Purpose: Improvements in outcomes for adolescent and young adult (AYA) oncology patients have lagged behind those of other age-specific cancer populations. Research has indicated that low availability of clinical trials, biological differences of this age-group, and several psychosocial factors including higher emotional distress impact outcomes. To improve care and survival rates for these patients, hospitals have implemented AYA oncology programs. The current study evaluated documentation of care in an AYA program housed in an academic medical center based on three areas emphasized in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network\'s Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for AYAs: clinical trial enrollment, fertility, and psychosocial care. Methods: Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for 45 patients treated before the start of the AYA oncology program and 45 patients treated after program initiation. Patients aged 15-39 years with a diagnosis of a malignant tumor were included. Variables evaluated included documentation of clinical trial enrollment, fertility preservation and sexual health considerations, and behavioral health referrals. Results: Documentation of most clinical trial and fertility variables did not significantly improve from pre- to post-program, although a higher number of patients had these variables documented post-program. Behavioral health referrals increased significantly from 52.8% pre-program to 95.4% post-program. Conclusion: Access to behavioral health care improved the most following implementation of our AYA program, which is likely because of the integration of a dedicated psychologist for AYAs when the program began. The practice of guideline-based care for this population can be better assessed and improved with designated behavioral health providers and more systematic documentation processes.

The COVID-19 pandemic wrought significant negative impacts on youth well-being, particularly among Black, Hispanic, American Indian, Alaska Native, and LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning) youth. The pandemic disrupted connections to family, school, and community, which are essential supports for youth mental health. Lessons learned from the pandemic suggest the role of stress and windows of opportunity to build resiliency. Drawing from a policy dialog on the youth mental health crisis conducted by 4 American Academy of Nursing Expert Panels, we present approaches to the current increase in youth mental health problems. Included is emerging literature on building youth resilience, particularly via re-establishing school and community connections. The role of families, schools, and community support is emphasized, particularly by creating a healing school environment and the pivotal role of school nurses. Recommendations include increased support for families, engaging the school nurse role, and developing school-based innovative programs to build connections and youth wellness.

Identifying an intervention\'s core components is indispensable to gauging whether an intervention is implemented with fidelity and/or is modified; it is often a multi-stage process, starting with the first stage of identifying an initial set of core components that are gradually refined. This first stage of identifying initial core components has not been thoroughly examined. Without a clear set of steps to follow, interventions may vary in the rigor and thought applied to identifying their initial core components. We devised the CORE (Consensus on Relevant Elements) approach to synthesize opinions of intervention developers/implementers to identify an intervention\'s initial core components, particularly applicable to innovative interventions. We applied CORE to a peer-based intervention that aids military veterans with post-incarceration community reintegration. Our CORE application involved four intervention developers/implementers and two moderators to facilitate the seven CORE steps. Our CORE application had two iterations, moving through Steps 1 (individual core component suggestions) through 7 (group discussion for consensus), then repeating Steps 4 (consolidation of component definitions) through 7. This resulted in 18 consensus-reached initial core components of the peer-based intervention, down from the 60 that the developers/implementers individually suggested at Step 1. Removed components were deemed to not threaten the intervention\'s effectiveness even if absent. CORE contributes to filling a critical gap regarding identifying an intervention\'s initial core components (so that the identified components can be subsequently refined), by providing concrete steps for synthesizing the knowledge of an intervention\'s developers/implementers. Future research should examine CORE\'s utility across various interventions and implementation settings.

To address concerns about limited training of psychologists working in long-term care (LTC) facilities, the Psychologists in Long-Term Care (PLTC) organization published Standards for Psychological Services in Long-Term Care Facilities (Lichtenberg et al., 1998). The expanding evidence base for knowledge and skills, the increasing diversity of LTC residents, and the complexity of presenting problems have compounded the guidance psychologists need when providing services in this setting. In this article, the PLTC Guidelines Revision Task Force presents PLTC guidelines based on the original prescriptive PLTC Standards. The content of the PLTC Standards was updated and the format changed from prescriptive standards to aspirational guidelines. We begin with general guidelines regarding knowledge and skills in LTC (education and training. understanding of LTC systems. end-of-life care), followed by specific guidelines covering the basic psychological service activities in LTC (referral, assessment, treatment, ethical issues, and advocacy). The PLTC Guidelines are designed to provide direction for psychologists who work, or plan to work, in LTC and to guide continuing education pursuits.

People who use substances often mistrust the primary care system, impeding access.
To build on research clarifying how to improve patients\' feelings of safety, through co-creating best practice guidelines with physicians and patient representatives.
After obtaining Research Ethics Board approval, this qualitative study engaged 22 participants including patients, physicians, and health system partners. We held a series of workshops, co-facilitated by patients and researchers, corresponding to 3 phases of the research: (1) establishment of cultural safety processes for participants during the workshops; (2) a facilitated, collaborative world café to develop guideline content; (3) validation of best practice guidelines. An implementation plan was developed and implemented. Finally, an external peer review was conducted by McGill University.
Best practices guidelines were developed giving the patient perspective on how to enhance primary care, as follows: (1) become trauma informed; (2) consider your clinical environment; (3) build a network; (4) supply an array of resources; (5) co-create a long-term treatment plan; (6) help me to stay healthy; (7) ensure timely access to specialized medical and surgical care; (8) be an advocate; (9) ask for feedback; (10) follow up. Resources were developed and disseminated.
The best practice guidelines reflect the patients\' perspectives on common challenges patients have encountered, which impede their access to primary care. They support primary care physicians in providing more effective services to this challenging population of patients.