine’ the best way to practice?

At this year’s AMA National Conference, I chaired a policy session on stewardship, Waste Not, Want Not: Ethics, Stewardship and Patient Care.

The purpose was to assist doctors to become better stewards of our health care resources through learning how to:

  • identify the medico-legal challenges to effective stewardship;
  • communicate with patients about resource use; and
  • participate in initiatives that identify and discourage ineffective care at the institutional level, as well as in the wider community.

The session’s presenters, Dr Ian Scott, Dr Sara Bird and Dr Lynn Weekes, were truly engaging.

Dr Scott, Director of the Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology at Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane, outlined 10 clinician-led strategies to maximise value in Australian health care.

Dr Bird, Manager of the Medico-Legal and Advisory Services of MDA National, provided a medico-legal perspective on stewardship in relation to the practice of defensive medicine.

Dr Weekes, the CEO of NPSMedicineWise, presented the ChoosingWiselyAustralia campaign, whose goal is to enhance quality care by reducing unnecessary care.

We are truly indebted to our presenters and appreciate the time they took to engage with our delegates during a lively question and answer session following their presentations.

The AMA’s job now is to develop a policy on ethics and stewardship to assist our advocacy.

We want to ensure there is a culture of stewardship within the medical profession.

This clearly begins at medical school and continues throughout a doctor’s career with continuing professional development.

Doctors need to be informed of the cost of treatments and procedures, and be guided in making responsible treatment recommendations that balance efficiency with the primacy of patient care.

We also need to ensure that any system-level initiatives to reduce wastage involve the profession, and do not compromise our professional judgement and clinical independence to act in the best interests of individual patients and advocate for the wider public health. 

I strongly encourage all members to visit the AMA website and view the presentations, along with the question and answer session from the policy discussion session Waste Not, Want Not: Ethics, Stewardship and Patient Care. They can be viewed at media/ama-national-conference-30-may-2015-session-2.

 

Signs not good for flu season

Parts of Australia are on track for their worst flu seasons in years, with infection rates in the north and south of the country already far ahead of last year.

So far this year, 9213 laboratory-confirmed cases of the disease have been notified to health authorities, compared with 6225 cases at the same point last year.

Queensland (2757 confirmed cases) and South Australia (1742 cases) have, proportionately, been the hardest hit, while the rate of infections in both New South Wales and Victoria have so far been relatively low.

But the slow start to the flue season in the two most populace states is little cause for complacency.

The Influenza Specialist Group warned that the flu season had not yet begun in earnest, and was likely to develop in the next four weeks.

Evidence from last year suggests there is every reason to be concerned.

While there were less than laboratory-confirmed cases by the end of May 2014, that number quickly accelerated as flu season hit, and by year’s end there were 67,854 confirmed cases nationwide, almost double the long-term average of 34,523.

Promisingly, early figures suggest vaccinations are helping to reduce the number and severity of infections.

The pilot Flu Tracking surveillance system, a joint University of Newcastle, Hunter New England Area Health Service and Hunter Medical Research initiative that collects data from a weekly online survey, has so far identified only low levels of influenza infection.

But it found that 3.4 per cent of those not vaccinated against the flu suffered fevers and coughs, and 2.1 per cent had to take time off work, while among those vaccinated, 2.7 per cent had coughs and fevers and 1.6 per cent reported having to take sick leave.

The results underline calls from AMA Vice President Dr Stephen Parnis for people, particularly elderly and vulnerable patients and health professionals, to make sure they are vaccinated against the flu.

Dr Parnis said it was important for doctors, nurses and other health workers to get the flu vaccine, for the sake of their own health as well as that of their patients.

The National Seasonal Influenza Immunisation Program started late this year, the delay caused by a rush to include vaccines covering two new strains of the virus one of which caused havoc in the northern hemisphere.

In the US alone, around 100 children were reported to have died from the flu during the northern flu season, and there was also widespread illness among the elderly.

For the first time under the national immunisation program, Australians have access to single-dose vaccines covering the four most common flu viruses, including three quadrivalent formulations.

The World Health Organisation and the Australian Influenza Vaccine Committee have recommended that vaccines this year cover one existing and two new strains – the California H1N1-like virus that has been in circulation since 2010, the Switzerland H3N2-like virus and the Phuket 2013-like virus.

But Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Baggoley has been forced to issue an urgent warning to health professionals after it was revealed that at least nine young children had been injected with the Fluvax vaccine despite explicit directions from the Government and the manufacturer that it was potentially dangerous to use on those younger than five years.

