You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Health services research
Protocol
Systematic development of quality indicators for skin cancer management in primary care: a mixed-methods study protocol
  1. Bela Ines Laginha1,
  2. Frances Rapport1,
  3. Andrea Smith2,
  4. David Wilkinson3,
  5. Anne E Cust2,
  6. Jeffrey Braithwaite1
  1. 1Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, The Daffodil Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3National Skin Cancer Centres, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Professor Frances Rapport; frances.rapport{at}mq.edu.au

Abstract

Introduction Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world, with two out of three Australians expected to be diagnosed with skin cancer in their lifetime. Such incidence necessitates large-scale, effective skin cancer management practices. General practitioners (in mainstream practice and in skin cancer clinics) play an important role in skin cancer care provision, making decisions based on relevant evidence-based guidelines, protocols, experience and training. Diversity in these decision-making practices can result in unwarranted variation. Quality indicators are frequently implemented in healthcare contexts to measure performance quality at the level of the clinician and healthcare practice and mitigate unwarranted variation. Such measurements can facilitate performance comparisons between peers and a standard benchmark, often resulting in improved processes and outcomes. A standardised set of quality indicators is yet to be developed in the context of primary care skin cancer management.

Aims This research aims to identify, develop and generate expert consensus on a core set of quality indicators for skin cancer management in primary care.

Methods This mixed-methods study involves (1) a scoping review of the available evidence on quality indicators in skin cancer management in primary care, (2) identification and development of a core set of quality indicators through interviews/qualitative proforma surveys with participants, and (3) a focus group involving discussion of quality indicators according to Nominal Group Technique. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected and analysed using thematic and descriptive statistical analytical methods.

Ethics and dissemination Approval was granted by the university’s Research Ethics Committee (HREC no. 520211051532420). Results from this study will be widely disseminated in publications, study presentations, educational events and reports.

  • PRIMARY CARE
  • Quality in health care
  • QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059829

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • First study to identify, develop and generate expert consensus on a core set of quality indicators for skin cancer management in primary care in Australia.

    • This study provides a greater understanding of perceived benefits of identifying, developing and implementing quality indicators in this context.

    • The mixed-methods approach will enable rich datasets on a topic that has received little attention.

    • While exploratory in nature, limiting generalisability of findings, this will lead to a quality indicator intervention for roll-out across Australia.

    Introduction

    Background

    Skin cancer develops as a result of abnormal proliferation of the epidermis.1 The most prevalent skin cancers are the non-melanocytic skin cancers (NMSC), of which the most common are basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma.1 These keratinocyte cancers make up the majority of skin cancer cases, however, the risk of metastases and death is low, and the wide range of treatment options results in high survival rates.2 Conversely, melanoma (the rarer form of skin cancer) has a much higher risk of metastasis and death.3 Due to significant global variation of NMSC data registration practices, NMSC incidence rates are difficult to determine definitively.4 5 However, in 2020, approximately 63 731 global deaths resulted from NMSC6 and 57 043 deaths from melanoma.6 Australia has the highest incidence of melanoma and NMSC globally,7 with two out of three Australians expected to be diagnosed with skin cancer within their lifetime.8 Australia’s incidence of melanoma is rising among the ageing population3 and 1405 deaths resulted from melanoma in 2019.9 As skin cancer constitutes the majority of all cancers diagnosed in Australia,10 this places a significant burden on the pubic healthcare system3 11 with Australia’s annual costs associated with NMSC reaching $700 million12 and melanoma $272 million.13

    Australians’ elevated skin cancer risk is attributed to increased ultraviolet exposure due to equator proximity, lifestyle factors and preferences, extensive periods of time spent out of doors and a population made up of individuals from a predominantly European origin.14 In response to Australia’s high risk and increasing incidence of skin cancer,10 the Australian healthcare system has effectively evolved to meet this high demand for skin cancer management services, with specialist and generalist provider involvement.15

