Search

Simple Summary: A cancer diagnosis during adolescence or young adulthood presents unique medical and psychosocial challenges which must be addressed in the provision of quality, comprehensive cancer care. Tailoring services to the needs of this population requires careful work to identify, monitor and evaluate areas of care; however, published work in this area to guide service priorities is limited. This paper presents work done by the Australian Youth Cancer Services to operationalise and deliver quality care to adolescents and young adults with cancer, focusing on nationally coordinated service improvement initiatives and activity data collection in four areas that are of particular concern to young people diagnosed with cancer: clinical trial enrolment, oncofertility, psychosocial care and survivorship. This account may be instructive for health services seeking to improve the delivery and monitoring of cancer care provided to adolescents and young adults. Adolescents and young adults (aged 15–25 years) diagnosed with cancer have unique medical and psychosocial experiences and care needs, distinct from those of paediatric and older adult patients. Since 2011, the Australian Youth Cancer Services have provided developmentally appropriate, multidisciplinary and comprehensive care to these young patients, facilitated by national service coordination and activity data collection and monitoring. This paper reports on how the Youth Cancer Services have conceptualised and delivered quality youth cancer care in four priority areas: clinical trial participation, oncofertility, psychosocial care and survivorship. National activity data collected by the Youth Cancer Services between 2016–17 and 2019–20 are used to illustrate how service monitoring processes have facilitated improvements in coordination and accountability across multiple indicators of quality youth cancer care, including clinical trial participation, access to fertility information and preservation, psychosocial screening and care and the transition from active treatment to survivorship. Accounts of both service delivery and monitoring and evaluation processes within the Australian Youth Cancer Services provide an exemplar of how coordinated initiatives may be employed to deliver, monitor and improve quality cancer care for adolescents and young adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health care organizations need to be responsive to the needs of increasingly diverse patient populations. We compared the contents of six publicly available approaches to organizational responsiveness to diversity. The central questions addressed in this paper are: what are the most consistently recommended issues for health care organizations to address in order to be responsive to the needs of diverse groups that differ from the majority population? How much consensus is there between various approaches?Methods: We purposively sampled six approaches from the US, Australia and Europe and used qualitative textual analysis to categorize the content of each approach into domains (conceptually distinct topic areas) and, within each domain, into dimensions (operationalizations). The resulting classification framework was used for comparative analysis of the content of the six approaches.Results: We identified seven domains that were represented in most or all approaches: organizational commitment, empirical evidence on inequalities and needs, a competent and diverse workforce, ensuring access for all users, ensuring responsiveness in care provision, fostering patient and community participation, and actively promoting responsiveness. Variations in the operationalization of these domains related to different scopes, contexts and types of diversity. For example, approaches that focus on ethnic diversity mostly provide recommendations to handle cultural and language differences; approaches that take an intersectional approach and broaden their target population to vulnerable groups in a more general sense also pay attention to factors such as socio-economic status and gender.Conclusions: Despite differences in labeling, there is a broad consensus about what health care organizations need to do in order to be responsive to patient diversity. This opens the way to full scale implementation of organizational responsiveness in healthcare and structured evaluation of its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]