Original Article

Optimizing Dermatological Care Triage in a Safety-Net Hospital: Retrospective Analysis of Diagnoses and In-Person Referrals

Authors: Allen Shih, MD, MBA, Alexandria Riopelle, MD, Aaron Ordan, BS, Stephanie Sanchez, BS, Jag Bhawan, MD, Christina S. Lam, MD

Abstract

Objectives: Teledermatology is a cost-effective and efficient approach to delivering care and is particularly beneficial for patients with limited access to specialized services. Considering the rapid expansion of telehealth, it is crucial to focus on optimization. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the triaging of dermatologic care in an electronic consultation (e-consultation) service in a safety-net hospital.

Methods: This was a 2-year retrospective review of a dermatology asynchronous store-and-forward e-consultation service.

Results: A total of 1425 patients completed 1502 e-consultation. Of these e-consultations, 46% of the patients had Medicaid and 44% were Black or African American. The top three diagnoses were dermatitis unspecified, neoplasm of uncertain behavior, and acne/rosacea. Most (68%) were managed via e-consultation and did not require an in-person appointment. Children and adolescents were more likely to require an in-person appointment (74%) compared with adults (30%, P < 0.0001). Patients with a chief complaint of hair loss or skin lesion were more likely to require in-person evaluation (58% and 41%, respectively) compared with rash (24%) and acne (18%) (P < 0.0001). There was no difference found in recommendations for in-person evaluation based on race, non-English-language preference, or insurance status.

Conclusions: E-consultation services seem well suited for certain concerns, and underserved populations can be evaluated by teledermatology.
Posted in: Dermatology13

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Yim K, Florek A, Oh D, et al. Teledermatology in the United States: an update in a dynamic era. Telemed e-Health 2018;24:691–697.
 
2. Lee KJ, Finnane A, Soyer HP. Recent trends in teledermatology and teledermoscopy. Dermatol Pract Concept 2018;8:214–223.
 
3. Peart JM, Kovarik C. Direct-to-patient teledermatology practices. J Am Acad Dermatol 2015; 72:907–909.
 
4. Eedy DJ, Wootton R. Teledermatology: a review. Br J Dermatol 2001;144:696–707.
 
5. Eastman KL, Lutton MC, Raugi GJ, et al. A teledermatology care management protocol for tracking completion of teledermatology recommendations. J Telemed Telecare 2012;18:374–378.
 
6. FinnaneA,Curiel-LewandrowskiC,WimberleyG,etal.Proposedtechnicalguidelinesfor the acquisition of clinical images of skin-related conditions. JAMA Dermatol 2017;153:453–457.
 
7. Wanat KA, Newman S, Finney KM, et al. Teledermatology education: current use of teledermatology in US residency programs. JGradMedEduc2016;8:286–287.
 
8. Wang RH, Barbieri JS, Nguyen HP, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of teledermatology: where are we now, and what are the barriers to adoption? J Am Acad Dermatol 2020;83:299–307.
 
9. Glazer AM, Farberg AS, Winkelmann RR, et al. Analysis of trends in geographic distribution and density of US dermatologists. JAMA Dermatol 2017;153:322–325.
 
10. Feng H, Berk-Krauss J, Feng PW, et al. Comparison of dermatologist density between urban and rural counties in the United States. JAMA Dermatol 2018;154:1265–1271.
 
11. Resneck J Jr, Pletcher MJ, Lozano N. Medicare, Medicaid, and access to dermatologists: the effect of patient insurance on appointment access and wait times. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004; 50:85–92.
 
12. Uscher-Pines L, Malsberger R, Burgette L, et al. Effect of teledermatology on access to dermatology care among Medicaid enrollees. JAMA Dermatol 2016;152:905–912.
 
13. NelsonCA,TakeshitaJ, WanatKA,etal. Impact ofstore-and-forward (SAF) teledermatology on outpatient dermatologic care: a prospective study in an underserved urban primary care setting. J Am Acad Dermatol 2016;74:484–490.e1.
 
14. NakaF,LuJ,PortoA,etal.Impact ofdermatologyeconsults onaccesstocareandskincancer screening in underserved populations: a model for teledermatology services in community health centers. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018;78:293–302.
 
15. Dobry A, Begaj T, Mengistu K, et al. Implementation and impact of a store-and-forward teledermatology platform in an urban academic safety-net health care system. Telemed J E Health 2021;27:308–315.
 
16. Leavitt ER, Kessler S, Pun S, et al. Teledermatology as a tool to improve access to care for medically underserved populations: a retrospective descriptive study. J Am Acad Dermatol 2016;75:1259–1261.
 
17. American Academy of Dermatology. AAD teledermatology standards 2024. https://www.aad.org/member/practice/telederm/standards. Published January 30, 2024. Accessed July 18, 2024.
 
18. American Telemedicine Association. Photography guide for teledermatology. https://www.americantelemed.org/resources/photography-guide-for-teledermatology-poster/. Published 2014. Accessed July 18, 2024.
 
19. Armstrong AW, Chambers CJ, Maverakis E, et al. Effectiveness of online vs in-person care for adults with psoriasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2018;1:e183062.
 
20. Armstrong AW, Johnson MA, Lin S, et al. Patient-centered, direct-access online care for management of atopic dermatitis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol 2015;151: 154–160.
 
21. Gu L, Lipner SR. Review of telemedicine for management of acne patients. J Cutan Med Surg 2022;26:393–397.
 
22. Fogel AL, Lacktman NM, Kvedar JC. Skin cancer telemedicine medical malpractice risk. JAMADermatol 2021;157:870–871.
 
23. Fogel AL, Kvedar JC. Reported cases of medical malpractice in direct-to-consumer telemedicine. JAMA 2019;321:1309–1310.
 
24. Whited JD, Warshaw EM, Kapur K, et al. Clinical course outcomes for store and forward teledermatology versus conventional consultation: a randomized trial. J Telemed Telecare 2013;19:197–204.
 
25. Warshaw EM, Gravely AA, Nelson DB. Reliability of store and forward teledermatology for skin neoplasms. J Am Acad Dermatol 2015;72:426–435.
 
26. FauconC,GribiD,CourvoisierDS,etal.Performanceaccuracy,advantagesand limitations of a store-and-forward teledermatology platform developed for general practitioners: a retrospective study of 298 cases. Ann Dermatol Venereol 2022;149:245–250.
 
27. Bianchi M, Santos A, Cordioli E. Benefits of teledermatology for geriatric patients: population-based cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res 2020;22:e16700.
 
28. Altieri L, Hu J, Nguyen A, et al. Interobserver reliability of teledermatology across all Fitzpatrick skin types. J Telemed Telecare 2017;23:68–73.
 
29. Yang X, Barbieri JS, Kovarik CL. Cost analysis of a store-and-forward teledermatology consult system in Philadelphia. J Am Acad Dermatol 2019;81:758–764.