Search

Background: Smoking rates for people with severe mental illness have remained high despite significant declines in smoking rates in the general population, particularly for residents of community supported residential facilities (SRFs) where smoking has been largely neglected and institutionalized., Methods: Two studies undertaken 10 years apart (2000 and 2010) with SRFs in Adelaide, Australia looked at historical trends to determine whether any progress has been made to address smoking for this population. The first study was ethnographic and involved narrative description and analysis of the social milieu of smoking following multiple observations of smoking behaviours in two SRFs. The second study involved an eight-week smoking cessation group program providing tailored support and free nicotine replacement therapy to residents across six SRFs. Changes in smoking behaviours were measured using pre and post surveys with residents, with outcomes verified by also seeking SRF staff and smoking cessation group facilitator qualitative feedback and reflection on their observations of residents and the setting., Results: The culture of smoking in mental health SRFs is a complex part of the social milieu of these settings. There appears to have been little change in smoking behaviours of residents and attitudes and support responses by staff of SRFs since 2000 despite smoking rates declining in the general community. Tailored smoking cessation group programs for this population were well received and did help SRF residents to quit or cut down their smoking. They did challenge staff negative attitudes to residents' capacity to smoke less or quit., Conclusions: A more systematic approach that addresses SRF regulations, smoke-free policies, staff attitudes and training, and consistent smoking cessation support to residents is needed., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Background: Globally, smoking remains a significant issue for mental health populations. Many mental health trusts in England are facing challenges of implementing the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance according to which all mental health settings, no matter the type, should be entirely smoke-free and provide comprehensive smoking cessation support., Aim: The aim of this paper was to determine if unit type and unit manager smoking status influence mental health smoke-free policy implementation., Method: This paper reports on the secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional survey of 147 mental health inpatient settings in England, in 2010. The original study's main aim was to understand unit managers' perceived reasons for success or failure of smoke-free policy., Results: Unit managers (n = 131) held a positive stance towards supporting smoke-free policy and most perceived that the policy was successful. Non-smoker unit managers were more likely to adopt complete bans than smoker unit managers, whereas smoker unit managers were more likely than non-smoker unit managers to think that stopping smoking aggravated patients' mental illness. Smoking rates for staff and patients remain high, as perceived by unit managers, regardless of unit type. Proportion of units offering nicotine replacement therapy and peer support to patients was significantly higher in locked units compared to semi-locked or residential rehabilitation. Applied strategies significantly vary by type of unit, whereas unit managers' knowledge, attitude and practices vary by their smoking status., Discussion: There are nuanced differences in how smoke-free policy is enacted which vary by unit type. These variations recognise the differing contexts of care provision in different types of units serving different patient groups. Addressing staff smoking rates, promoting consistency of staff response to patients' smoking and providing staff education and support continue to be key strategies to successful smoke-free policy., Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the importance of taking into account the type of unit and acuity of patients when enacting smoke-free policy and addressing staff smoking., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Background: The original audit on which this 2013 secondary analysis is based, was conducted in 2010. It explored implementation of smoke-free policies from the perspective of unit managers in 147 psychiatric units across England comprising a randomly selected sample of nine different unit types., Material: Two main themes are presented: positive perspectives of smoke-free policy implementation, and barriers and problems with smoke-free policy implementation. Analysis of unit managers' experiences and perspectives found that 96% of participants thought smoke-free policy had achieved positive outcomes for staff, patients, services and care., Discussion: Consistency of response was the most prominent factor associated with policy success. Quality of the physical environment and care delivery were clear positive outcomes which enabled the environment to be more conducive to supporting staffs' and patients' quit attempts. Lack of consistency and a prevailing culture of acceptance of smoking were identified as some of the most reported perceived continuing problems. Solutions included the need to acknowledge that this type of complex systems change takes time and ongoing staff education and training., Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the importance of taking into account the experiences and attitudes of staff responsible for enacting smoke-free policy., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

