Efforts to increase patient comfort by minimizing pain and anxiety have been shown to improve clinical outcomes, reduce pain thresholds, decrease analgesic requirements and complication risk, strengthen the physician-patient relationship, and increase overall patient satisfaction. Patients also have a strong preference for patient-centered communication and educational discussion with physicians. In recent years, the increasing emphasis on patient experience scores as a metric for quality care has had significant implications for physician practice and has reinforced attempts to provide more patient-centered care. Though different pharmacologic agents and techniques have been extensively reviewed in the dermatologic literature, there have been few studies of non-pharmacologic strategies for improving patient-centered care. This evidence-based review describes alternative techniques that have been suggested for use in dermatologic surgery. Mechanoanesthesia, cold therapy, verbal and audiovisual distraction, music, optimal needle insertion methods, hypnosis and guided-imagery, perioperative communication, and educational strategies have been reported to improve the patient experience in dermatologic surgery. These interventions are often cost-effective and easy to implement, avoid medication side effects, and serve as adjunct approaches to enhance patient comfort. This review examines the corresponding evidence for these nonpharmacologic strategies to provide a clinical resource for the dermatologic surgeon seeking to optimize the patient experience.

Purpose

Dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) in cancer treatment are frequent with the use of targeted therapies. These dAEs have been shown to have significant impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). While standardized assessment tools have been developed for physicians to assess severity of dAEs, there is a discord between objective and subjective measures. The identification of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments useful in the context of targeted cancer therapies is therefore important in both the clinical and research settings for the overall evaluation of dAEs and their impact on HRQoL.

Methods

A comprehensive, systematic literature search of published articles was conducted by two independent reviewers in order to identify PRO instruments previously utilized in patient populations with dAEs from targeted cancer therapies. The identified PRO instruments were studied to determine which HRQoL issues relevant to dAEs were addressed, as well as the process of development and validation of these instruments.

Results

Thirteen articles identifying six PRO instruments met the inclusion criteria. Four instruments were general dermatology (Skindex-16©, Skindex-29©, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and DIELH-24) and two were symptom-specific (functional assessment of cancer therapy-epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor-18 (FACT-EGFRI-18) and hand-foot syndrome 14 (HFS-14)).

Conclusions

While there are several PRO instruments that have been tested in the context of targeted cancer therapy, additional work is needed to develop new instruments and to further validate the instruments identified in this study in patients receiving targeted therapies.