No abstract

We investigated the diagnostic agreement between teledermatology based on images from a mobile phone camera and face-to-face (FTF) dermatology. Diagnostic agreement was assessed for two teledermatologists (TD) in comparison with FTF consultations in 58 subjects. In almost three-quarters of the cases (TD1: 71%; TD2: 76%), the telediagnosis was fully concordant with the FTF diagnosis. Furthermore, the diagnosed diseases were almost all in the same diagnostic category (TD1: 97%; TD2: 90%). If mobile teledermatology had been used for remote triage, TD1 could have treated 53% subjects remotely and 47% subjects would have had to consult a dermatologist FTF. TD2 could have treated 59% subjects remotely, whereas 41% subjects would have had to consult a dermatologist FTF. Forty-eight subjects responded to a questionnaire, of whom only 10 had any concerns regarding teledermatology. Thirty-one subjects stated that they would be willing to pay to use a similar service in future and suggested an amount ranging from euro5 to euro50 per consultation (mean euro22) (euro = pound0.7, US $1.4). These results are encouraging as patient acceptance and reimbursement represent potential obstacles to the implementation of telemedicine services.

No abstract

Second opinion teleconsulting may represent an additive value in the diagnosis of numerous challenging inflammatory and neoplastic skin diseases. It may be particularly useful as a best practice model for smaller departments in order to discuss and/or to confirm diagnoses and also for the management of patients with unusual difficult dermatoses.