Association of teledermatology workflows with standardising co-management of rashes by primary care physicians and dermatologists.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with a rash, the effect of teledermatology workflow on utilization has not been defined. We compared utilization across four teledermatology workflows in patients with a rash. METHODS: The observational longitudinal cohort study included 28,857 Kaiser Permanente Northern California members with a new rash diagnosis seen in primary care and with dermatology advice obtained using teledermatology. The workflows differed in camera and image quality; who took the picture; how the image was forwarded; and synchronicity and convenience. RESULTS: On average, 23% of patients had a follow-up office visit in dermatology within 90 days of their primary care visit. In multivariable analysis, the four technologies differed substantially in the likelihood of a follow-up dermatology office visit. In contrast, the likelihood was only negligibly related to medical centre or primary care provider. DISCUSSION: Technologies and workflows that offer the mobility of a smartphone with a high level of synchronicity in communication were associated with standardised co-management of rashes.

Comanagement of Rashes by Primary Care Providers and Dermatologists: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a high demand for managing skin disease, and dermatologists are in short supply. OBJECTIVES: To better understand how rashes and other specific skin conditions are co-managed by primary care providers (PCPs) and dermatologists, we estimated the frequency with which PCPs sought consultation with or referral to dermatology and the proportion of patients who had a follow-up dermatology office visit in the following 90 days. DESIGN AND SETTING: The retrospective longitudinal study included 106,459 patients with a skin condition diagnosed by 3,830 PCPs, from January 2017 to March 2017. METHODS: Comprehensive electronic medical record data with generalized linear mixed modeling accounted for patient factors including diagnosis and clustering by medical center and PCP. RESULTS: PCPs escalated 9% of patients to dermatology through consultation or referral, while 5% required a follow-up dermatology office visit within 90 days. Patients with bullous, hair, or pigment conditions or psoriasis were most likely to be escalated. Clustering of escalation and follow-up visits was minimal in relation to medical center (intraclass correlation, 0.04 for both outcomes) or PCP (escalation, intraclass correlation, 0.16; follow-up visits, 0.09). DISCUSSION: Improving primary care education in skin disease and, for certain skin conditions, standardizing approaches to workup, treatment, and escalation may further streamline care and reduce pressure on the dermatologist workforce. CONCLUSION: PCPs managed 91% of rashes without consultation or referral to dermatology, and the frequency of patients scheduled for dermatology office visits after primary care was similar from one PCP to another.

Comparative effectiveness study of face-to-face and teledermatology workflows for diagnosing skin cancer.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness and value of teledermatology and face-to-face workflows for diagnosing lesions are not adequately understood. OBJECTIVE: We compared the risks of biopsy and cancer diagnosis among 2 face-to-face workflows (direct referral and roving dermatologist) and 4 teledermatology workflows. METHODS: Retrospective study of 59,279 primary care patients presenting with a lesion from January through June 2017. RESULTS: One teledermatology workflow achieved high-resolution images with use of a dermatoscope-fitted digital camera, a picture archiving and communication system, and image retrieval to a large computer monitor (in contrast to a smartphone screen). Compared with direct referral, this workflow was associated with a 9% greater probability of cancer detection (95% confidence interval [CI], 2%-16%), a 4% lower probability of biopsy (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99), and 39% fewer face-to-face visits (relative risk, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.57-0.65). Other workflows were less effective. LIMITATIONS: Differing proficiencies across teledermatology workflows and selection of patients for direct referral could have caused bias. CONCLUSION: Implementation is critical to the effectiveness of teledermatology.