    In the context of cancer management, general practitioners (GPs) typically act as an intermediary (providing support and referral) between patients and specialists.15 16 However, skin cancer is an exception to this rule. While specialist dermatologists manage a range of skin cancer cases in Australia, particularly more complex cases, GPs manage the majority of presentations17 and are routinely the first practitioners to encounter skin cancer.15 18 The overwhelming incidence of skin cancer in Australia necessitates the integral role of GPs in melanoma diagnosis, management and treatment.17 19

    Reflecting the significant demand for skin cancer management, primary care skin cancer clinics have emerged over the past 20–30 years in Australia as treatment and care centres.15 17 These clinics are typically operated by GPs with a special interest in skin cancer, reflecting the evolution of special interests in primary care in Australia.15 20 Despite GPs’ management of most skin cancer cases in Australia, relatively little is known about the quality of care they provide and how quality of care should best be measured.15 17

    Measurement of quality in healthcare

    The Donabedian model is a conceptual model that suggests quality in healthcare is best measured according to a framework of domains: structure, process and outcome.21 Measuring quality in healthcare aims to improve performance and ultimately, patient care,22 with evidence citing reduced rates of hospitalisation23 and decreased mortality rates as a result of instated measurements.24 Quality indicators (QIs) provide healthcare professionals with a measure of their personal performance against their peers and act as a standard benchmark. Observing quality in this relative manner enables healthcare professionals to address any variation in their performance, which can be subsequently adjusted and improved.25 QIs have been developed and implemented effectively in multiple healthcare contexts, including general oncology.26

    Despite Australia’s extensive and effective network of GPs in skin cancer management, no set of QIs appears to exist to benchmark quality in this rapidly expanding mode of service delivery. At present, GPs are able to refer to national protocols to guide their performance.22 For instance, specific protocols are available to guide practitioner performance around excision margins, infection rates, biopsy to treatment ratio and number needed to treat, which evidence-based guidelines suggest should fall within certain parameters.22 27 28 More commonly, however, the literature indicates that primary care clinicians rely on a combination of training, guidelines, experience, personal research and discussion with colleagues and patients.29 As a result, it currently appears that clinician decision-making practices are diverse30 and clinician and practice adherence to evidence-based guidelines and/or protocols is variable.31–33 While some variation in healthcare is necessary and warranted,34 unwarranted variation in healthcare (such as deviations in clinical decision-making, standards of care and adherence to evidence-based guidelines35) can have harmful consequences, for example, inadequate patient care.36 Unwarranted variation in healthcare can be identified and subsequently mitigated through the implementation of QIs.37 While discrete measures of quality may exist in skin cancer management at the level of clinic or practice, quality does not appear to be recorded in a uniform way, compared with a standard benchmark. Furthermore, there are no existing instruments and no clear structure for assessment of skin cancer care in primary practice, directly linked to QI development and assessment in Australia. Hence, the need for this study and its importance within the Australian context. As such, while we recognise that there are established international skin cancer guidelines28 38 and reporting standards (such as Guideline International Network QIs39), we are not focusing exclusively on those, but wish to draw on expert opinion to clarify existing practices. As little is known about how skin cancer guidelines are implemented in primary care, we believe this approach will generate a more practical set of QIs, framing our study around the development of appropriate measures of quality that may be of benefit to patients, clinicians and clinics.

    Aims

    This research aims to identify, develop and generate expert consensus on a core set of QIs for skin cancer management in primary care.

    Objective

    The primary objectives of this study are to:

    • Identify QIs from the literature on skin cancer management in primary care.

    • Develop a core set of QIs and reach consensus with key informants in skin cancer management on their relevance to skin cancer management in primary care.

    Methods and analysis

    Study design

    A mixed-methods study will involve (1) a scoping review of the available evidence on QIs in skin cancer management in primary care, (2) semistructured interviews or qualitative proforma surveys (including demographic questions) with participants representing skin cancer clinical professionals and clinic managers to identify key informants’ perspectives on QIs in primary care skin cancer management, and (3) a facilitated focus group with a select number of key informants from step 2 employing Nominal Group Technique (NGT). Similar to semistructured interviews, qualitative proforma surveys, which contain free-text boxes for participant answers to set interview schedule questions, provide participants with an opportunity to present opinions and experiences in considerable detail.40 The NGT will involve the expert examination, appraisal and ranking of QIs drawn from the literature and from interviews or qualitative proforma survey completion, through a researcher-facilitated focus group and a subsequent scoring survey. The research study will take place from September 2021 to October 2022.

