Caroline A Nelson1, Junko Takeshita1, Karolyn A Wanat2, Kent D W Bream3, John H Holmes4, Helen C Koenig5, Rudolf R Roth1, Anitha Vuppalapati6, William D James1, Carrie L Kovarik7. 1. Department of Dermatology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Dermatology, Carver College of Medicine at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 3. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Dr Bernett L. Johnson Jr Sayre Health Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Jonathan Lax Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Ambulatory Health Services, Philadelphia Department of Public Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. Department of Dermatology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: carrie.kovarik@uphs.upenn.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical value of teledermatology in the primary care setting remains relatively unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the impact of teledermatology on outpatient diagnosis, management, and access to dermatologic care in a resource-poor primary care setting. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of store-and-forward teledermatology consults submitted between January and November 2013 from 11 underserved clinics in Philadelphia to the University of Pennsylvania using mobile devices and the Internet. We assessed diagnostic and management concordance between primary care providers and dermatologists, time to consult completion, anticipated level of dermatology input in the absence of teledermatology, and number of consults managed with teledermatology alone. RESULTS: The study included 196 consults encompassing 206 dermatologic conditions. Diagnoses and management plans of primary care providers and dermatologists were fully concordant for 22% and 23% of conditions, respectively. The median time to consult completion was 14 (interquartile range 3-28) hours. At least 61% of consults would not otherwise have received dermatology input, and 77% of consults were managed with teledermatology alone. LIMITATIONS: Lack of a diagnostic gold standard, limited patient follow-up, and uncertain generalizability are limitations. CONCLUSION: Teledermatology is an innovative and impactful modality for delivering dermatologic care to outpatients in resource-poor primary care settings.
BACKGROUND: The clinical value of teledermatology in the primary care setting remains relatively unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the impact of teledermatology on outpatient diagnosis, management, and access to dermatologic care in a resource-poor primary care setting. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of store-and-forward teledermatology consults submitted between January and November 2013 from 11 underserved clinics in Philadelphia to the University of Pennsylvania using mobile devices and the Internet. We assessed diagnostic and management concordance between primary care providers and dermatologists, time to consult completion, anticipated level of dermatology input in the absence of teledermatology, and number of consults managed with teledermatology alone. RESULTS: The study included 196 consults encompassing 206 dermatologic conditions. Diagnoses and management plans of primary care providers and dermatologists were fully concordant for 22% and 23% of conditions, respectively. The median time to consult completion was 14 (interquartile range 3-28) hours. At least 61% of consults would not otherwise have received dermatology input, and 77% of consults were managed with teledermatology alone. LIMITATIONS: Lack of a diagnostic gold standard, limited patient follow-up, and uncertain generalizability are limitations. CONCLUSION: Teledermatology is an innovative and impactful modality for delivering dermatologic care to outpatients in resource-poor primary care settings.
Authors: Collin M Costello; Helen J L Cumsky; Connor J Maly; Jamison A Harvey; Matthew R Buras; Peter J Pallagi; Anna L Gustaveson; Davinder P Singh; Steven A Nelson; Mark R Pittelkow; Aaron R Mangold Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Zachary A Carter; Shauna Goldman; Kristen Anderson; Xiaxiao Li; Linda S Hynan; Benjamin F Chong; Arturo R Dominguez Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Sara A Berg; Howa Yeung; Joseph C English; Emily L Keimig; Ellen J Kim; Robert G Micheletti; Karolyn A Wanat; Marc A Judson; Robert P Baughman; Misha Rosenbach Journal: Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 0.670
Authors: Neha N Jariwala; Christopher K Snider; Shivan J Mehta; J Kyle Armstrong; Aaron Smith-McLallen; Junko Takeshita; Carrie L Kovarik; Jules B Lipoff Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Adam R Ford; Caitlin M Gibbons; Josefina Torres; Heather A Kornmehl; Sanminder Singh; Paulina M Young; Cindy J Chambers; Emanual Maverakis; Cory A Dunnick; April W Armstrong Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Jennifer L Pecina; Kirk D Wyatt; Nneka I Comfere; Matthew E Bernard; Frederick North Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 4.773