The ban has been in place since several young children given Fluvax in 2012 suffered fevers and febrile convulsions, and part of the reason for the delay in starting this year’s flu immunisation program was to ensure that suitable vaccines were available for the very young.

Adrian Rollins

 

[Case Report] Hypoplastic left heart in the 6500-year-old Detmold Child

Palaeopathology, the scientific study of ancient diseases, has evolved in recent decades into a modern scientific area and become part of medical research. Virtual autopsies, like those undertaken in modern forensic institutes, can be done on ancient mummies to examine injuries, genetic defects, acquired diseases, and determine sex.1

PM dodges evidence to take tilt at windmills

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has linked wind farms to adverse health effects despite the lack of scientific evidence to back the claim.

Declaring that he would like to see the number of wind generators around the country cut, Mr Abbott told Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones that he understood the concerns of those who complained inaudible low frequency sound generated by wind farms caused headaches, nausea, sleeplessness and other health problems.

“I do take your point about the potential health impact of these things,” the Prime Minister said. “When I have been up close to these wind farms, not only are they visually awful, but they make a lot of noise.”

Mr Abbott made his comments just days after acoustic experts told a Senate inquiry there was no evidence that people were physically affected by low-frequency sound like that emitted by wind turbines.

Members of the Association of Australian Acoustic Consultants told the Senate inquiry into wind turbines on 10 June that several studies detected no perceivable physical reaction to so-called infrasound.

“We can measure the level of infrasound in a windfarm, and we know what that level is, and we can measure it inside rooms, and that has been done on a number of occasions,” Chair of the AAAC’s windfarm subcommittee, Chris Turnbull, said.

“If we replicate that level at the same character, and the same frequencies, that person is essentially exposed to the same level of infrasound in terms of character and level [as a windfarm],” he said. “To date, all of the studies have suggested that there is no reaction to that level of infrasound.”

The testimony came weeks after the National Health and Medical Research Council released the results of a three-year investigation involving the review of more than 4000 papers that concluded there “is currently no consistent evidence that wind farms cause adverse effects in humans”.

“Overall, the body of evidence that directly examined wind farms and their potential health effects was small and of poor quality,” the NHMRC reported. “There is consistent by poor quality evidence that wind farm noise is associated with annoyance, as well as less consistent, poor quality direct evidence of an association between sleep disturbance and wind farm noise.”

The Council’s conclusions follow an exhaustive process involving the use of independent reviewers to scrutinise the NHMRC’s methodology in reviewing the scientific literature and evidence, as well as public consultations and a revised and updated literature review.

They echo the AMA’s own conclusion that there is no evidence to back assertions that wind farms cause headaches, dizziness, tachycardia or other health problems.

In a Position Statement released last year, the AMA said that if wind farms did directly cause adverse health effects, there would be a much stronger correlation between reports of symptoms and proximity to wind farms than currently existed.

The AMA Position Statement on Wind Farms and Health 2014, which can be viewed at position-statement/wind-farms-and-health-2014, concluded that “available Australian and international evidence does not support the view that the…sound generated by wind farms…causes adverse health effects”.

The NHMRC, however, has not closed the book on the issue, indicating that further research into the possible health effects of wind farms on people within 1500 metres “is warranted”.

The latest furore over the health effects of wind farms has come just weeks after the Government negotiated a cut in the Renewable Energy Target (RET) from 41,000 to 33,000 gigawatt hours.

Mr Abbott lamented that the Government had been unable to secure an even deeper reduction, which was arrived at following months of haggling between the major parties that destabilised the renewable energy industry and deterred investors.

“What we did recently in the Senate was reduce…capital R-E-D-U-C-E, the number of these things that we are going to get in the future,” the Prime Minister said, “I would frankly have liked to have reduced the number a lot more, but we got the best deal we could out of the Senate, and if we hadn’t had a deal…we would have been stuck with even more of these things.”

Adrian Rollins

Sky-high Indigenous imprisonment rates a health disaster

Imprisonment is rarely good for health, particularly if you are an Indigenous Australian.

But, tragically, Indigenous people are far more likely to be locked up than other Australians, exacerbating health problems and sending many into a downward spiral of illness and premature death.

The figures are stark.

In 1991, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody identified extraordinary rates of incarceration among Indigenous Australians compared with the rest of the community, and established a link with poor general and mental health.

