Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Dermatology

Date Submitted: May 18, 2021
Open Peer Review Period: May 18, 2021 - Jul 13, 2021
Date Accepted: Jul 6, 2021
Date Submitted to PubMed: Aug 26, 2023
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Teledermatology Consults in a County Hospital Setting: Retrospective Analysis

Funkhouser C, Funkhouser ME, Wolverton JE, Wolverton SE, Maurer T

Teledermatology Consults in a County Hospital Setting: Retrospective Analysis

JMIR Dermatol 2021;4(2):e30530

DOI: 10.2196/30530

PMID: 37632816

PMCID: 10334958

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Analysis of Teledermatology Consults in a County Hospital Setting

  • Colton Funkhouser; 
  • Martha E Funkhouser; 
  • Jay E Wolverton; 
  • Stephen E Wolverton; 
  • Toby Maurer

ABSTRACT

Background:

Teledermatology consults are increasingly used by primary care providers for diagnosis and triage of skin conditions. However, there are few studies that analyze which conditions are most commonly sent for teledermatology consultation and which of those are most often referred for an in-person visit.

Objective:

We aim to examine teledermatology consults sent from primary care providers at a county hospital to identify common diagnoses that prompted use of the teledermatology system and determine which diagnoses required an in-person visit after teledermatology evaluation.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis was conducted based on 450 teledermatology consults from primary care providers at a county health system. Chart review was performed to identify the diagnoses made by the teledermatologist for each consult and which diagnoses prompted an in-person visit after teledermatology evaluation.

Results:

Our analysis captured 471 diagnoses. Seborrheic keratosis was the most frequent diagnosis (10.2%) prompting teledermatology consultation. Some diagnoses, such as non-melanoma skin cancer, actinic keratosis, and alopecia areata required an in-person visit after each teledermatology consult. Others, such as atopic dermatitis and lentigo, did not require an in-person visit and were able to be managed by teledermatology each time. Overall, 39.9% of diagnoses seen via teledermatology were referred for an in-person visit.

Conclusions:

Teledermatology is valuable in managing many dermatologic conditions that present to primary care, while serving as an effective triage tool for more complex conditions or concern for malignancy. Conditions that required procedural management or involved the scalp also frequently required an in-person referral after TD evaluation. The lowest proportion of referrals for an in-person visit occurred in banal conditions without concern for malignancy.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Funkhouser C, Funkhouser ME, Wolverton JE, Wolverton SE, Maurer T

Teledermatology Consults in a County Hospital Setting: Retrospective Analysis

JMIR Dermatol 2021;4(2):e30530

DOI: 10.2196/30530

PMID: 37632816

PMCID: 10334958

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.