Content and style comparison of physician communication in teledermatology and in-person visits.

BACKGROUND: The body of research is rapidly growing regarding the use of telemedicine in patient care, including cost-effectiveness, patient access, patient outcomes, etc. Less has been done describing physician communication during different aspects of the clinical visit (i.e., education, assessment, treatment, etc.) during actual versus virtual patient visits. The purpose of this study was to evaluate dermatology healthcare providers' communication via both modalities with regard to content and style. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In-person and teledermatology patient visits were observed, audio-recorded, and transcribed over an 8-month period. A content analysis was performed. RESULTS: The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the content differences between visit modalities for each category. A p value of 0.05 was considered as significant for all tests. There were no statistically significant differences between modalities in the average number of physician words in seven of eight communication categories: small talk, clinical assessment, psychosocial issues, patient education, patient compliance, patient treatment, and administrative issues (p value range, 0.16-0.91). As well, the same communication themes occurred in each modality to essentially the same degree. For instance, assessment and discussion of treatment occurred in 100% of in-person and teledermatology visits, as did small talk. CONCLUSIONS: This research indicates that physician providers communicate with similar style and content whether using teledermatology or in-person.

Users and nonusers of university-based dermatology services following a teledermatology encounter: a retrospective descriptive analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to retrospectively describe hybrid technology teledermatology encounters performed by a statewide telehealth network. Consult outcomes were reviewed to describe the number of encounters that resulted in a visit to the university-based dermatology clinics and the features of those visits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Teledermatology encounters were reviewed to determine encounter volume and the proportion of encounters that resulted in a university-based dermatology clinic visit. Additional information collected included demographics, the reason for the visit, management recommendations, and clinical diagnoses. After identifying those consults that resulted in a dermatology clinic visit, we reviewed a random sample of teledermatology encounters that did not result in a university-based dermatology clinic visit for a descriptive comparison. RESULTS: A total of 1,536 teledermatology encounters were completed by the network between 2001 and 2007. Of the 1,307 encounters reviewed, 56 patients were seen in the university-based dermatology clinic after the teledermatology encounter. The need for a procedure or clinic-based intervention was a reason for the visit in 79% of these encounters. When reviewing management recommendations, 46% of the patients who required a university-based clinic visit needed a procedural intervention compared with 8% of the group that did not need a clinic visit. Medical recommendations predominated in the telemedicine-only group (71%) compared with the clinic-based visit group (36%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study describes the features, such as demographics and case-mix, of users and nonusers of university-based dermatology clinics after teledermatology encounters that may be important considerations for future evaluations of teledermatology consult systems.

Diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and management concordance in live-interactive and store-and-forward teledermatology compared to in-person examination.

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.