But, despite the Royal Commission’s recommendations, the situation has got significantly worse.

Among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, the adult imprisonment rate soared 57 per cent between 2000 and 2013, while juvenile detention rates increased sharply between 2000-01 and 2007-08, and have fluctuated ever since at around 24 times the rate for non-Indigenous youth.

Currently, almost a third of all prisoners are Aboriginal, including 48 per cent of juveniles held in custody.

Not only that, but the rate of reoffending is astronomical. In fact, repeat offending and re-incarceration is a large contributor to this high rate of imprisonment.

Shocking though these statistics are, they do not begin to describe the suffering and distress experienced by incarcerated Indigenous people, their families and communities.

Mental illness and mental health problems, including alcohol and drug abuse, contribute significantly to their rates of imprisonment and recidivism.

Being incarcerated, in turn, exacerbates existing conditions in prisoners. And, without appropriate and effective treatment within prison, mental illness and mental health issues are a major factor in poor outcomes for people released from prison, including suicide, death from overdose or injury and reoffending.

Social disadvantage and a history of upheaval culminating in trauma and grief clearly contribute to the high level of imprisonment among Indigenous Australians.

Many studies published since 2000 have highlighted that Aboriginal people already have a higher prevalence of significant psychological distress when compared to the non-Aboriginal population, disrupting social and emotional wellbeing and causing post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and substance abuse.

Alcohol is well-known as a common precursor to offending among Indigenous Australians, with indications that it could be a factor in up to 90 per cent of all Indigenous contacts with the justice system.

Once incarcerated, Aboriginal prisoners are at greater risk of developing or exacerbating a mental illness. Ninety-three per cent of Aboriginal women in jail, and 81 per cent of men, have some form of mental illness. Altogether, 30 per cent of Aboriginal women and 20 per cent of Aboriginal men in jail have attempted suicide, and 33 per cent of Aboriginal women and 12 per cent of Aboriginal men suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.

It is apparent that there is a complete lack of appropriate services to meet complex social, cultural and health needs.

A clearer understanding of some of the drivers of incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women is needed, as are better interventions through culturally appropriate health and disability services before entering custody, during imprisonment, at the time of release and post-release.

There are several things that can and should be done to end this vicious cycle of illness, abuse and incarceration for Indigenous people, including making it much easier for Indigenous offenders to get into diversion programs for alcohol and drug-related offences; establishing Indigenous-specific diversion programs linked to Aboriginal community controlled services; improving the level of health services for Indigenous prisoners; comprehensive health screening for those entering prison, and channelling them into appropriate treatment; and research and develop performance indicators to guide effective health services for Indigenous offenders.

These matters will be considered in the AMA’s Indigenous Health Report Card, which will be released later this year.

 

 

 

Briefs – 2 June 2015

Medical Research Future Fund on the way

More than a year after it was first announced, the Federal Government has finally introduced legislation to establish the Medical Research Future Fund.

The Fund, which the Government expects to grow to $20 billion by the end of the decade, has been under a cloud because several of the savings measures originally intended to finance it – particularly the GP co-payment – have been dumped or not yet passed.

But AMA President Associate Professor Brian Owler recently challenged the Government to stop dithering on the issue and set the Fund up, pointing out that a large swag of the measures designated to finance it were in place.

In introducing the enabling legislation, Treasurer Joe Hockey said the Fund would receive an initial endowment of $1 billion from the Health and Hospitals Fund and would build to reach $20 billion in 2019-20.

Mr Hockey said the first $10 million from the Fund would be distributed next financial year, and estimated that $400 million would be disbursed in the next four years.

The Fund will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians, while a separate board will be established to provide expert advice on medical research priorities and strategy.

Adrian Rollins

Mersey Hospital two-year funding deal

Funding for Tasmania’s Mersey Community Hospital has been extended for two years following an in-principle agreement struck between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments.

Health Minister Sussan Ley said the Federal Government would pay its State counterpart $148.5 million to continue to manage and operate the hospital over the next two years.

The Mersey Hospital became the first and only public hospital to be directly funded by the Commonwealth when the Howard Government controversially assumed responsibility for the institution after the Tasmanian Government wanted to downgrade it to a day procedure centre, with only a limited overnight emergency capacity.

The intervention, which occurred just weeks before the 2007 Federal election that the Howard Government lost, was unprecedented at the time, and has not been repeated since.

