The Teledermatology Experience: Cost Savings and Image Quality Control.

Introduction: Teledermatology adoption continues to increase, in part, spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study analyzes the utility and cost savings of a store-and-forward teledermatology consultative system within the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Methods: Retrospective cohort of 4,493 patients across 14 remote sites in Tennessee and Kentucky from May 2017 through August 2019. The study measured the agreement between the teledermatology diagnoses and follow-up face-to-face clinic evaluations as well as the cost effectiveness of the teledermatology program over the study period. Results: Fifty-four percent of patients were recommended for face-to-face appointment for biopsy or further evaluation. Most patients, 80.5% received their face-to-face care by a VA dermatologist. There was a high level of concordance between teledermatologist and clinic dermatologist for pre-malignant and malignant cutaneous conditions. Veterans were seen faster at a VA clinic compared with a community dermatology site. Image quality improved as photographers incorporated teledermatologist feedback. From a cost perspective, teledermatology saved the VA system $1,076,000 in community care costs. Discussion: Teledermatology is a useful diagnostic tool within the VA system providing Veteran care at a cost savings.

In utero development of epidermolysis bullosa acquisita.

We report the case of an infant born with perioral vesicles that rapidly spread to involve his mouth and the majority of his body. Histopathology, immunofluorescence, and enzyme-linked immunohistochemistry assays confirmed a diagnosis of epidermolysis bullosa acquisita (EBA). His mother had no history of EBA, and serum indirect immunofluorescence was negative. The patient improved rapidly with local wound care and oral dapsone.

Factors Associated with the Use of Helicopter Inter-facility Transport of Trauma Patients to Tertiary Trauma Centers within an Organized Rural Trauma System.

OBJECTIVE: A review of the literature yielded little information regarding factors associated with the decision to use ground (GEMS) or helicopter (HEMS) emergency medical services for trauma patients transferred inter-facility. Furthermore, studies evaluating the impact of inter-facility transport mode on mortality have reported mixed findings. Since HEMS transport is generally reserved for more severely injured patients, this introduces indication bias, which may explain the mixed findings. Our objective was to identify factors at referring non-tertiary trauma centers (NTC) influencing transport mode decision. METHODS: This was a case-control study of trauma patients transferred from a Level III or IV NTC to a tertiary trauma center (TTC) within 24-hours reported to the Oklahoma State Trauma Registry between 2005 and 2012. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine clinical and non-clinical factors associated with the decision to use HEMS. RESULTS: A total of 7380 patients met the study eligibility. Of these, 2803(38%) were transported inter-facility by HEMS. Penetrating injury, prehospital EMS transport, severe torso injury, hypovolemic shock, and TBI were significant predictors (p<0.05) of HEMS use regardless of distance to a TTC. Association between HEMS use and male gender, Level IV NTC, and local ground EMS resources varied by distance from the TTC. Many HEMS transported patients had minor injuries and normal vital signs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that while distance remains the most influential factor associated with HEMS use, significant differences exist in clinical and non-clinical factors between patients transported by HEMS versus GEMS. To ensure comparability of study groups, studies evaluating outcome differences between HEMS and GEMS should take factors determining transport mode into account. The findings will be used to develop propensity scores to balance baseline risk between GEMS and HEMS patients for use in subsequent studies of outcomes.

A case of generalized red sweating.

We report a case of a 70-year-old man with a 5-year history of red pigmented sweating on the axillae, groin, forearms, trunk, and and peri-nuchal sites. No identifiable cause of the pigmented sweat was identified. Biopsy revealed lipofuscin pigment leading to the diagnosis of idiopathic chromhidrosis. This case represents an unusual presentation of chromhidrosis that was not limited to the apocrine sweat gland distribution and ultimately revealed no identifiable cause. After failing multiple treatment options, the patient elected for a trial of treatment with 20% aluminum chloride solution.

Risk of adverse events due to high volumes of local anesthesia during Mohs micrographic surgery.

General guidelines for the maximum amounts of locally injected lidocaine exist; however, there is a paucity of data in the Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) literature. This study aimed to determine the safety and adverse effects seen in patients that receive larger amounts of locally injected lidocaine. A retrospective chart review of 563 patients from 1992 to 2016 who received over 30 mL of locally injected lidocaine was conducted. Patient records were reviewed within seven postoperative days for complications. The average amount of anesthesia received was 40 mL, and the average patient weight was 86.69 kg. 1.4% of patients had a complication on the day of surgery, and 4.4% of patients had a complication within 7 days of the surgery. The most common complications were excessive bleeding/hematoma formation and wound infection. Only two complications could be attributable to local anesthetics. Gender, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and smoking were not significant risk factors for the development of complications. MMS is a safe outpatient procedure for patients that require over 30 mL of locally injected anesthesia. The safety of high volumes of lidocaine extends to patients with risk factors such as heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and smoking.

Survival benefit of transfer to tertiary trauma centers for major trauma patients initially presenting to nontertiary trauma centers.

OBJECTIVES: Recent evidence suggests a measurable reduction in mortality for patients transferred from a nontertiary trauma center (Level III or IV) to a Level I trauma center, but not for those transferred to a Level II trauma center. Whether this can be generalized to a predominantly rural region with fewer tertiary trauma care resources is uncertain. This study sought to evaluate mortality differences for patients initially presenting to nontertiary trauma centers in a predominantly rural region depending on transfer status. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients initially presenting to 104 nontertiary trauma centers in Oklahoma and meeting the state's criteria for major trauma. Patients dying within 1 hour of emergency department (ED) arrival at the nontertiary trauma center were excluded. The exposure variable of interest was admission status, which was categorized as either transfer to a tertiary (Level I or II) trauma center within 24 hours or admission to a nontertiary trauma center. Propensity scores were used to minimize the selection bias inherent in the decision to admit or transfer a patient for higher-level care. Multiple logistic regression was used to generate three propensity score models: probability of transfer to either a Level I or II, Level I only, and Level II only. Propensity scores were then included as a covariate in multivariable Cox regression models assessing outcome differences between admitted and transferred patients. The outcome of interest was 30-day mortality, defined as death at either the nontertiary trauma center or the tertiary trauma center within 30 days of arrival at the initial Level III/IV center's ED. RESULTS: A total of 6,229 patients met study criteria, of whom 2,669 (43%) were transferred to tertiary trauma centers. Of those transferred, 1,422 patients (53%) were transferred to a Level I trauma center. Crude mortality was lower for patients transferred to tertiary trauma centers compared to those remaining at nontertiary trauma facilities (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48 to 0.72). After adjusting for the propensity to be transferred, Injury Severity Score (ISS), presence of severe head injury, and age, transfer to a tertiary trauma center was associated with a significantly lower 30-day mortality (HR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.50) compared to admission and treatment at a nontertiary trauma center. The observed survival benefit was similar for patients transferred to a Level I trauma center (HR = 0.36; 95% CI = 0.20 to 0.4) and those transferred to a Level II center (HR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a survival benefit among patients initially presenting to nontertiary trauma centers who are subsequently transferred to tertiary trauma centers compared to those remaining in nontertiary trauma centers, even after adjusting for variables affecting the likelihood of transfer. Although this survival benefit was larger for patients treated at a Level I trauma center, Level II trauma centers in a region with few tertiary trauma resources demonstrated a measurable benefit as well.