INTRODUCTION: Store-and-forward (SAF) teledermatology involves non-dermatologists sending clinical images to dermatologists. This improves patient care while reducing unwarranted face-to-face (FTF) specialist office visits. Comparisons between dermatologist diagnostic concordance with referring provider, treatment change recommendations, and FTF referrals have yet to be compared by type of provider and practice setting. METHODS: This retrospective chart review examined SAF teledermatology eConsults from four practice settings: Doctor of Medicine (MD)/Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) office visits, MD/DO walk-in clinics, nurse practitioner (NP)/physician assistant (PA) office visits and NP/PA walk-in clinics. The most recent 100 MD/DO office- and 100 NP/PA walk-in-referred patient charts were reviewed. There were only 71 NP/PA office and 47 MD/DO walk-in eConsults to review. RESULTS: Teledermatologists agreed with referring provider diagnoses 50% of the time for MD/DO office visits, 29.8% for MD/DO walk-in clinics, 33.8% for NP/PA office visits and 34% for NP/PA walk-in clinics. Diagnostic concordance was significantly higher for eConsults from MD/DO office visits than MD/DO walk-in clinics (p = 0.021), NP/PA office visits (p = 0.035) or NP/PA walk-in clinics (p = 0.022). There were significantly more treatment changes recommended after walk-in eConsults than office visits (67 versus 44%, p < 0.0001). FTF visits were recommended more after office visits than walk-in clinics (46 versus 27%, p = 0.001). Overall, 21% (68/318) of patients ultimately attended FTF appointments. DISCUSSION: SAF teledermatology improves diagnosis, reducing barriers to specialty care. Overall, potential FTF visit reduction was 79%. Expanding eConsult programmes, particularly in walk-in settings, and for use by NP/PAs or early career internists, may render dermatological care more expeditiously and avoid unnecessary FTF visits.
INTRODUCTION: Store-and-forward (SAF) teledermatology involves non-dermatologists sending clinical images to dermatologists. This improves patient care while reducing unwarranted face-to-face (FTF) specialist office visits. Comparisons between dermatologist diagnostic concordance with referring provider, treatment change recommendations, and FTF referrals have yet to be compared by type of provider and practice setting. METHODS: This retrospective chart review examined SAF teledermatology eConsults from four practice settings: Doctor of Medicine (MD)/Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) office visits, MD/DO walk-in clinics, nurse practitioner (NP)/physician assistant (PA) office visits and NP/PA walk-in clinics. The most recent 100 MD/DO office- and 100 NP/PA walk-in-referred patient charts were reviewed. There were only 71 NP/PA office and 47 MD/DO walk-in eConsults to review. RESULTS: Teledermatologists agreed with referring provider diagnoses 50% of the time for MD/DO office visits, 29.8% for MD/DO walk-in clinics, 33.8% for NP/PA office visits and 34% for NP/PA walk-in clinics. Diagnostic concordance was significantly higher for eConsults from MD/DO office visits than MD/DO walk-in clinics (p = 0.021), NP/PA office visits (p = 0.035) or NP/PA walk-in clinics (p = 0.022). There were significantly more treatment changes recommended after walk-in eConsults than office visits (67 versus 44%, p < 0.0001). FTF visits were recommended more after office visits than walk-in clinics (46 versus 27%, p = 0.001). Overall, 21% (68/318) of patients ultimately attended FTF appointments. DISCUSSION: SAF teledermatology improves diagnosis, reducing barriers to specialty care. Overall, potential FTF visit reduction was 79%. Expanding eConsult programmes, particularly in walk-in settings, and for use by NP/PAs or early career internists, may render dermatological care more expeditiously and avoid unnecessary FTF visits.