Patient cost-benefit analysis of teledermatology measured in a randomized control trial.

A randomized controlled trial of the costs and benefits of teledermatology consultations compared with traditional hospital consultations was carried out. Over a nine-month period, 197 patients were referred from general practice for a dermatological opinion, 98 for a teledermatology consultation and 99 for a hospital consultation. Eighty patients required an additional subsequent hospital appointment. Patients were asked to complete an economic questionnaire after each consultation, and 164 questionnaires were returned: 62% of those randomized to the teledermatology consultation responded compared with 58% of those randomized to the hospital consultation. Patients seen by teledermatology at their own health centre had shorter distances to travel and spent less time overall attending the appointment compared with those seen at the hospital. However, the teledermatology consultations were more time-consuming for the general practitioner and dermatologist. These findings indicate that teledermatology has more benefits for the patient than for the health-care delivery team.

Comparison of teleconsultations and face-to-face consultations: preliminary results of a United Kingdom multicentre teledermatology study.

The objective of this multicentre study was to undertake a systematic comparison of face-to-face consultations and teleconsultations performed using low-cost videoconferencing equipment. One hundred and twenty-six patients were enrolled by their general practitioners across three sites. Each patient underwent a teleconsultation with a distant dermatologist followed by a traditional face-to-face consultation with a dermatologist. The main outcome measures were diagnostic concordance rates, management plans and patient and doctor satisfaction. One hundred and fifty-five diagnoses were identified by the face-to-face consultations from the sample of 126 patients. Identical diagnoses were recorded from both types of consultation in 59% of cases. Teledermatology consultations missed a secondary diagnosis in 6% of cases and were unable to make a useful diagnosis in 11% of cases. Wrong diagnoses were made by the teledermatologist in 4% of cases. Dermatologists were able to make a definitive diagnosis by face-to-face consultations in significantly more cases than by teleconsultations (P = 0.001). Where both types of consultation resulted in a single diagnosis there was a high level of agreement (kappa = 0.96, lower 95% confidence limit 0.91-1.00). Overall follow-up rates from both types of consultation were almost identical. Fifty per cent of patients seen could have been managed using a single videoconferenced teleconsultation without any requirement for further specialist intervention. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with the teleconsultations. General practitioners reported that 75% of the teleconsultations were of educational benefit. This study illustrates the potential of telemedicine to diagnose and manage dermatology cases referred from primary care. Once the problem of image quality has been addressed, further studies will be required to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a teledermatology service and the potential consequences for the provision of dermatological services in the U.K.

Diagnostic accuracy and clinical management by realtime teledermatology. Results from the Northern Ireland arms of the UK Multicentre Teledermatology Trial.

Diagnostic accuracy and management recommendations of realtime teledermatology consultations using low-cost telemedicine equipment were evaluated. Patients were seen by a dermatologist over a video-link and a diagnosis and treatment plan were recorded. This was followed by a face-to-face consultation on the same day to confirm the earlier diagnosis and management plan. A total of 351 patients with 427 diagnoses participated. Sixty-seven per cent of the diagnoses made over the video-link agreed with the face-to-face diagnosis. Clinical management plans were recorded for 214 patients with 252 diagnoses. For this cohort, 44% of the patients were seen by the same dermatologist at both consultations, while 56% were seen by a different dermatologist. In 64% of cases the same management plan was recommended at both consultations; a sub-optimum treatment plan was recommended in 8% of cases; and in 9% of cases the video-link management plans were judged to be inappropriate. In 20% of cases the dermatologist was unable to recommend a suitable management plan by video-link. There were significant differences in the ability to recommend an optimum management plan by video-link when a different dermatologist made the reference management plan. The results indicate that a high proportion of dermatological conditions can be successfully managed by realtime teledermatology.

Patient satisfaction with realtime teledermatology in Northern Ireland.

Teledermatology consultations were organized between two health centers and two hospitals in Northern Ireland using low-cost videoconferencing equipment. A prospective study of patient satisfaction was carried out. Following each teleconsultation, patients were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing their satisfaction with the service. Over 22 months, 334 patients were seen by a dermatologist over the video-link, and 292 patients (87%) completed the 16-item questionnaire. Patients reported universal satisfaction with the technical aspects of teledermatology. The quality of both the audio and the display was highly acceptable to patients. Personal experiences of the teledermatology consultation were also favourable: 85% felt comfortable using the video-link. The benefits of teledermatology were generally recognized: 88% of patients thought that a teleconsultation could save time. Patients found the teledermatology consultation to be as acceptable as the conventional dermatology consultation. These findings suggest overall patient satisfaction with realtime teledermatology.

Preliminary results from the Northern Ireland arms of the UK Multicentre Teledermatology Trial: is clinical management by realtime teledermatology possible?

Results from phase 1 of the UK Multicentre Teledermatology Trial demonstrated the diagnostic accuracy of realtime teledermatology using low-cost equipment. Phase 2 of the trial aimed to assess its effectiveness as a management tool for dermatological disease. Teledermatology consultations were organized between two health centres and two hospitals in Northern Ireland using low-cost videoconferencing equipment. For 205 patients seen by a dermatologist over the video-link a diagnosis and management plan were recorded. A subsequent face-to-face consultation was arranged on the same day to confirm the diagnosis and treatment regime. A comparison of these management plans revealed that the same plan was recommended in 64% of cases; the teledermatologist was unable to advocate a suitable management plan in 19% of cases; a suboptimal treatment plan was suggested by the teledermatologist in 6% of cases; and in 11% of cases, the teledermatologist suggested an inappropriate treatment plan. These findings indicate that appropriate clinical management was possible in approximately two-thirds of dermatology consultations via the video-link.

Preliminary results from the Northern Ireland arms of the UK Multicentre Teledermatology Trial: effect of camera performance on diagnostic accuracy.

The diagnostic accuracy of realtime teledermatology was measured using two different video cameras. One camera was a relatively low-cost, single-chip device (camera 1), while the other was a more expensive three-chip camera (camera 2). The diagnosis obtained via the videolink was compared with the diagnosis made in person. Sixty-five new patients referred to a dermatology clinic were examined using camera 1 followed by a standard face-to-face consultation. A further 65 patients were examined using camera 2 and the same procedure applied. Seventy-six per cent of conditions were correctly diagnosed by telemedicine using camera 2 compared with 59% using camera 1. A working differential diagnosis was obtained in 12% of cases using camera 2 compared with 17% using camera 1. The percentage of 'no diagnosis', wrong and missed diagnoses was halved using camera 2 compared with camera 1. These results suggest that the performance of camera 2 was superior to that of camera 1 for realtime teledermatology.

Effect of camera performance on diagnostic accuracy: preliminary results from the Northern Ireland arms of the UK Multicentre Teledermatology Trial.

The diagnostic accuracy of realtime teledermatology was measured using two different video cameras. One camera was a relatively low-cost, single-chip device (camera 1), while the other was a more expensive, three-chip camera (camera 2). The diagnosis obtained via the videolink was compared with the diagnosis made in person. Sixty-five new patients referred to a dermatology clinic were examined using camera 1 followed by a standard face-to-face consultation on the same day. A further 65 patients were examined using camera 2 and the same procedure implemented. Seventy-six per cent of conditions were correctly diagnosed by telemedicine using camera 2 compared with 62% using camera 1. A working differential diagnosis was obtained in 12% of cases using camera 2 compared with 14% using camera 1. The percentage of 'no diagnosis', wrong and missed diagnoses was halved using camera 2 compared with camera 1. These results suggest that the performance of the more expensive camera was superior for realtime teledermatology.