Ms Ley said the deal provided certainty for the hospital while the Tasmanian Government undertakes reforms of the State health system.

Adrian Rollins

Govt promises cheaper, better medicines sooner

The Federal Government claims patients will get vital medicines more cheaply and much quicker following changes to the way pharmaceuticals are supplied under deals with industry it claims will save taxpayers $6.6 billion over the next five years.

Health Minister Sussan Ley said patients could save more than $100 a year under agreements the Commonwealth has struck with the pharmaceutical industry, while efforts to accelerate the listing of new medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme were beginning to pay off.

Ms Ley has signed a five-year deal with the Generic Medicines Industry Association to slash the cost of generic pharmaceuticals, including halving the price of common medicines for cholesterol, heart conditions and depression, potentially saving taxpayers about $3 billion over five years.

According to the Government, the changes mean that from October next year the cost of the widely-used cholesterol drug Atorvastatin could drop from $14.60 to $10.68, while the heart medicine Clopidogrel would fall from $14.01 to $10.38 and the depression treatment Venlafaxine would cost $11.65 instead of $16.52.

But consumer groups have warned that the decision to pay pharmacists a flat $3.49 fee (indexed to inflation) for dispensing medications instead of receiving a percentage of the price, will push the cost of many cheap medicines up.

The Consumer Health Forum said figures in the agreement showed consumers would “directly contribute” $8.2 billion to pharmacy owner remuneration in the next five years – around 34 per cent of the $23.6 billion to be paid to pharmacies for PBS medicines.

Forum Chief Executive Leanne Wells said that under the current agreement, consumers contributed 29 per cent of total payments.

The agreement includes bigger incentives for pharmacists to offer patients the option of using cheaper generic versions of medicines, backed by a $20 million media campaign.

The Government has already obtained the pharmacy industry’s grudging acceptance of an optional $1 discount on patient co-payments, and it has also negotiated agreement on lower prices for branded drugs for which there is no generic substitute.

In a measure expected to save about $1 billion, the Government will cut the price it is prepared to pay for branded medicines by 5 per cent after they have been listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for five years.

The Commonwealth is also implementing changes to how it calculates the price it pays for medicines when they go off-patent. Currently, the Government determines market price using a weighted average of the price of all brands.

But under the new arrangement, expected to come into effect from October next year, the original ‘premium’ brand will be excluded from the calculation, driving the average price down.

“Removing originator brands from price calculations for everyday medicines could see the price of common generic drugs halve for some patients, whilst also saving taxpayers $2 billion over five years,” Ms Ley said.

The Government also expects to save $610 million over five years by closing loopholes around the way combination drugs – where two separate medicines are combined to create a new patented medication – are subsidised.

As previously flagged, the Commonwealth also expects to save $500 million remove several low-cost over-the-counter medicines such as everyday painkillers from the PBS.

The Minister said Government efforts to speed up the listing of new medicines were also working, pointing out that there had been 652 new and amended listings on the PBS since it was elected in September 2013, compared with 331 listings during the previous three years.

Ms Ley said the chief independent scientific adviser on medicines, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee took an average of just 17 weeks to recommend whether or not a drug should be listed on the PBS – a turnaround that was one of the fastest in the world.

“We understand the importance of ensuring Australians have fast access to affordable medicines when and where they need them, and we are investing heavily to deliver this,” the Minister said.

PBAC’s operations have been reinforced by the appointment of leading cardiovascular disease specialist Professor Andrew Wilson as Chair, and Ms Ley said the Government would soon introduce legislation to expand PBAC’s membership from 18 to 21 in recognition of its increasing workload and the complexity of matters being considered by it.

“Expanding the capacity of the PBAC to deal with complex medicines is another important step to ensure Australians benefit from new medicines sooner,” she said.

And the Government expects Australia patients to get improved access to leading-edge medications with the launch of a website providing a one-stop shop regarding clinical trials happening around the world.

Evidence indicates that almost half of all phase three clinical trials conducted in Australia fell short of their patient recruitment targets, and Ms Ley said the website would make it easier for patients to find out about trials and take part in ground-breaking medical research.

