The aim of this study was to assess the validity of store-and-forward teledermatology as a tool to support physicians in primary care and hospital emergency services and reduce the requirement for face-to-face appointments. Diagnostic validity and the approach chosen for patient management (face-to-face vs teledermatology) were compared according to patient origin and diagnostic group.
Material and methodsDigital images from 100 patients were assessed by 20 different dermatologists and the diagnoses offered were compared with those provided in face-to-face appointments (gold standard). The proposed management of the different groups of patients was also compared.
ResultsThe percentage complete agreement was 69.05% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.9%–71.0%). The aggregate agreement was 87.80% (95% CI, 86.1%–89.0%). When questioned about appropriate management of the patients, observers elected face-to-face consultation in 60% of patients (95% CI, 58%–61%) and teledermatology in 40% (95% CI, 38%–41%). Diagnostic validity was higher in patients from primary care (76.1% complete agreement and 91.8% aggregate agreement) than those from hospital emergency services (61.8% complete agreement, 83.4% aggregate agreement) (P<.001) and teledermatology was also chosen more often in patients from primary care compared with those from emergency services (42% vs 38%; P=.003). In terms of diagnostic group, higher validity was observed for patients with infectious diseases (73.3% complete agreement and 91.3% aggregate agreement) compared to those with inflammatory disease (70.8% complete agreement and 86.4% aggregate agreement) or tumors (63.0% complete agreement and 87.2% aggregate agreement) (P<.001). Teledermatology was also chosen more often in patients with infectious diseases (52%) than in those with inflammatory disease (40%) or tumors (28%) (P<.001).
ConclusionsStore-and-forward teledermatology has a high level of diagnostic validity, particularly in those cases referred from primary care and in infectious diseases. It can be considered useful for the diagnosis and management of patients at a distance and would reduce the requirement for face-to-face consultation by 40%.
Objetivo: evaluar la validez de la teledermatología diferida y su aplicación como herramienta de apoyo a Atención Primaria y servicios de Urgencias hospitalarias (consultas presenciales evitadas). Comparar validez y manejo del paciente (presencial vs teledermatología) según el origen del paciente y el grupo diagnóstico.
Material y métodosSe compararon los diagnósticos emitidos sobre 100 pacientes por 20 dermatólogos observadores con el emitido en la consulta presencial (patrón oro) y se comparó el manejo entre los grupos de pacientes.
ResultadosPorcentaje de acuerdo completo (AC): 69,05 (IC 95%: 66,9–71,0). Porcentaje de acuerdo agregado (AG): 87,80 (IC 95%: 86,1–89,0). Pacientes manejados de manera presencial: 60% (58–61). Pacientes manejados por teledermatología: 40% (38–41). Los pacientes provenientes de Atención Primaria y el grupo de patología infecciosa presentó mayor validez diagnóstica (76,1 AC y 91,8 AG; p<0,001 para Atención Primaria y 73,3 AC y 91,3 AG; p<0,001 para patología infecciosa) y fueron manejados vía teledermatológica (42%; p=0,003 para Atención Primaria y 52%; p<0,001 para patología infecciosa) en mayor medida que los provenientes de Urgencias (61,8 AC y 83,4 AG; 38% manejo teledermatológico) y aquellos con patología inflamatoria (70,8 AC y 86,4 AG; 40% manejo teledermatológico) o tumoral (63,0 AC y 87,2 AG; 28% manejo teledermatológico).
ConclusionesLa teledermatología diferida presenta una elevada validez diagnóstica, especialmente en casos remitidos de Atención Primaria y para patología infecciosa, y es útil en el manejo y diagnóstico a distancia de pacientes, ya que evitaría el 40% de las consultas presenciales.