    Due to the complex nature of the study, each step of the research design (see figure 1) is clarified in relation to the study setting, recruitment and sampling approaches and data collection and analysis methods.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Research study process.

    Setting (steps 2–3)

    Participants taking part in interviews, qualitative proforma surveys and focus groups (see the Data collection section) will be recruited from a wide range of healthcare settings across Australia and internationally, including clinics and public or private GP practices, hospitals, universities and other relevant community settings in order to ensure a breadth of perspectives.

    Recruitment (steps 2–3)

    Participants will be identified through research team members’ knowledge of experts working in the field of skin cancer and patient management in primary care and skin cancer clinics in Australia and internationally. Participants will be chosen purposively (contacted via email), to include senior clinicians, managers, administrators, policymakers, allied healthcare professionals, healthcare administrators, GPs, and clinical and non-clinical academics.

    Sample (steps 2–3)

    Approximately 20 participants will be recruited for step 2 (or until data saturation, where no new themes are evident in the data collected). The sample size rationalisation included literature on the optimal number of participants in research of this nature,41 the complexity of the topic,42 the open-ended, semistructured nature of discussion and heterogeneity of participant sample43 enabling a detailed examination of expert opinion and experience of skin cancer management and care. Purposive sampling42 will encourage that a multiplicity of perspectives are obtained from professionals across a wide range of disciplines. Participants will be encouraged to nominate others who are experts in the field (snowball sampling)44 to ensure sample characteristics are defined by those with the greatest knowledge of the field.44 Such diversity is expected to increase the uptake and acceptability of the core set of QIs. Through purposive sampling, the research team aims to ensure the sample includes dermatologists, primary care physicians, epidemiologists, health economists and academics with direct experience in QI development and/or implementation. Approximately 10–16 participants will take part in a subsequent focus group (step 3). The focus group sample size has been calculated in recognition of sampling attrition rates (20%).45 46 Focus group samples of this size have been stated as optimising participation and enabling strong group dynamics.46 47 The cohort will include a mix of gender, professional seniority, location (urban, rural and remote work locations) and work settings.

    Patient and public involvement

    Patients or the public were not involved in the initial study design. Participants will be involved in the dissemination of and development of the intervention.

    Data collection

    Scoping review (step 1)

    A scoping review will be carried out to map the research that exists around QIs in skin cancer management in primary healthcare, and identify the types of available evidence while clarifying key concepts and definitions being used. We will be interested in research relating to structure, process or outcome measures of quality, according to the Donabedian model.21 These measures may be existing or newly implemented (and not yet standardised or termed ‘quality indicators’), for example, audit measures, patient satisfaction survey results, pathology reports, etc. We are purposefully keeping the scope of the review broad at this stage to understand the range and breadth of QIs reported in the literature.

    Following the development of an appropriate search strategy (developed in association with an information expert), relevant studies will be identified from the following databases: MEDLINE, PSYCinfo, Embase (through Ovid), Scopus, Cochrane Library and CINAHL Complete. Two researchers will independently screen the results of an initial search to determine, based on title and abstract, whether studies are eligible for inclusion. If there is any disagreement, a third researcher will be involved in the decision. This process will be mediated by reference to the inclusion and exclusion criteria (table 1). Following agreement, papers will be read in full by two researchers to determine if they should be included in the study. QIs (which may be described otherwise, that is, standards, guidance, parameters, etc) will be identified and catalogued (according to the Donabedian model21) in data extraction tables.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Scoping review inclusion and exclusion criteria

    Demographic questionnaire (step 2)

    A demographic questionnaire will be designed by the research team to clarify participants’ personal and work characteristics. Demographic questions will include details about: gender, country of residence, profession, time since qualification, qualification obtained, population served and years of experience working in the field of skin cancer. The demographic questionnaire will be sent to all participants prior to further data collection.

