BACKGROUND: Responding to calls for additional research that identifies effective distress screening (DS) processes, including referral practices subsequent to screening and receipt of recommended care, we engaged in qualitative research as part of a larger (mixed methods) study of distress screening. This qualitative inquiry of oncology professionals across different facilities in the United States examined routine DS implementation, facilitators and challenges staff encounter with DS processes, and staff members' perceived value of DS. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We conducted key informant interviews and focus groups with staff in 4 Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited oncology facilities (a total of 18 participants) to understand implementation of routine DS within oncology care. We used a rigorous data analysis design, including inductive and deductive approaches. RESULTS: Respondents believe DS enhances patient care and described ways to improve DS processes, including administering DS at multiple points throughout oncology care, using patient-administrated DS methods, and enhancing electronic health records infrastructure to better collect, record, and retrieve DS data. Respondents also identified the need for additional psychosocial staff at their facilities to provide timely psychosocial care. CONCLUSIONS: Results reinforce the value of DS in cancer care, including the importance of follow-up to screening with psychosocial oncology providers. Understanding and resolving the barriers and facilitators to implementing DS are important to ensure appropriate psychosocial care for people with cancer. Insights from oncology staff may be used to enhance the quality of DS and subsequent psychosocial care, which is an essential component of oncology care.

PURPOSE: Since 2016, the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer (CoC) has required routine distress screening (DS) of cancer survivors treated in their accredited facilities to facilitate early identification of survivors with psychosocial concerns. Lung and ovarian cancer survivors have relatively low 5-year survival rates and may experience high levels of distress. We examined the extent to which ovarian and lung cancer survivors received CoC-mandated DS and whether DS disparities exist on the basis of diagnosis, sociodemographic factors, or facility geography (urban/rural). METHODS: This study included a quantitative review of DS documentation and follow-up services provided using existing electronic health records (EHRs). We worked with 21 CoC-accredited facilities across the United States and examined EHRs of 2,258 survivors from these facilities (1,618 lung cancer survivors and 640 ovarian cancer survivors) diagnosed in 2016 or 2017. RESULTS: Documentation of DS was found in half (54.8%) of the EHRs reviewed. Disparities existed across race/ethnicity, cancer type and stage, and facility characteristics. Hispanic/Latino and Asian/Pacific Islander survivors were screened at lower percentages than other survivors. Patients with ovarian cancer, those diagnosed at earlier stages, and survivors in urban facilities had relatively low percentages of DS. Non-Hispanic Black survivors were more likely than non-Hispanic White survivors to decline further psychosocial services. CONCLUSION: Despite the mandate for routine DS in CoC-accredited oncology programs, gaps remain in how many and which survivors are screened for distress. Improvements in DS processes to enhance access to DS and appropriate psychosocial care could benefit cancer survivors. Collaboration with CoC during this study led to improvement of their processes for collecting DS data for measuring standard adherence.