Adrian Rollins

 

Smoking among a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health service staff

In 2012–2013, the prevalence of daily smoking among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults was 42%, although it is falling.1 For many years it has been suggested that the high smoking prevalence of Aboriginal health workers (AHWs) is a barrier to reducing smoking in the communities they serve.2,3 AHWs and other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health service staff are role models and advocates for health in their communities, and there is evidence that AHWs who smoke have been less likely than those who do not to assist or promote smoking cessation.2

The high prevalences of smoking previously reported among AHWs or other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health service staff do not differ greatly from the high prevalences in their communities, but are based on small samples.3 Similarly high smoking prevalence among doctors has been reported in some developing countries, raising the same concerns about their roles in supporting cessation and as opinion leaders.4 In contrast, there has been a steady decline in smoking prevalence among doctors in most developed countries — in Australia, this fell from 27% in 1964 to 3% in 1997, much lower than in the general Australian population.5,6

It has been asserted that smoking prevalence starts to fall earlier among doctors than among the general population as doctors are more likely to recognise the health consequences and change normative beliefs, and also become aware of the contradiction between their smoking and their role in improving health.7 The low smoking prevalence found among doctors is seen as an achievable future for the entire population.8

Here, we compare smoking prevalence, quitting activity and beliefs among a national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff at Aboriginal community-controlled health services (ACCHSs) and among members of their communities who smoke.

Methods

The Talking About The Smokes (TATS) project surveyed 2522 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the communities served by 34 ACCHSs and one community in the Torres Strait between April 2012 and October 2013. At the same time, all staff at 31 of these ACCHSs were invited to complete a self-administered survey. Staff surveys were requested but not completed at four of the 35 project sites, owing to other local priorities.

The TATS project has been described elsewhere.9 Briefly, the 35 sites were selected based on the distribution of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population by state or territory and remoteness, using a quota sampling design. At each site, we aimed to survey 50 smokers (or ex-smokers who had quit ≤ 12 months previously) and 25 non-smokers from the community served by the ACCHS, with equal numbers in the smoking and non-smoking samples of men and women, and of those aged 18–34 and ≥ 35 years. In four large city sites and in the Torres Strait community, the sample size was doubled.

Staff surveys were paper-based at 20 ACCHSs and online at seven, with four offering both options. Surveys took 5–10 minutes to complete and included questions from the main community survey about smoking and quitting behaviour and attitudes, exposure to advertising, and use of cessation support. These were supplemented by questions about smoking at work, the respondent’s role at the ACCHS, and smoking and cessation beliefs related to his or her role. The questions used in this article are listed in Appendix 1.

In contrast to the staff surveys, trained local interviewers completed the 30–60-minute survey of community members face to face using a computer tablet. A single survey of health service policy and activities was also completed by key informants at each site.

We compared the smoking status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff with data from the 2008 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (NATSISS). The NATSISS was a national, stratified, multistage, random, face-to-face household survey with 7163 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants aged 18 years and over conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics from August 2008 to April 2009, with an 82% response rate.10

We also compared the responses to questions about smoking and cessation practices and attitudes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff who smoked with those of smokers in the community survey. We assessed differences in quitting and use of stop-smoking medications between staff who had active support from the health service to quit and those who did not.

The project was approved by three Aboriginal human research ethics committees (HRECs) and two HRECs with Aboriginal subcommittees: Aboriginal Health & Medical Research Council Ethics Committee, Sydney; Aboriginal Health Research Ethics Committee, Adelaide; Central Australian HREC, Alice Springs; HREC for the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research, Darwin; and the Western Australian Aboriginal Health Ethics Committee, Perth.

Statistical analyses

All comparisons of staff responses with the responses in the 2008 NATSISS or in the main community survey were directly standardised to the distribution of the age, sex and remoteness of either smokers or the total Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population in the 2008 NATSISS. As it not possible to estimate sampling error in non-probabilistic quota samples, we do not report confidence intervals around our prevalence estimates and only report percentages to the nearest integer.

The association between dichotomous variables within our samples was assessed using simple logistic regression to generate odds ratios (ORs) and P values based on Wald tests, and using χ2 tests for other categorical variables. These results were analysed using Stata 13 (StataCorp) [SVY] commands to adjust for the sampling design (using site clusters in both the staff and community surveys, and age–sex quotas in the community survey as strata). NATSISS data were analysed using replicate and person weights as previously described.11

Except for attitude questions, where “don’t know” responses were combined with “neither agree nor disagree”, reported percentages and frequencies exclude participants not answering, answering “don’t know”, or for whom the question was not applicable. For the question about levels of confidence in talking to others about their smoking, we reported those who answered “don’t know” but excluded 7% who did not answer. Less than 5% of responses were excluded for all other questions analysed in this report, except for those in the staff survey about health service support of quit attempts (7%), whether the last quit attempt was before or after being employed at the health service (8%) and whether a quit attempt had been made in the past year (13%).