    Interviews and qualitative proforma surveys (step 2)

    Semistructured interviews will be conducted over the telephone or by video conference by the interviewer (BIL) who is a trained researcher with relevant qualitative research experience. All interviews will be audio recorded while any video files obtained during zoom calls will be immediately deleted leaving only audio files for analysis purposes. This will ensure confidentiality and de-identification of all data ongoing during data analysis. The researcher (BIL) will have no prior relationship with participants. She will make participants aware that she is a researcher and not a clinician, thus encouraging participants to define QIs and other technical terms where possible. The Participant Information and Consent Form (PICF) will ensure participants are made aware of the study aims and thus understand the researcher’s reasons for doing the research. The researcher (BIL) will take field notes throughout the interviews, recording details of participant responses, reactions, etc. Alternatively, participants may choose to complete a qualitative proforma survey (containing the same questions as the interview schedule contains)48 if more convenient. Participants will be asked if they would like to participate in step 3 (facilitated focus group) at the end of the PICF. The PICF will also advise participants of the time commitment required for participation: 45 min for interviews/qualitative proforma surveys and 90 min for the subsequent focus group (optional). A stratified random sample of interested participants will be invited to attend the focus groups (10–16 of the total cohort from step 2). The stratified sample has been chosen to ensure focus group participants represent a wide population mix.

    Semistructured interviews will provide insights about participants’ understanding of QIs suitable for use in primary care, and their potential to improve patient care and clinical practice. Semistructured interviews will allow for a rich understanding of healthcare contexts, participant opinion and experience.49 Interviewing individuals working in the field of skin cancer management and care is likely to provide invaluable insights into not only the effectiveness of introducing a new QI and quality assessment tool, but also the feasibility of so doing in primary care skin cancer management settings. Questions included in the interview schedule (also forming the qualitative proforma survey) will be developed through team discussion and with reference to the relevant literature, the study aims and study objectives and will include:

    • Characteristics of QIs (structure, process and outcome measures of quality reported by individuals to be of benefit to patients, clinicians and/or other allied healthcare professionals).

    • Care, processes and management of skin cancer.

    • Appropriateness, acceptability and effectiveness of QIs.

    • Factors that might support or impede implementation of QIs in primary care.

    The interview schedule will be piloted with two participants to test it for clarity and relevance. If there are no issues arising, pilot data will be incorporated into the full dataset and the schedule will be rolled out in the study proper.

    Facilitated focus group and scoring survey (adapted Nominal Group Technique) (step 3)

    Step 3 aims to provide context and rationale for the QIs identified and developed in the interviews and qualitative proforma surveys and to reach consensus among participants on key QIs for use in primary care contexts.50 Consensus methods such as the NGT are useful for removing outliers from data, resolving issues of misunderstanding and developing unity among participants in important discussions.46 Commonly, the NGT develops a consensus over four distinct phases: (1) the population considers the ideas and questions under review, (2) these considerations are then openly shared with the group involved in the consensus building activity, (3) ideas are discussed among the group, and finally, (4) a voting phase takes place, whereby individuals each score and rank ideas privately to ensure the perspectives of each individual have been fairly captured and addressed.50 Members of the research team have significant experience using this technique50–52 which will be adapted for use in the present study. Detailed steps of the adapted NGT are elucidated in figure 2, where consensus will be developed through a facilitated focus group accompanied by two scoring surveys. The focus group will be conducted by trained researchers and conducted and recorded online using video conferencing software.53

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Individual steps in the adapted Nominal Group Technique. GP, general practitioner.

