Affiliations 

  • 1 Clinical Health Promotion Centre, WHO-CC, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Nordre Fasanvej 57, Build. 14, Entr. 5, 2nd fl, 2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark. jeff.kirk.svane@regionh.dk
  • 2 School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan
  • 3 OptiMedis AG, Hamburg, Germany
  • 4 Health Services Quality Department, Ministry of Health, Prague, Czech Republic
  • 5 General hospital "Dr. Tomislav Bardek", Koprivnica, Županija Koprivničko-križevačka, Croatia
  • 6 Saitama Cooperative Hospital, Kawaguchi, Saitama, Japan
  • 7 National Institute for Health Development;, Tallin, Estonia
  • 8 National Institute of Public Health, Ljubljana, Slovenia
  • 9 Penang Adventist Hospital, Penang, Malaysia
  • 10 Sector for Spine Surgery and Research, Lillebaelt Hospital, Middelfart, Denmark
  • 11 Clinical Health Promotion Centre, WHO-CC, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Nordre Fasanvej 57, Build. 14, Entr. 5, 2nd fl, 2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark
Implement Sci, 2018 12 22;13(1):153.
PMID: 30577871 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-018-0848-0

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Implementation of clinical health promotion (CHP) aiming at better health gain is slow despite its effect. CHP focuses on potentially modifiable lifestyle risks such as smoking, alcohol, diet, and physical inactivity. An operational program was created to improve implementation. It included patients, staff, and the organization, and it combined existing standards, indicators, documentation models, a performance recognition process, and a fast-track implementation model. The aim of this study was to evaluate if the operational program improved implementation of CHP in clinical hospital departments, as measured by health status of patients and staff, frequency of CHP service delivery, and standards compliance.

METHODS: Forty-eight hospital departments were recruited via open call and stratified by country. Departments were assigned to the operational program (intervention) or usual routine (control group). Data for analyses included 36 of these departments and their 5285 patients (median 147 per department; range 29-201), 2529 staff members (70; 10-393), 1750 medical records (50; 50-50), and standards compliance assessments. Follow-up was measured after 1 year. The outcomes were health status, service delivery, and standards compliance.

RESULTS: No health differences between groups were found, but the intervention group had higher identification of lifestyle risk (81% versus 60%, p 

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.