R Corbett

Multicentre randomised control trial comparing real time teledermatology with conventional outpatient dermatological care : societal cost-benefit analysis

Abstract Objectives: Comparison of real time teledermatology with outpatient dermatology in terms of clinical outcomes, cost-benefits, and patient reattendance Design: Randomised controlled trial with a minimum follow up of three months. Setting: Four health centres (two urban, two rural) and two regional hospitals Subjects: 204 general practice patients requiring referral to dermatology services; 102 were randomised to teledermatology consultation and 102 to traditional outpatient consultation. Main outcome measures: Reported clinical outcome of initial consultation, primary care and outpatient reattendance data, and cost-benefit analysis of both methods of delivering care. Results: No major differences were found in the reported clinical outcomes of teledermatology and conventional dermatology. Of patients randomised to teledermatology, 55 (54%) were managed within primary care and 47 (46%) required at least one hospital appointment. Of patients randomised to the conventional hospital outpatient consultation, 46 (45%) required at least one further hospital appointment, 15 (15%) required general practice review, and 40 (39%) no follow up visits. Clinical records showed that 42 (41%) patients seen by teledermatology attended subsequent hospital appointments compared with 41 (40%) patients seen conventionally. The net societal cost of the initial consultation was £132.10 per patient for teledermatology and £48.73 for conventional consultation. Sensitivity analysis revealed that if each health centre had allocated one morning session a week to teledermatology and the average round trip to hospital had been 78 km instead of 26 km, the costs of the two methods of care would have been equal. Conclusions: Real time teledermatology was clinically feasible but not cost effective compared with conventional dermatological outpatient care. However, if the equipment were purchased at current prices and the travelling distances greater, teledermatology would be a cost effective alternative to conventional care

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 (κ = 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.

Patient satisfaction with realtime teledermatology in Northern Ireland

Teledermatology consultations were organized between two health centres 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.

A comparison of real-time and store-and-forward teledermatology: a cost-benefit study

Background Increasing use of teledermatology should be based on demonstration of favourable accuracy and cost–benefit analysis for the different methods of use of this technique.

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.

A randomized controlled trial assessing the health economics of realtime teledermatology compared with conventional care: an urban versus rural perspective

A randomized controlled trial was carried out to measure the cost-effectiveness of realtime teledermatology compared with conventional outpatient dermatology care for patients from urban and rural areas. One urban and one rural health centre were linked to a regional hospital in Northern Ireland by ISDN at 128 kbit/s. Over two years, 274 patients required a hospital outpatient dermatology referral - 126 patients (46%) were randomized to a telemedicine consultation and 148 (54%) to a conventional hospital outpatient consultation. Of those seen by telemedicine, 61% were registered with an urban practice, compared with 71% of those seen conventionally. The clinical outcomes of the two types of consultation were similar - almost half the patients were managed after a single consultation with the dermatologist. The observed marginal cost per patient of the initial realtime teledermatology consultation was 52.85 for those in urban areas and 59.93 per patient for those from rural areas. The observed marginal cost of the initial conventional consultation was 47.13 for urban patients and 48.77 for rural patients. The total observed costs of teledermatology were higher than the costs of conventional care in both urban and rural areas, mainly because of the fixed equipment costs. Sensitivity analysis using a real-world scenario showed that in urban areas the average costs of the telemedicine and conventional consultations were about equal, while in rural areas the average cost of the telemedicine consultation was less than that of the conventional consultation.

A randomized controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness of both realtime and store-and-forward teledermatology compared with conventional care

The clinical effectiveness of realtime teledermatology, store-and-forward teledermatology and conventional outpatient dermatological care were evaluated in a randomized control trial. A total of 204 patients took part – 102 patients were randomized to the realtime teledermatology consultation, 96 of whose cases were also referred using a store-and-forward technique, and 102 to the conventional outpatient consultation. There were no differences in the reported clinical outcomes of realtime teledermatology and conventional dermatology. Of those randomized to the realtime teledermatology consultation, 46% required at least one subsequent hospital appointment compared with 45% of those randomized to the conventional outpatient consultation. In contrast, the dermatologist requested a subsequent hospital appointment for 69% of those seen by store-and-forward teledermatology. An analysis of costs showed that realtime teledermatology was clinically feasible but more expensive than conventional care, while the store-and-forward teledermatology consultation was less expensive but its clinical usefulness was limited. Sensitivity analysis indicated that realtime teledermatology was as economical as conventional care when less artificial assumptions were made about equipment utilization, costs and travel distances to hospital.

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.

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.

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.