    Data analysis (steps 1–3)

    Data from the scoping review will be synthesised to derive key QIs (which will be catalogued according to the Donabedian model21). Data from the demographic questionnaire will be reported using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data from interviews, the qualitative proforma surveys and the focus groups will be analysed using thematic analytical methods54 supported by NVivo software (released in March 2020).55 Following data collection, data will be collaboratively coded by members of the research team. Themes will be identified, reviewed and defined.54 Data from steps 1 and 2 will be presented in a summary form and used to facilitate the focus group discussion. The list of QIs developed during focus group discussion will be distributed to individual participants via REDCap56 software for private scoring and ranking, ensuring the rigour application of the NGT. The final list will be refined to produce a definitive list of 12 key QIs (10–12 indicators have been a proven optimal number around which consensus can be derived).51 52 57

    Ethics and dissemination

    Ethical considerations

    Ethics approval for this study has been obtained and research will only be conducted following signed consent from all participants. Approval was granted by the university’s Research Ethics Committee (HREC no. 520211051532420).

    Data storage and retention

    All electronic data will be stored on the main university’s secure server (only accessible by members of the research team). Any hard copies will be stored in a locked filing cabinet at the main university campus and identifying details of participants will be kept separate from the transcripts and surveys themselves.

    Dissemination

    Study outcomes will be widely disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, national and international conference presentations, educational events (teaching the methodological approach used in this study) and funding reports. Any verbatim quotations that are included in publications, presentations, educational events or reports will remain de-identified. A final executive summary will be prepared for all interested clinical and non-clinical parties.

    Significance and impact of the study

    While QIs have been implemented in various healthcare contexts, including oncology,26 a standardised set of QIs has yet to be developed in the context of primary care skin cancer management. This research is expected to result in:

    • The development of appropriate, acceptable and effective QIs in skin cancer management in primary care.

    • Increased understanding and knowledge of QIs in skin cancer management.