Results

Surveys were completed by 645 staff at 31 ACCHSs, covering every state and territory as well as major cities and regional and remote areas (Appendix 2). As it was deemed impractical to precisely estimate total staff numbers, we have no precise response rate. However, it is unlikely to be above 50%, as 215 surveys were completed at 17 services with up to 50 staff (mean, 12.6 surveys per ACCHS) and 430 at 14 services with more than 50 staff (mean, 30.7 per ACCHS).

Fifty-eight per cent of respondents (374/641) were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people (Appendix 2). Of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff, 76% (286/374) were women, 48% (173/362) had been at the ACCHS longer than 2 years, 88% (319/362) worked full-time, 49% (181/367) were AHWs or community workers, 5% (18/367) were doctors or nurses, 25% (92/367) were in other roles with direct client contact, 21% (76/367) had no contact with clients, and 17% (63/368) were in managerial roles.

Of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff, 146 were smokers. None of those who smoked said they did so indoors at work, and 13% (19/145) said they did not smoke at work. Most (57%, 83/145) said they smoked outside the health service boundary or fence. In the past month, 41% (59/145) had smoked where ACCHS clients could see them. While 77% (111/145) had smoked with co-workers during work hours in the past month, only 28% (40/145) had smoked with clients of the ACCHS. All ACCHSs had a smoke-free policy or rules. Most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff who smoked (74%, 107/144) agreed that being a non-smoker sets a good example to patients at their health service.

Comparison of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff with NATSISS participants

Compared with all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults in the 2008 NATSISS, a lower standardised proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ACCHS staff smoked (38% v 49.8%), with more having never smoked and a similar proportion of ex-smokers (Box 1). The difference in the proportion of smokers was smaller when ACCHS staff were compared only with employed adults in the NATSISS (38% v 44.8%). Staff who had ever smoked were more likely than their NATSISS counterparts to have successfully quit (38% [88/234] v 30.1% [95% CI, 28.0%–32.1%]). Most of the staff ex-smokers (62%, 50/81) had quit before they started working at the health service.

Comparison of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff with community members

A greater standardised proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers among the staff than among other community members had ever made a quit attempt (83% [118/144] v 70% [1143/1631]; OR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.1–3.7]; P = 0.02). However, the difference in the proportion of smokers who had made a quit attempt in the past year was not statistically significant (staff v community, 58% [67/127] v 50% [796/1609]; OR, 1.4 [95% CI, 0.81–2.4]; P = 0.24).

There were significant differences in how many of the respondent’s five closest family or friends smoked, with staff smokers having lower odds than community smokers of reporting all five were smokers (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.34–0.94; P = 0.03). Staff who smoked had significantly greater odds of having often or very often noticed advertising about the dangers of smoking or that encouraged quitting in the past 6 months, compared with other community members who smoked (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4–5.6; P = 0.004) (Box 2).

Compared with community smokers, a significantly higher proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff smokers who had ever made a quit attempt had used nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or other stop-smoking medications, (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.6–5.7; P = 0.001). Significantly higher proportions of staff reported use of NRT patches (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.5–5.2; P = 0.003), NRT tablets (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.2–9.7; P = 0.03), varenicline (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 2.9–12.8; P < 0.001) and bupropion (OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 2.5–17.2; P < 0.001) (Box 2).

Nearly half of the staff smokers who had made a quit attempt (47%, 52/111) had at least one of these attempts actively supported by the health service, most commonly through an information session for staff (n = 20) or access to free or subsidised NRT (n = 19). A higher proportion of staff who had health service support in their quit attempts, compared with those who did not, had ever used NRT or other stop-smoking medications (79% [41/52] v 46% [27/59]; OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.9–10.4; P = 0.001). However, staff from health services that reported providing additional cessation support for staff did not have significantly greater odds of making a quit attempt in the past year than those whose service did not (56% [46/82] v 47%, [21/45]; OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.65–3.3), although statistical power to detect a significant effect was low.

