Background: Guidelines recommend systematic evaluation of distress screening and referral for cancer patients. Implementation remains a notable gap for cancer centers serving disadvantaged communities. We present the implementation of a distress screening program within a Veterans Affairs hospital oncology clinic, serving a majority African American (AA) male population of low socioeconomic status (SES). Methods: The Coleman Foundation funded this program supporting a palliative care physician and psychologist to implement screening in a phased approach as follows: (1) Organizing key stakeholders, (2) educating clinical staff, (3) delivering distress screening, (4) generating documentation, and (5) implementing clinical action and referral pathways. We utilized validated measures in the "Patient Screening Questions for Supportive Care" screening tool. Results: This program was unsuccessful in screening all veterans with cancer; however, we were able to implement 3 years of longitudinal screening. In distress screens from the initial program period (n ¼ 253), patients were primarily males (95.6%) of older age (m ¼ 70, standard deviation ¼ 9.45), AA (76.4%), with various cancers of advanced disease (69%). Males reported moderate psychosocial distress and elevated financial needs. For males with elevated psychosocial distress (n ¼ 63, PHQ-4 ≥3), 36% were previously connected with psychosocial services. Following screening, engagement increased as the majority (77%) established psychosocial care. Conclusions: This screening program had mixed success. Centralized program staff and available supportive care referrals were critical for program implementation. Screening may have increased engagement in social work/mental health services for males of low SES. Screening programs should be tailored to the needs of underserved communities with accessible housing/food subsidies.

There is little evidence about barriers to pain management or their relationships with pain outcomes of hospice patients with cancer. The purpose of the study was to determine the barriers reported by hospice patients with cancer and their caregivers and the relationships with demographic characteristics and the patients' pain. In this cross-sectional study, we used selected baseline data from an ongoing randomized clinical trial of patient and lay caregiver dyads receiving home-level hospice care. Participants used an Internet-enabled tablet to complete the valid, reliable measures of pain intensity, pain management barriers (Barriers Questionnaire 13 items [BQ-13]), and demographic characteristics. The responses indicate that the 2 areas of highest concern (mean scores >3) to both patients and caregivers were "pain means disease progression" and "constipation." Additionally, 3 other areas of highest concern (mean scores >3) to caregivers were "addiction" pain medicine causing "one to do embarrassing things" and "confusion." The mean BQ-13 scores ranged from 0.2 to 4.9 and averaged 2.6 ± 0.9 for the patients and ranged from 0.5 to 4.7 and averaged 2.7 ± 0.9 for the caregivers. Mean barrier scores remain high and were not different between patients and their caregivers or significantly related to the patients' pain intensity. However, there were differences in race, ethnic, and hospice setting in the barrier scores. Patients with Hispanic heritage reported higher barrier scores than non-Hispanic patients. Together, these findings not only support prior research findings but also contribute new insights about pain intensity and pain barriers that are relevant to hospices serving minorities with cancer.

Background The high burden of infectious disease and associated antimicrobial use likely contribute to the emergence of antimicrobial resistance in remote Australian Aboriginal communities. We aimed to develop and apply context-specific tools to audit antimicrobial use in the remote primary healthcare setting. Methods We adapted the General Practice version of the National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (GP NAPS) tool to audit antimicrobial use over 2–3 weeks in 15 remote primary healthcare clinics across the Kimberley region of Western Australia (03/2018–06/2018), Top End of the Northern Territory (08/2017–09/2017) and far north Queensland (05/2018–06/2018). At each clinic we reviewed consecutive clinic presentations until 30 presentations where antimicrobials had been used were included in the audit. Data recorded included the antimicrobials used, indications and treating health professional. We assessed the appropriateness of antimicrobial use and functionality of the tool. Results We audited the use of 668 antimicrobials. Skin and soft tissue infections were the dominant treatment indications (WA: 35%; NT: 29%; QLD: 40%). Compared with other settings in Australia, narrow spectrum antimicrobials like benzathine benzylpenicillin were commonly given and the appropriateness of use was high (WA: 91%; NT: 82%; QLD: 65%). While the audit was informative, non-integration with practice software made the process manually intensive. Conclusions Patterns of antimicrobial use in remote primary care are different from other settings in Australia. The adapted GP NAPS tool functioned well in this pilot study and has the potential for integration into clinical care. Regular stewardship audits would be facilitated by improved data extraction systems.

No abstract