    Conducting a scoping review alongside interviews and qualitative proforma surveys will drive the development and delivery of a core set of QIs in skin cancer management nationally. Through further discussion, a unified set of QIs will be developed for those working in primary care nationwide. These QIs are expected to be appropriate, acceptable and effective from the perspective of primary healthcare professionals and GPs more widely. Planned future research includes development of a QI intervention that will be rolled out across Australia.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Samarasinghe V,
      2. Madan V
      . Nonmelanoma skin cancer. J Cutan Aesthet Surg 2012;5:3–10.doi:10.4103/0974-2077.94323pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22557848
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Didona D,
      2. Paolino G,
      3. Bottoni U, et al
      . Non melanoma skin cancer pathogenesis overview. Biomedicines 2018;6:6.doi:10.3390/biomedicines6010006pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29301290
      OpenUrlPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Australian Institute of Health Welfare (AIHW)
      . Skin cancer in Australia. Canberra: AIHW, 2016.
    4. ↵
      1. Apalla Z,
      2. Lallas A,
      3. Sotiriou E, et al
      . Epidemiological trends in skin cancer. Dermatol Pract Concept 2017;7:1–6.doi:10.5826/dpc.0702a01pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515985
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Ragaini BS,
      2. Blizzard L,
      3. Newman L, et al
      . Temporal trends in the incidence rates of keratinocyte carcinomas from 1978 to 2018 in Tasmania, Australia: a population-based study. Discov Oncol 2021;12:30.doi:10.1007/s12672-021-00426-5pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35201459
      OpenUrlPubMed
    6. ↵
      1. Sung H,
      2. Ferlay J,
      3. Siegel RL, et al
      . Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:209–49.doi:10.3322/caac.21660pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33538338
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Khazaei Z,
      2. Ghorat F,
      3. Jarrahi A
      . Global incidence and mortality of skin cancer by histological subtype and its relationship with the human development index (HDI); an ecology study in 2018. World Cancer Research Journal 2019;6.doi:10.32113/wcrj_20194_1265
    8. ↵
      1. Staples MP,
      2. Elwood M,
      3. Burton RC, et al
      . Non-Melanoma skin cancer in Australia: the 2002 national survey and trends since 1985. Med J Aust 2006;184:6–10.doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00086.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16398622
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      1. Health AIo, Welfare
      . Cancer data in Australia. Canberra: AIHW, 2021.
    10. ↵
      1. Health AIo, Welfare
      . Skin cancer in Australia. Canberra: AIHW, 2016.
    11. ↵
      1. Urban K,
      2. Mehrmal S,
      3. Uppal P, et al
      . The global burden of skin cancer: a longitudinal analysis from the global burden of disease study, 1990-2017. JAAD Int 2021;2:98–108.doi:10.1016/j.jdin.2020.10.013pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34409358
      OpenUrlPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Fransen M,
      2. Karahalios A,
      3. Sharma N, et al
      . Non-Melanoma skin cancer in Australia. Med J Aust 2012;197:565–8.doi:10.5694/mja12.10654pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23163687
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Elliott TM,
      2. Whiteman DC,
      3. Olsen CM, et al
      . Estimated Healthcare Costs of Melanoma in Australia Over 3 Years Post-Diagnosis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2017;15:805–16.doi:10.1007/s40258-017-0341-ypmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28756584
      OpenUrlPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Sneyd MJ,
      2. Cox B
      . A comparison of trends in melanoma mortality in New Zealand and Australia: the two countries with the highest melanoma incidence and mortality in the world. BMC Cancer 2013;13:372–72.doi:10.1186/1471-2407-13-372pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915380
      OpenUrlPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Youl PH,
      2. Baade PD,
      3. Janda M, et al
      . Diagnosing skin cancer in primary care: how do mainstream general practitioners compare with primary care skin cancer clinic doctors? Med J Aust 2007;187:215–20.doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01202.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708723
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    16. ↵
      1. Lacey K,
      2. Bishop JF,
      3. Cross HL, et al
      . Presentations to general practice before a cancer diagnosis in Victoria: a cross-sectional survey. Med J Aust 2016;205:66–71.doi:10.5694/mja15.01169pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27456447
      OpenUrlPubMed
    17. ↵
      1. Wilkinson D,
      2. Bourne P,
      3. Dixon A, et al
      . Skin cancer medicine in primary care: towards an agenda for quality health outcomes. Med J Aust 2006;184:11–12.doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00087.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16398623
      OpenUrlPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Smith AL,
      2. Watts CG,
      3. Robinson S, et al
      . Gps' involvement in diagnosing, treating, and referring patients with suspected or confirmed primary cutaneous melanoma: a qualitative study. BJGP Open 2020;4:bjgpopen20X101028.doi:10.3399/bjgpopen20X101028pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32295791
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    19. ↵
      1. Askew DA,
      2. Wilkinson D,
      3. Schluter PJ, et al
      . Skin cancer surgery in Australia 2001-2005: the changing role of the general practitioner. Med J Aust 2007;187:210–4.doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01201.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708722
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      1. Hansen C,
