Advanced cancer patients' (CP) attitudes and perceptions regarding reasons for outpatient supportive care (SC) referral at a comprehensive cancer center: A randomized controlled study.

e24135 Background: Current ASCO guidelines propose early access to SC in all CP to improve quality of care, quality of life, and symptoms. Very few studies have evaluated patients’ perceived criteria for referral to outpatient SC and perceptions of patients who are referred early in their disease trajectory. Methods: In this study we evaluated CP attitudes and perceptions regarding the role of and access to outpatient Supportive Care clinic (SCC) at a comprehensive cancer center. CP with life expectancy of greater than 6 months (as determined by the oncologist) and who are newly registered at MD Anderson Cancer Center were randomized to either obtain an educational brochure that explained the role of the SCC or no brochure. Both groups then completed a survey regarding the role and access to of outpatient SCC. After completion of the survey, patients were asked if they would like to be seen by the SC team. If so, they were scheduled by their oncologist for a SC consult. Results: 288 patients were evaluable: median age was 63, 43% were female, 84% were Caucasian, and the most common cancer type was lung cancer (39%). Median survival was 15 months. Patients who received a brochure reported more understanding of the role of SC vs those who did not receive a brochure (63% vs 37%, p = 0.04). Both groups felt that SC could help to address physical (47% vs 54%) and psychosocial (50% vs 50%) symptoms. Both groups felt SC could help to address questions regarding prognosis (50% vs 50%) and future care (53% vs 47%). Both groups did not feel that time (50% vs 50%) nor financial concerns (49% vs 51%) would be barriers to access SC. Both groups did not feel that receiving SC would impede their cancer care (60% vs 40%) nor change their oncologists’ perspective of them (25% vs 75%). Both groups felt they could receive SC and cancer care simultaneously (50% vs 50%). Approximately half of the patients in both groups perceived it was not too early for a referral to SC. There were no statistical differences in these groups for these findings. Conclusions: Patients who received a brochure had a better understanding of the role of SC. A very significant proportion in both groups had limited awareness of the value of SC. Oncologist driven referral and education of SC may facilitate better understanding of the value of SC. Further studies are needed.

Understanding Distress Among Patients With Cancer Receiving Specialized, Supportive Care Services

Background: Cancer and its treatment can cause persistent psychosocial consequences for patients. Although distress among the general cancer population has been well studied, many patients who report high distress do not receive specialty, follow-up care. We know little about the distress needs of those who attend appointments with support services. Improved knowledge of this subpopulation of patients with cancer may improve supportive care service delivery. Methods: This is a descriptive chart review that examines results from a cancer distress tool in an outpatient supportive care clinic and explores factors associated with distress among patients who attend an appointment for support beyond usual oncologic care. All adult patients with a cancer diagnosis presenting to the supportive care clinic during a 120-day period for an initial intake completed a self-report needs assessment tool. A review of medical records was then conducted. Primarily descriptive statistics, mean comparison, and correlational analysis summarized the data. Results: Nearly 48% of individuals rated very severe distress in at least one area of functioning. Areas with the highest average distress ratings included pain, fatigue, sleep, and anxiety. No significant associations were found between total distress scores and demographic or illness-related variables. Anxiety and depression were higher among those scheduled to see a behavioral health specialist than a palliative provider. Conclusions: Patient and illness factors were not associated with needs among those who attended appointments with support providers. Study results suggest that a biopsychosocial approach from interdisciplinary providers is warranted to manage the needs of patients referred for additional supportive care.

Physician attire and palliative care patients’ perception of physician compassion and professionalism: A randomized controlled trial (RCT).

39 Background: Environment is important component of communication skills. Physicians’ communication style including attire may influence patient perceptions. Previous studies mostly based on pictures of providers in different attires provide conflicting evidence. This RCT aimed to explore the effects of physician attire on patients’ perceptions of compassion, professionalism and physician preference. Hypothesis was that patients will perceive the doctor in formal attire as more compassionate than the doctor wearing casual attire. Methods: 105 English speaking adult follow-ups at outpatient supportive care center, were randomized to watch 2 standardized, 3-minute video vignettes, with similar script, depicting a routine clinic encounter. In one video, physician was wearing formal attire with tie and buttoned up white coat, while in the other, physician was in casual attire without a tie or white coat. Actors and patients were all blinded to purpose of the study. Investigators were blinded to the videos watched by patients. After viewing each video, patients completed validated questionnaires rating their perception of physician compassion (0 = best, 50 = worst) and professionalism (5 = poor, 25 = very good). Patients were also asked to rate their preference for the physician. Results: There were no significant differences between formal and casual attire for compassion [median (IQR), 25 (10, 31) vs 20 (8, 27); P = 0.31] and professionalism, [17 (13, 21) vs 18 (14, 22); P = 0.42]. 32 (30%) patients preferred formal, 33 (31%) preferred casual attire and 40 (38 %) patients had no preference. Subgroup analysis did not show significant differences among age, sex, marital status and education level for compassion, professionalism and physician preference. Conclusions: Doctor’s attire did not have an effect on patients’ perception of physicians’ level of compassion and professionalism. Dress code also did not influence the patients’ preference for their doctor or their trust and confidence in the doctor’s ability to provide care. There is need for more RCTs in area of communication skills specifically to better understand the impact of different attires on patient perceptions. Clinical trial information: NCT03168763.