There were significant differences between staff smokers and community smokers in how much they believed they would benefit if they were to quit smoking in the next 6 months (P = 0.03) (Box 3); staff had non-significantly greater odds of reporting they would benefit very much or extremely (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.92–4.2; P = 0.08). Smokers’ risk-minimising beliefs and beliefs about the dangers of second-hand smoke were similar among staff and other community members (Box 3). Most staff smokers (58%, 85/146) agreed that staff and managers of the health service disapproved of smoking, with only 12% (18/146) disagreeing with this.

For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff who had direct contact with ACCHS clients, there was a significant association (P < 0.001) between their smoking status and whether they felt confident talking to others about smoking and quitting (Box 4). Ex-smokers were significantly more likely than smokers to report being very much or extremely confident (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 2.2–8.3; P < 0.001).

Discussion

Our results suggest that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff of ACCHSs have a lower smoking prevalence than other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. However, our estimate of staff smoking may be falsely low, as our response rate was not high and smokers may have been less likely to complete our survey.

Our national estimate of staff smoking prevalence was at the lower end of previous smaller local and regional studies, and much lower than the largest previous study (51%, n = 85), which also reported the highest (but still a modest) response rate of 63%.3,12 However, these studies concentrated on AHWs (variously defined) rather than all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff. In spite of the supportive environment at the ACCHSs, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff in our survey were still much more likely to smoke than either Australian doctors or other health professionals in similar countries.6,13 As in previous research with AHWs, and with other health professionals in other settings, we found that staff who smoked were less confident in talking about quitting. This remains a concern and a rationale for assisting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers to quit, and may support preferential employment of non-smokers.5,14

The lower smoking prevalence among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff of ACCHSs was similar to the lower smoking prevalence among other employed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people surveyed in the NATSISS, and was mainly due to more staff having never smoked (rather than more being ex-smokers).

Most of the ACCHS staff who still smoked agreed that being a non-smoker sets a good example to patients. Fewer Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff reported smoking with patients than with co-workers at work, and most did not smoke where they could be seen by patients, suggesting they accept this responsibility as a role model. In contrast, research conducted in 2009–2010 found AHWs reported that patients liked them smoking with them, facilitating connection and patients opening up.15 The same study reported that an organisational culture that supported smoking undermined quitting. However, we found that smoking was now usually not perceived as acceptable in ACCHSs.

Stress at work and at home has long been reported as the primary obstacle to successful quitting by AHWs.2,16 Research in other populations has shown that smoking for stress release is associated with relapse.17 However, successful quitting, for those who are able to do it, has been reported as being associated with reduced stress and, among Aboriginal people, with a general sense of pride and empowerment.1820 Therefore, quitting smoking may reduce the stress these staff feel.

It does not appear, as previously reported, that a lack of quit support is a significant cause of relapse.2,16 Many quit attempts by staff received additional support from the health service, and use of stop-smoking medications was higher among staff than among other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smokers. High smoking prevalence among the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community has previously been suggested as a cause of failed quit attempts. We found high numbers of smokers among the close friends and family of both staff and community smokers, which has also been associated with relapse in other settings.17

Strengths and limitations

This is the largest national survey on smoking among ACCHS staff. However, as with our sample of community members, it is not a random sample, with both using similar non-probabilistic quota sampling designs, so caution in interpreting results is required. The staff and other community members in our sample are from the same geographically representative locations, and comparisons are directly standardised to the distribution of the population of smokers in the NATSISS. We have elsewhere shown that the 1643 smokers in our community sample were similar to smokers in the NATSISS, except for some inconsistent socioeconomic differences.9

We can compare our sample with 224 organisations providing primary health care services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in 2011–12.21 These organisations included, but were not restricted to, member ACCHSs of the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, and included more services from remote areas (39%) and fewer from major cities (12%) than in our study.9 Similar proportions of staff were reported to be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (57% of 5543 full-time equivalent staff) and to be doctors (6%) and nurses (14%) as in our sample (58%, 8% and 14%, respectively). Based on these criteria, there was limited response bias in our sample.

Unlike most similar previous research, we have chosen to report on all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ACCHS staff, not just AHWs, as all these staff are health role models in their communities, and the distinction between AHWs and other roles at the ACCHS can vary across the country.

