{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028817204301075268, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017204301075268817, 'mean_word_length': 4.844221105527638, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Distress as a quality indicator of cancer care.

e20686 Background: Distress is present in every phase of cancer. This high prevalence of distress showed the necessity of acting strategies that may favor the reduction or elimination of possible psychological and psychiatric disturbances. Facing this reality, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network suggested Distress Management in 1997. Today the oncological units need not only acting strategies, but also methods of evaluation of assistance quality.


METHODS
This study main goal was to evaluate the assistance offered in a private cancer treatment center in Brazil, using the distress prevalence during all the phases of the treatment as a quality indicator. Patients (N = 169) of both genders (37.9% male and 62.1% female), with age between 17 and 86 years (median = 53), with 18 types of cancer, took a part in this investigation. The research was authorized by an ethics committee. The procedure of gathering data included the consent of patients and the application of the Distress Thermometer (DT). The evaluation was made in three distinct stages of chemotherapy: beginning, middle and end of treatment. The data were analyzed according to the criteria defined in literature and with the software SPSS 15.0.


RESULTS
In the first stage of the evaluation, the major part of the patients showed a significative level of distress (69.8%), which is similar to literature data - In this phase the patients live with pain, losses and incertitude in relation to the prognoses. During the treatment, there was a progressive reduction in the second (32.4%) and in the last phase of evaluation (14.3%). Such fall was due to: 1) the routine of monitoring distress, the identification of the nature of distress and the intervention; 2) integration of the health team in a interdisciplinary work.


CONCLUSIONS
The significative reduction of distress during the treatment points out to a good quality of cancer care. During the research it was possible to identify improvements and to reconsider some attitudes and conducts. There was a non automatization in the assistance, making it more human, individual and specific for each necessity. This result suggests the importance of DT as a quality indicator of cancer care. No significant financial relationships to disclose.