Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38991668›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Quality measures in primary care skin cancer management: a qualitative study of the views of key informants.

Samantha Spanos, Nehal Singh, Bela I Laginha, Gaston Arnolda, Andrea L Smith, David Wilkinson, Anne E Cust, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Frances Rapport

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Samantha SpanosAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia samantha.spanos@mq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-3734-3907
Nehal SinghAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Bela I LaginhaAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Gaston ArnoldaAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4948-7633
Andrea L SmithThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
David WilkinsonAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Anne E CustThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5331-6370
Jeffrey BraithwaiteAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0296-4957
Frances RapportAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4428-2826

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study explored potential quality measures to improve skin cancer management in primary care settings, and the barriers and facilitators associated with their implementation.

designSemistructured interviews and qualitative proforma surveys were conducted with skin cancer experts from a range of healthcare settings. Framework analysis was employed to identify key groups of quality measures within the domains of the Donabedian model of healthcare quality (structure, process, outcome). Interview and survey data were triangulated to identify common groups of quality measures, barriers and facilitators.

participantsWe purposively recruited skin cancer experts from Australia and internationally with knowledge and experience in skin cancer management. The final sample consisted of 15 participants who had clinical or academic backgrounds.

resultsParticipants unequivocally expressed the need for quality measures to guide skin cancer care. Ten groups of quality measures were identified: three groups related to the structural elements of care (eg, diagnostic tools), four related to the processes of care (eg, diagnostic process) and three related to outcomes of care (eg, treatment outcomes). Implementation barriers included clinician resistance, system inadequacies and external factors (eg, patient risk). Facilitators included incentives, education, agreed and feasible indicators and support and guidance.

conclusionsTo service a growing population of skin cancer patients in Australia, the role of primary care needs to be more clearly specified, and its care providers supported and more engaged in quality improvement processes. Structure, process and outcome quality measures, derived from detailed guidance for primary care settings, can be used to track practitioner performance and facilitate ongoing improvement.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareQualitative ResearchSkin NeoplasmsAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQuality ImprovementQuality of Health CareMEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAININGPatient SatisfactionPhysiciansPrimary Health CareQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID38991668
PMCPMC11243125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.