Purpose of review Clinically significant distress is common in patients with cancer and if untreated can be associated with adverse outcomes. This article offers a review of current approaches to implementing and reporting the minimum components of distress screening and management interventions in cancer services. Recent findings Twenty-two relevant published articles were identified from January 2018 to February 2020. The reporting of recommended minimum components of distress screening and management interventions in these articles was not consistent. The majority of studies used validated tools to conduct initial screening. However, recommendations were either not reported or not followed regarding subsequent pathway components, secondary assessment, referral pathways linked to screening results and rescreening. The majority of studies did not include a description of the implementation of the distress screening program. A small number of studies described a comprehensive set of implementation strategies. Summary Distress screening and management interventions in cancer are an important component of comprehensive cancer care. To improve patient outcomes and guide researchers and services to identify effective models, studies must include and evaluate minimum recommended components and implementation strategies. Addressing these limitations with high-quality, robust interventions is vital for advancing the implementation of effective distress management.

Background During vocational general practice training, the content of each trainee’s (in Australia, registrars’) in-consultation clinical experience is expected to entail a breadth of conditions that exemplify general practice, enabling registrars to gain competency in managing common clinical conditions and common clinical scenarios. Prior to the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) project there was little research into the content of registrars’ consultations despite its importance to quality of training. ReCEnT aims to document the consultation-based clinical and educational experiences of individual Australian registrars. Methods ReCEnT is an inception cohort study. It is comprised of closely interrelated research and educational components. Registrars are recruited by participating general practice regional training organisations. They provide demographic information about themselves, their skills, and their previous training. In each of three 6-month long general practice training terms they provide data about the practice where they work and collect data from 60 consecutive patient encounters using an online portal. Analysis of data uses standard techniques including linear and logistic regression modelling. The ReCEnT project has approval from the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee, Reference H-2009–0323. Discussion Strengths of the study are the granular detail of clinical practice relating to patient demographics, presenting problems/diagnoses, medication decisions, investigations requested, referrals made, procedures undertaken, follow-up arranged, learning goals generated, and in-consultation help sought; the linking of the above variables to the presenting problems/diagnoses to which they pertain; and a very high response rate. The study is limited by not having information regarding severity of illness, medical history of the patient, full medication regimens, or patient compliance to clinical decisions made at the consultation. Data is analysed using standard techniques to answer research questions that can be categorised as: mapping analyses of clinical exposure; exploratory analyses of associations of clinical exposure; mapping and exploratory analyses of educational actions; mapping and exploratory analyses of other outcomes; longitudinal ‘within-registrar’ analyses; longitudinal ‘within-program’ analyses; testing efficacy of educational interventions; and analyses of ReCEnT data together with data from other sources. The study enables identification of training needs and translation of subsequent evidence-based educational innovations into specialist training of general practitioners.

Background Cigarette smoking in people with cancer is associated with negative treatment-related outcomes including increased treatment toxicity and complications, medication side effects, decreased performance status and morbidity. Evidence-based smoking cessation care is not routinely provided to patients with cancer. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a smoking cessation implementation intervention on abstinence from smoking in people diagnosed with cancer. Methods A stepped wedge cluster randomised design will be used. All sites begin in the control condition providing treatment as usual. In a randomly generated order, sites will move to the intervention condition. Based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, implementation of Care to Quit will include (i) building the capability and motivation of a critical mass of key clinical staff and identifying champions; and (ii) identifying and implementing cessation care models/pathways. Two thousand one hundred sixty patients with cancer (diagnosed in the prior six months), aged 18+, who report recent combustible tobacco use (past 90 days or in the 30 days prior to cancer diagnosis) and are accessing anti-cancer therapy, will be recruited at nine sites. Assessments will be conducted at baseline and 7-month follow-up. The primary outcome will be 6-month abstinence from smoking. Secondary outcomes include biochemical verification of abstinence from smoking, duration of quit attempts, tobacco consumption, nicotine dependence, provision and receipt of smoking cessation care, mental health and quality of life and cost effectiveness of the intervention. Discussion This study will implement best practice smoking cessation care in cancer centres and has the potential for wide dissemination. Trial registration The trial is registered with ANZCTR (www.anzctr.org.au): ACTRN (ACTRN12621000154808) prior to the accrual of the first participant and will be updated regularly as per registry guidelines.