Stages of the Smoke-Free Policy Implementation in a Psychiatric Hospital: Evolution, Effects, and Complications

Abstract

Background: The Smoke-free Policy represents a challenge in mental health services. Aim: To compare the stages of a smoke-free policy in a psychiatric hospital, according to the prevalence of smokers, hospital admission acceptance by hospitalized people, psychiatric complications, and the prescription of psychotropic drugs. Methods: Cross-sectional study was conducted with a comparison before and after implementing the Smoke-free Policy in a psychiatric hospital. Secondary data were obtained in 2020 from the medical records of 573 discharged people from psychiatric hospitalizations between September 2017 and August 2018. Fisher’s exact test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were applied. Results: In the transition stage, there were more hospitalizations by court order, discharge motivated by the patient’s disruptiveness behavior, administration of psychotropic drugs before the schedule time, physical aggression, physical/chemical restraints, length of stay, and dosage of psychotropic drugs. After the ban, there was a reduction in discharges motivated by the patient’s disruptiveness behavior and an increase in discharge due to improvement in psychiatric symptoms, less occurrence of anticipation or modification in the use of psychotropic drugs, and fewer attempts to escape, aggressiveness, and physical restraint. Conclusion: The implementation of the Smoke-free Policy has a positive impact on psychiatric hospitalizations, with an increase in discharge due to improvement in psychiatric symptoms and a reduction in discharges due to other reasons. However, the transition stage requires greater attention from the nursing team, as the moment of adaptation to new rules and routines is followed by a momentary worsened behavior of those hospitalized.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest.

Author contributions

All three authors conceived the study and determined the methodology. RMO collect the data. JLFS analyzed the data. RMO and ARFF took the lead in writing and organizing the manuscript. All three authors reviewed the final manuscript before submitting for publication.

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.