Process evaluation of a multicentre randomised clinical trial of substituting surgical excisions of low-risk basal cell carcinomas from secondary to primary care.

OBJECTIVES: In 2016, the SKINCATCH Trial, a clustered multi-centre randomised trial, was initiated to assess whether low-risk basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) can be treated by general practitioners (GPs) without loss of quality of care. The trial intervention consisted of a tailored 2-day educational course on skin cancer management. The aim of this process evaluation was to investigate GPs' exposure to the intervention, implementation of the intervention and experiences with the intervention and trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data on exposure to the intervention, implementation and experiences were obtained at several points during the trial. Complementary quantitative components (ie, surveys, database analysis, medical record analysis) and qualitative components (ie, interviews and focus groups) were used. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics; qualitative data were summarised (barrier interviews) or audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed using Atlas.Ti (focus groups). RESULTS: Following a 100% intervention exposure, results concerning the implementation of the trial showed that aside from the low inclusion rate of patients with low-risk BCCs (n=54), even less excisions of low-risk BCCs were performed (n=40). Although the intervention was experienced as highly positive, several barriers were mentioned regarding the trial including administrative challenges, lack of time and high workload of GPs, low volume of BCC patients and patients declining to participate or requesting a referral to a dermatologist. CONCLUSIONS: Although GPs' participation in the highly valued training was optimal, several barriers may have contributed to the low inclusion and excision rate of low-risk BCCs. While some of the issues were trial-related, other barriers such as low patient-volume and patients requesting referrals are applicable outside the trial setting as well. This may question the feasibility of substitution of surgical excisions of low-risks BCCs from secondary to primary care in the current Dutch setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial NL5631 (NTR5746).

Differences in Rate of Complete Excision of Basal Cell Carcinoma by Dermatologists, Plastic Surgeons and General Practitioners: A Large Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Due to the increasing incidence of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and rising health care costs, health care insurance companies seek ways to shift skin surgery for BCC from secondary to primary care. OBJECTIVES: To study the differences in complete excision of BCC by general practitioners (GPs), dermatologists, and plastic surgeons. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study of pathology records of 2,986 standard excisions of primary BCCs performed by a GP, dermatologist, or plastic surgeon in the area of Southwest Netherlands between 2008 and 2014. To compare the risk of an incomplete BCC excision between the specialties, the odds ratio (OR) was used adjusted for patient age, sex, tumor site, size, and histological subtype. RESULTS: BCCs were completely excised by GPs in 70%, which was lower than the 93% by dermatologists and 83% by plastic surgeons (p < 0.001). Compared to the dermatologist, BCCs which were excised by a GP were 6 times higher at risk of an incomplete excision (adjusted OR 6, 95% CI 5-8) and 2 times higher at risk when excised by a plastic surgeon (adjusted OR 2, 95% CI 2-3). CONCLUSION: BCCs were more often completely excised by dermatologists than by GPs and plastic surgeons. Dermatologists probably perform better because of their extensive training and high experience in BCC care. To minimize incomplete BCC excision, GPs should receive specific training before the shift of BCC care from secondary to primary care is justifiable.