1 Comparison of smoking status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff at ACCHSs with adults in the 2008 NATSISS

   

NATSISS participants*


ACCHS staff (n = 366)

Employed (n = 3772)

Total (n = 7163)

Status

Standardised % (frequency)

% (95% CI)

% (95% CI)


Smoker

38% (146)

44.8% (42.1%–47.6%)

49.8% (47.8%–52.5%)

Ex-smoker

24% (88)

22.3% (20.2%–24.4%)

21.4% (19.8%–22.9%)

Never-smoker

38% (132)

32.9% (30.5%–35.5%)

28.8% (26.9%–30.7%)


ACCHS = Aboriginal community-controlled health service. NATSISS = National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey. * NATSISS results only include those aged ≥ 18 years. † Staff survey percentages are directly standardised to the age, sex and remoteness distribution of smokers in the NATSISS.

2 Comparison of smoking and cessation practices of smokers among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ACCHS staff and community members*

Practice

ACCHS staff,
% (frequency)

Community members,
% (frequency)

P


Smoking banned inside home

   

0.19

Total ban

64% (87)

56% (908)

 

Partial ban

22% (40)

22% (359)

 

No ban

14% (17)

22% (361)

 

Number of five closest family or friends who smoke

   

0.004

None

7% (14)

7% (120)

 

One

8% (14)

7% (119)

 

Two

10% (21)

15% (243)

 

Three

35% (31)

17% (273)

 

Four

12% (23)

12% (204)

 

Five

28% (43)

41% (649)

 

Noticed anti-smoking advertising in past 6 months

   

< 0.001

Often or very often

70% (116)

45% (730)

 

Sometimes

30% (28)

34% (535)

 

Never or almost never

1% (2)

21% (341)

 

Smokers who have ever made a quit attempt and have used NRT or stop-smoking medications

120

1155

 

Any NRT or medications

69% (71)

43% (505)

0.001

NRT patch

54% (48)

30% (362)

0.003

NRT gum

14% (21)

13% (152)

0.77

NRT lozenges

5% (6)

4% (42)

0.67

NRT tablets

5% (7)

2% (18)

0.03

Varenicline

49% (38)

13% (167)

< 0.001

Bupropion

9% (12)

1% (17)

< 0.001


ACCHS = Aboriginal community-controlled health service. NRT = nicotine replacement therapy. * Results for the baseline sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ACCHS staff smokers (n = 146) and community smokers (n = 1643) in the Talking About The Smokes project, April 2012 – October 2013. Percentages and frequencies exclude those who did not answer or answered “don’t know”. Percentages are directly standardised to the age, sex and remoteness distribution of smokers in the 2008 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey.

3 Comparison of smoking and cessation attitudes of smokers among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ACCHS staff and community members*

Attitude

ACCHS staff,
% (frequency)

Community members, % (frequency)

P


How much do you think you would benefit from better health and other things if you were to quit smoking permanently in the next 6 months?

   

0.03

Very much or extremely

75% (113)

61% (988)

 

Moderately

20% (20)

21% (323)

 

Slightly or not at all

5% (6)

18% (293)

 

Smoking is not very risky when you think about all the other things that people do

   

0.19

Agree

30% (36)

46% (731)

 

Neither or don’t know

24% (32)

17% (282)

 

Disagree

46% (78)

37% (621)

 

Being a non-smoker sets a good example to children

   

0.52

Agree

87% (135)

91% (1482)

 

Neither or don’t know

4% (8)

4% (75)

 

Disagree

9% (3)

5% (77)

 

Cigarette smoke is dangerous to non-smokers

   

0.86

Agree

93% (131)

91% (1489)

 

Neither or don’t know

5% (13)

6% (99)

 

Disagree

2% (2)

3% (46)

 

ACCHS = Aboriginal community-controlled health service. * Results for the baseline sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ACCHS staff smokers (n = 146) and community smokers (n = 1643) in the Talking About The Smokes project, April 2012 – October 2013. Percentages and frequencies exclude those who did not answer (all questions) or answered “don’t know” (first question). Percentages are directly standardised to the age, sex and remoteness distribution of smokers in the 2008 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey.

4 Confidence in talking with others about smoking and quitting among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff with client contact, by smoking status*

Confident in talking about smoking and quitting

Smokers
(n = 103)

Ex-smokers
(n = 65)

Never-smokers
(n = 97)

Total
(n = 265)


Very much or extremely

27% (28)

62% (40)

37% (36)

39% (104)

Moderately

25% (26)

26% (17)

30% (29)

27% (72)

Slightly or not at all

38% (39)

6% (4)

27% (26)

26% (69)

Don’t know

10% (10)

6% (4)

6% (6)

8% (20)


* Data are % (frequency) and exclude those not answering. χ2 test of association, P < 0.001.