      2. Wilkinson D,
      3. Hansen M, et al
      . How good are skin cancer clinics at melanoma detection? number needed to treat variability across a national clinic group in Australia. J Am Acad Dermatol 2009;61:599–604.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2009.04.021pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19664848
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      1. Donabedian A
      . The quality of care. How can it be assessed? J Am Medical Assoc 1988;260:1743–8.doi:10.1001/jama.260.12.1743
      OpenUrl
    22. ↵
      1. Pasquali S,
      2. Sommariva A,
      3. Spillane AJ, et al
      . Measuring the quality of melanoma surgery - Highlighting issues with standardization and quality assurance of care in surgical oncology. Eur J Surg Oncol 2017;43:561–71.doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2016.06.397pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27422583
      OpenUrlPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. Huber CA,
      2. Scherer M,
      3. Rapold R, et al
      . Evidence-Based quality indicators for primary healthcare in association with the risk of hospitalisation: a population-based cohort study in Switzerland. BMJ Open 2020;10:e032700.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032700pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32332005
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    24. ↵
      1. Wright J,
      2. Dugdale B,
      3. Hammond I, et al
      . Learning from death: a hospital mortality reduction programme. J R Soc Med 2006;99:303–8.doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.6.303pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16738373
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Quentin WPV,
      2. Brownwood I, et al
      . Measuring healthcare quality. In: Busse R, Klazinga N, Panteli D, eds. Improving healthcare quality in Europe: characteristics, effectiveness and implementation of different strategies. Copenhagen (Denmark): European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549260/
    26. ↵
      1. Walpole ET,
      2. Theile DE,
      3. Philpot S, et al
      . Development and implementation of a cancer quality index in Queensland, Australia: a tool for monitoring cancer care. J Oncol Pract 2019;15:e636–43.doi:10.1200/JOP.18.00372pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31150310
      OpenUrlPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Byrnes P,
      2. Ackermann E,
      3. Williams ID, et al
      . Management of skin cancer in Australia--a comparison of general practice and skin cancer clinics. Aust Fam Physician 2007;36:1073–5.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18075640
      OpenUrlPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Cancer Council Australia Keratinocyte Cancers Guideline Working Party
      . Clinical practice guidelines for keratinocyte cancer. Sydney: cancer Council Australia. Available: https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australiawiki/index.php?oldid=213931 [Accessed 21 Sep 2021].
    29. ↵
      1. Gabbay J,
      2. le May A,
      3. Al M
      . Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed "mindlines?" Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ 2004;329:1013.doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7473.1013pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15514347
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    30. ↵
      1. Geneau R,
      2. Lehoux P,
      3. Pineault R, et al
      . Understanding the work of general practitioners: a social science perspective on the context of medical decision making in primary care. BMC Fam Pract 2008;9:12.doi:10.1186/1471-2296-9-12pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18284700
      OpenUrlPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Gagliardi AR,
      2. Brouwers MC,
      3. Palda VA, et al
      . How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability. Implement Sci 2011;6:26.doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-26pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21426574
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    32. ↵
      1. Cabana MD,
      2. Rand CS,
      3. Powe NR, et al
      . Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999;282:1458–65.doi:10.1001/jama.282.15.1458pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10535437
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    33. ↵
      1. Davis P,
      2. Gribben B,
      3. Lay-Yee R, et al
      . How much variation in clinical activity is there between general practitioners? A multi-level analysis of decision-making in primary care. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002;7:202–8.doi:10.1258/135581902320432723pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12425779
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. ↵
      1. Buchan HA,
      2. Duggan A,
      3. Hargreaves J, et al
      . Health care variation: time to act. Med J Aust 2016;205:S30–3.doi:10.5694/mja15.01360
      OpenUrl
    35. ↵
      1. Sutherland K,
      2. Levesque J-F
      . Unwarranted clinical variation in health care: definitions and proposal of an analytic framework. J Eval Clin Pract 2020;26:687–96.doi:10.1111/jep.13181pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31136047
      OpenUrlPubMed
    36. ↵
      1. Braspenning J,
      2. Hermens R,
      3. Calsbeek H
      . Quality and safety of care: the role of indicators. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2013: 115–36.
    37. ↵
      1. Rushforth B,
      2. Stokes T,
      3. Andrews E, et al
      . Developing 'high impact' guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process. BMC Fam Pract 2015;16:156.doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0350-6pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26507739
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    38. ↵
      1. Cancer Council Australia Melanoma Guidelines Working Party
      . Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of melanoma. Sydney: melanoma Institute Australia. Available: https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australiawiki/index.php?oldid=215123 [Accessed cited 2022 Mar 14].
