Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;327:811-812 (4 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7418.811-c
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORW McKee et al defend the provision of rooms for smokers in response to the editorial by M McKee et al.1 2 They draw attention to the fact that for smoking cessation to be effective with inpatients, a follow up of more than four weeks is needed. They argue that this cannot be provided in acute hospitals.
The Royal London Hospital's inpatient service provides an intensive behavioural intervention combined with nicotine replacement and outpatient follow up for at least four weeks. This is achieving four week validated continuous abstinence rates of 54%. A growing number of acute hospitals within the United Kingdom are providing a similar cost effective treatment.3 The £390 000 spent on the smoking rooms could have funded such a service for a very long time.
Smoking rooms in hospitals also represent smoking cues and their existence may encourage smoking. Anecdotally, a number of patients we treated
Hayden McRobbie, research fellow
h.j.mcrobbie@qmul.ac.uk Barts and the London School of Medicine, London E1 2AD
Cressida Darwin, research health psychologist, Peter Hajek, professor of clinical psychology
Tobacco Dependence Research and Treatment Centre, Institute of Community Health Sciences, Barts and the London School of Medicine
Read all Rapid Responses