A comparison of real‐time and store‐and‐forward teledermatology: a cost–benefit study

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of teledermatology should be based on demonstration of favourable accuracy and cost-benefit analysis for the different methods of use of this technique. Objectives To evaluate the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of real-time and store-and-forward teledermatology. METHODS: Patients attended their own health centre and in the company of a general practitioner (GP) were seen by a hospital dermatologist over the videolink (real-time). Before the videolink consultation commenced, the GP took instant photographs of the skin lesion and posted them along with a standard referral letter to a different hospital dermatologist (store-and-forward). In total, 96 patients were seen by both real-time and store-and-forward teledermatology. Comparative diagnoses, clinical management plans, clinical outcomes and associated costs were made between the two types of teledermatology consultation. RESULTS: There was agreement between the videolink diagnosis and the still image diagnosis in 51% of cases. The same or similar management plan was recommended at both types of consultation in 44% of cases. Following the store-and-forward consultation the dermatologist recommended that 69% of patients required at least one hospital appointment compared with 45% of those patients seen in real-time. The net societal cost of the initial real-time consultation was pound132.10 per patient compared with £26.90 per patient for the initial store-and-forward consultation. CONCLUSIONS: The store-and-forward consultation was cheaper, but less clinically efficient, compared with the real-time consultation. The absence of interaction in a store-and-forward consultation limits the dermatologist's ability to obtain clinically useful information in order to diagnose and manage a patient satisfactorily.