RESUMEN
We assessed the clinical course of patients after store and forward teledermatology in comparison with conventional consultations. Patients being referred from primary care to dermatology clinics were randomly assigned to teledermatology or a conventional consultation. A total of 392 patients were randomized; 261 patients completed the study and were included in the analysis. Their clinical course was rated on a five-point scale by a panel of three dermatologists, blinded to study assignment, who reviewed serial digital image sets. The clinical course was assessed by comparing images sets between baseline and first clinic visit (if one occurred) and between baseline and nine months. There was no evidence to suggest a difference between the two groups in either clinical course between baseline and nine months post-referral (P = 0.88) or between baseline and the first dermatology clinic visit (P = 0.65). Among teledermatology referrals, subsequent presentation for an in-person dermatology clinic visit was significantly correlated with clinical course (P = 0.023). Store and forward teledermatology did not result in a significant difference in clinical course at either of two post-referral time periods.
Asunto(s)
Fotograbar , Consulta Remota , Enfermedades de la Piel/terapia , Telemedicina , Humanos , Variaciones Dependientes del Observador , Atención Primaria de Salud , Derivación y Consulta , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Enfermedades de la Piel/patología , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Teledermatology studies have examined diagnostic concordance between live-interactive (LI) and in-person examinations (IP); and between store-and-forward (SF) and IP examinations. However, no studies have looked simultaneously across all three care delivery modalities, and few have measured management concordance and diagnostic confidence of the dermatologist. The purpose of this study was to compare LI and SF modalities with IP with respect to diagnostic and management concordance and to compare physician diagnostic confidence across the three modalities. Four dermatologists, in random rotation among all three care modalities, examined 110 new patients. Confidence was rated on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (5 = total confidence; 1 = no confidence). Identical diagnoses were given to the patient by examiners from all three examination modalities in 70/110 patients (64%). More identical diagnoses were given for IP and LI examinations than for IP and SF examinations (80% vs. 73%); however, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.13). The highest self-reported confidence rating was given for 87% of IP examinations, 59% for LI, and 54% for SF. Diagnostic confidence ratings for SF and LI were not significantly different from each other (p = 0.50); however, diagnostic confidence ratings for LI and SF were both statistically lower than IP (p < 0.0001). Dermatologists were more confident with IP examination than either form of teledermatology. The percent of diagnostic and management agreement among IP, LI, and SF modalities was high.