    39. ↵
      1. Nothacker M,
      2. Stokes T,
      3. Shaw B, et al
      . Reporting standards for guideline-based performance measures. Implement Sci 2016;11:6.doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0369-zpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26772173
      OpenUrlPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Smith J,
      2. Lee MD,
      3. Ellis LA, et al
      . Developing a novel psychographic-behavioral qualitative mapping method for exergames. International Journal of Serious Games 2021;8:87–107.doi:10.17083/ijsg.v8i2.422
      OpenUrl
    41. ↵
      1. Vasileiou K,
      2. Barnett J,
      3. Thorpe S, et al
      . Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in Interview-Based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18:148–48.doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30463515
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    42. ↵
      1. Ryan GW,
      2. Bernard HR
      . Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods 2003;15:85–109.doi:10.1177/1525822X02239569
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    43. ↵
      1. Guest G,
      2. Bunce A,
      3. Johnson L
      . How many interviews are enough?: an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006;18:59–82.doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    44. ↵
      1. Noy C
      . Sampling knowledge: the hermeneutics of Snowball sampling in qualitative research. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2008;11:327–44.doi:10.1080/13645570701401305
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    45. ↵
      1. Hutchings HA,
      2. Rapport FL,
      3. Wright S, et al
      . Nominal group technique consultation of a pulmonary rehabilitation programme. F1000Res 2014;3:42doi:10.12688/f1000research.3-42.v2pmid:25075286
      OpenUrlPubMed
    46. ↵
      1. Bloor MFJ,
      2. Thomas M,
      3. Robson K
      . Focus groups in social research. London, 2001.
    47. ↵
      1. Krueger RA,
      2. Casey MA
      . Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research: Sage publications Inc. Thousand Oaks, 2000.
    48. ↵
      1. Bierbaum M,
      2. McMahon CM,
      3. Hughes S, et al
      . Barriers and facilitators to cochlear implant uptake in Australia and the United Kingdom. Ear Hear 2020;41:374–85.doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000762pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31356385
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    49. ↵
      1. DeJonckheere M,
      2. Vaughn LM
      . Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour. Fam Med Community Health 2019;7:e000057.doi:10.1136/fmch-2018-000057pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32148704
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    50. ↵
      1. Hayley H,
      2. Hutchings H,
      3. Rapport F
      . Obtaining consensus from mixed groups: an adapted nominal group work technique. Br J Med Med Res 2013;3:502.doi:10.9734/BJMMR/2013/2625
    51. ↵
      1. Hutchings H,
      2. Rapport F,
      3. Wright S
      . Nominal Group Technique consultation of a Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programme [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2014;3.doi:10.12688/f1000research.3-42.v2
    52. ↵
      1. Hutchings H,
      2. Rapport F,
      3. Wright S, et al
      . Obtaining consensus about patient-centred professionalism in community nursing: nominal group work activity with professionals and the public. J Adv Nurs 2012;68:2429–42.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05938.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22360157
      OpenUrlPubMed
    53. ↵
      1. Santhosh L,
      2. Rojas JC,
      3. Lyons PG
      . Zooming into focus groups: strategies for qualitative research in the era of social distancing. ATS Sch 2021;2:176–84.doi:10.34197/ats-scholar.2020-0127PSpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34409412
      OpenUrlPubMed
    54. ↵
      1. Braun V,
      2. Clarke V
      . Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101.doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    55. ↵
      QSR International Pty Ltd. (2020) NVivo. (released in March 2020).
    56. ↵
      1. Harris PA,
      2. Taylor R,
      3. Thielke R, et al
      . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:377–81.doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18929686
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    57. ↵
      1. Hutchings HA,
      2. Rapport FL,
      3. Wright S, et al
      . Obtaining consensus regarding patient-centred professionalism in community pharmacy: nominal group work activity with professionals, stakeholders and members of the public. Int J Pharm Pract 2010;18:149–58.doi:10.1211/ijpp.18.03.0004pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20509348
      OpenUrlPubMed

    Footnotes

    • Contributors FR led the overall conceptualisation of the study design and substantially contributed to the first manuscript draft and ethics approval procedures. BIL led the writing of the first manuscript draft and substantially contributed to ethics approval procedures. AS and AEC contributed to the study design, revising of the manuscript and ethics approval procedures. DW contributed to the study design with skin cancer management expertise and experience and contributed to the revising of the manuscript. JB contributed to the revising of the manuscript.

    • Funding This work was funded by the National Skin Cancer Centres (NSCC). This work is supported by the Australian Institute of Health and Innovation (AIHI) at Macquarie University and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre of Research Excellence in Melanoma (CRE grant number: 1135285). AEC is funded and supported by an NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1147843).

    • Competing interests DW is an employee at National Skin Cancer Centres (NSCC) and so will not be involved in data collection or analysis.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.