All accredited cancer institutions are required to screen patients for psychosocial distress. This paper describes the development, implementation, and preliminary outcomes of the University of California San Diego Health Moores Cancer Center Wellbeing Screening Program.

Essential steps learned in a formal National Cancer Institute–funded training workshop entitled “Implementing Comprehensive Biopsychosocial Screening” were followed to ensure successful program implementation. These steps included identification of stakeholders; formation of a working committee; establishment of a vision, process, and implementation timeline; creation of a screening tool; development of patient educational material; tool integration into an electronic medical record system; staff training and pilot testing of tool administration; and education about tool results and appropriate follow-up actions. Screening data were collected and analyzed retrospectively for preliminary results and rapid cycle improvement of the wellbeing screening process.

Over an 8-month implementation and assessment period, the screening tool was administered 5,610 times of 7,664 expected administrations (73.2%.) to 2,394 unique patients. Visits in which the questionnaire was administered averaged 39.6 ± 14.8 minutes, compared with 40.3 ± 15.2 minutes for visits in which the questionnaire was not administered (t = −1.76, df = 7,662, p = 0.079).

This program provides a process and a tool for successful implementation of distress screening in cancer centers, in a meaningful way for patients and providers, while meeting accreditation standards. Further, meaningful data about patient distress and tool performance were able to be collected and utilized.

To examine the clinical utility of the Pediatric Symptom Checklist 17 for identifying psychosocial concerns and improving access to psychology services within a paediatric cardiology clinic.

Parents of 561 children (aged 4–17 years) presenting for follow-up of CHD, acquired heart disease, or arrhythmia completed the Pediatric Symptom Checklist 17 as part of routine care; three items assessing parental (1) concern for learning/development, (2) questions about adjustment to cardiac diagnosis, and (3) interest in discussing concerns with a behavioural healthcare specialist were added to the questionnaire. A psychologist contacted the parents by phone if they indicated interest in speaking with a behavioural healthcare specialist.

Percentages of children scoring above clinical cut-offs for externalising (10.5%), attention (8.7%), and total (9.3%) problems were similar to a “normative” primary-care sample, whereas fewer children in this study scored above the cut-off for internalising problems (7.8%; p<0.01). Sociodemographic, but not clinical, characteristics were associated with Pediatric Symptom Checklist 17 scores. 17% of the parents endorsed concerns about learning/development, and 20% endorsed questions about adjustment to diagnosis. History of cardiac surgery was associated with increased concern about learning/development (p<0.01). Only 37% of the parents expressing psychosocial concerns reported interest in speaking with a psychologist.

The Pediatric Symptom Checklist 17 may not be sensitive to specific difficulties experienced by this patient population. A questionnaire with greater focus on learning/development and adjustment to diagnosis may yield improved utility. Psychology integration in clinics serving high-risk cardiac patients may decrease barriers to behavioural healthcare services.

Age-based screening tools and assessment measures are crucial to the provision of best practice care for adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients. Unfortunately, there are limited psychosocial tools developed for this age group and pediatric or adult measures are often distributed with the assumption that they are “close enough.” We describe a collaborative Australian project that strives to improve what currently exists for the psychosocial assessment of and planning for the 15–25-year-old age group.

Using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Distress Thermometer and the HEADSS Assessment as a foundation, the tools were developed in consultation with Australia's leading AYA clinicians, AYAs currently undergoing medical treatment, and a group of AYA survivors through a process of discussion groups and clinical interviews.

The result is the first available AYA-specific screening tool, care plan pro forma, and psychosocial assessment measure developed for use within the oncology sector. These new tools will assist clinicians working with this population group to support psychosocial coping during active treatment and promote healthy post-treatment survivorship.

Over time, further validation procedures will add to the veracity of the measures. Until then, these measures represent the best available in Australia. They highlight a clinically recognized minimum standard of care that all young cancer patients, regardless of treatment location, have the right to receive.