Objective: To evaluate the impact of implementing a smoke-free policy in an Australian high-security forensic psychiatry in-patient hospital., Methods: Focus groups (n=21) and surveys with both patients (n=45) and staff (n=111; 53.2% nurses) elicited participants' experience of and attitudes towards an introduced smoke-free policy. A follow-up survey elicited the impact of the policy on 15 patients' smoking practice after discharge., Results: Eighty-five per cent of patients stated it was easier to quit smoking when no one else smoked. Over half the discharged patients surveyed (58%) continued to not smoke after discharge, despite almost half the staff (41%) perceiving that patients were unlikely to quit long-term. Smoking staff were significantly more pessimistic than non-smoking staff. Many patients (69%) perceived that their health had improved as a result of not smoking. Most staff (80%) viewed nicotine dependence treatment as important, but fewer (66%) felt confident to support patients to stop smoking. Increased patient violence and management difficulties expected by staff were not realised., Conclusions: A smoke-free policy can be successfully implemented in forensic psychiatry in-patient units. Nursing staff are a large and important group who need particular support to implement a smoke-free policy into practice effectively, particularly those who are smokers. Continuity of care as part of a coordinated policy and service response is needed.

Background: People with a mental illness experience a higher burden of smoking-related disease. Smoke-free policies in mental health facilities provide an opportunity to reduce smoking-related harms for patients and staff alike. Limited evidence regarding the effect of such policies on preventing smoking in mental health facilities has been reported. The aims of this study are to describe the extent of smoking and the provision of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to patients in a mental health facility with a smoke-free policy., Methods: Cross-sectional studies of smoking (cigarette butt count and observed smoking) and nicotine dependence treatment (patient record audit) were undertaken over 9 consecutive weekdays in one mental health facility in Australia. A smoke-free policy incorporating a total smoking ban and guidelines for treating nicotine dependence among patients was implemented in the facility 4 years prior to the study., Results: Two thousand one hundred and thirty seven cigarette butts were collected and 152 occasions of people smoking were observed. Staff members were observed to enforce the policy on 66% of occasions. Use of NRT was recorded for 53% of patients who were smokers., Conclusion: Implementation of the smoke-free policy was less than optimal and as a consequence ineffective in eliminating smoking and in optimising the provision of NRT. Additional strategies to improve the provision of nicotine dependence treatment to patients and the monitoring of adherence are needed to ensure the intended benefits of smoke-free policies are realised.

The culture of smoking by patients and staff within mental health systems of care has a long and entrenched history. Cigarettes have been used as currency between patients and as a patient management tool by staff. These settings have traditionally been exempt from smoke-free policy because of complex held views about the capacity of people with mental disorder to tolerate such policy whilst they are acutely unwell, with stakeholders' continuing fierce debate about rights, choice and duty of care. This culture has played a significant role in perpetuating physical, social and economic smoking associated impacts experienced by people with mental disorder who receive care within mental health care settings. The past decade has seen a clear policy shift towards smoke-free mental health settings in several countries. While many services have been successful in implementing this change, many issues remain to be resolved for genuine smoke-free policy in mental health settings to be realized. This literature review draws on evidence from the international published research, including national audits of smoke-free policy implementation in mental health units in Australia and England, in order to synthesise what we know works, why it works, and the remaining barriers to smoke-free policy and how appropriate interventions are provided to people with mental disorder.

Objective: The aim of this paper is to describe the introduction, trial and termination of a smoke-free policy in an acute mental health unit of a regional hospital, and to consider factors that may contribute to the success of such policies in other settings. Methods: This analysis is based on key informant interviews and review of correspondence related to the trial, and examination of the relevant incident-reporting database. Results: Planning for implementation is described. The trial itself was terminated after 6 weeks due to perceived increases in aggression by patients towards staff working in the high dependency unit. Staff perceived that these episodes were directly related to these patients not being allowed to smoke. While there was an increase in events during the trial relating to two seriously ill individuals, examination of formal incident reports over a period of 2 years suggests little change in the overall number of incidents. Conclusions: Despite clear public health benefits, implementation of a smoke-free policy may have untoward behavioural effects in institutional mental health settings. In addition, staff expectations and perceptions are critical. Salient factors appear to be preparation of staff and patients, appropriate training, avoidance of exceptions and inconsistency, considering alternatives to smoking to fill the gap created by the policy, and a culture of critical evaluation in practice. Such processes will facilitate understanding and cooperation so that mental health services are able to participate in important policy processes with implications for the health of patients and staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]