Pediatric dermatology eConsults: Reduced wait times and dermatology office visits.
eConsults
health care delivery
store-and-forward teledermatology
Journal
Pediatric dermatology
ISSN: 1525-1470
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Dermatol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8406799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Sep 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
17
6
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
17
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Store-and-forward teledermatology provides pediatricians with specialist guidance in managing skin disease. This study evaluates wait times and face-to-face (FTF) dermatology visit avoidance associated with a pediatric dermatology eConsult program at an urban academic medical center. In this retrospective cohort study, electronic medical records were reviewed for patients under age 18 for whom a dermatology eConsult was completed between November 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017. Wait times for eConsult completion and initial FTF dermatology appointments were calculated and compared to average wait times for new patient dermatology office appointments from 2016 to 2017. Recommendations for FTF dermatology visits were assessed, along with FTF visit attendance and potential cost savings. One hundred eighty pediatric patients with 188 unrelated skin conditions ("cases") were referred to the program. Of 188 cases, FTF dermatology visits were recommended for 60 (31.9%). Actual FTF dermatology visit avoidance was 53.7% of total cases (n = 101 for whom FTF visit was not recommended and no dermatology visit occurred within 90 days after eConsult submission). The program generated potential savings of $24 059 ($9840 out-of-pocket) in 2016 dollars. Average turnaround for eConsult completion was 1.8 calendar days (median: 1 calendar day, target: 2 business days). Average wait time to initial FTF dermatology evaluation was 37.3 calendar days (versus 54.1 days for pediatric patients referred directly to dermatology clinic between 2016 and 2017). Pediatric dermatology eConsults reduce wait times for specialist care, triage cases for in-office evaluation, reduce need for FTF dermatology visits, and offer potential cost savings for payers and patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Store-and-forward teledermatology provides pediatricians with specialist guidance in managing skin disease. This study evaluates wait times and face-to-face (FTF) dermatology visit avoidance associated with a pediatric dermatology eConsult program at an urban academic medical center.
METHODS
METHODS
In this retrospective cohort study, electronic medical records were reviewed for patients under age 18 for whom a dermatology eConsult was completed between November 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017. Wait times for eConsult completion and initial FTF dermatology appointments were calculated and compared to average wait times for new patient dermatology office appointments from 2016 to 2017. Recommendations for FTF dermatology visits were assessed, along with FTF visit attendance and potential cost savings.
RESULTS
RESULTS
One hundred eighty pediatric patients with 188 unrelated skin conditions ("cases") were referred to the program. Of 188 cases, FTF dermatology visits were recommended for 60 (31.9%). Actual FTF dermatology visit avoidance was 53.7% of total cases (n = 101 for whom FTF visit was not recommended and no dermatology visit occurred within 90 days after eConsult submission). The program generated potential savings of $24 059 ($9840 out-of-pocket) in 2016 dollars. Average turnaround for eConsult completion was 1.8 calendar days (median: 1 calendar day, target: 2 business days). Average wait time to initial FTF dermatology evaluation was 37.3 calendar days (versus 54.1 days for pediatric patients referred directly to dermatology clinic between 2016 and 2017).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Pediatric dermatology eConsults reduce wait times for specialist care, triage cases for in-office evaluation, reduce need for FTF dermatology visits, and offer potential cost savings for payers and patients.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
804-810Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Prindaville B, Antaya RJ, Siegfried EC. Pediatric dermatology: past, present, and future. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32(1):1-12.
Naka F, Makkar H, Lu J. Teledermatology: kids are not just little people. Clin Dermatol. 2017;35(6):594-600.
Kim GE, Afanasiev OK, O'Dell C, Sharp C, Ko JM. Implementation and evaluation of Stanford Health Care store-and-forward teledermatology consultation workflow built within an existing electronic health record system. J Telemed Telecare. 2020;26(3):125-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X18799805
Zakaria A, Maurer T, Su G, Amerson E. Impact of teledermatology on the accessibility and efficiency of dermatology care in an urban safety-net hospital: a pre-post analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81(6):1446-1452.
Philp JC, Frieden IJ, Cordoro KM. Pediatric teledermatology consultations: relationship between provided data and diagnosis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2013;30(5):561-567.
Chen TS, Goldyne ME, Mathes EF, Frieden IJ, Gilliam AE. Pediatric teledermatology: observations based on 429 consults. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62(1):61-66.
Paradela-De-La Morena S, Fernandez-Torres R, Martinez-Gomez W, Fonseca-Capdevila E. Teledermatology: diagnostic reliability in 383 children. Eur J Dermatol. 2015;25(6):563-569.
O'Connor DM, Jew OS, Perman MJ, Castelo-Soccio LA, Winston FK, McMahon PJ. Diagnostic accuracy of pediatric teledermatology using parent-submitted photographs: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153(12):1243-1248.
Heffner VA, Lyon VB, Brousseau DC, Holland KE, Yen K. Store-and-forward teledermatology versus in-person visits: a comparison in pediatric teledermatology clinic. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;60(6):956-961.
Third next available appointment. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Measures/ThirdNextAvailableAppointment.aspx. Published 2019. Accessed March 28, 2020.
Machlin SR, Mitchell EM.Expenses for office-based physician visits by specialty and insurance type, 2016. October 2018. Statistical Brief #517. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. https://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st517/stat517.shtml. Accessed March 28, 2020.
Prindaville B, Horii KA, Siegfried EC, Brandling-Bennett H. Pediatric dermatology workforce in the United States. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019;36(1):166-168.
Fogel AL, Teng JMC. Pediatric teledermatology: a survey of usage, perspectives, and practice. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32(3):363-368.
Batalla A, Suh-Oh HJ, Abalde T, Salgado-Boquete L, De La Torre C. Teledermatology in paediatrics: observations in daily clinical practice. An Pediatr(Barc). 2016;84(6):324-330.
Stephens MR, Murthy AS, McMahon PJ. Wait times, health care touchpoints, and nonattendance in an academic pediatric dermatology clinic. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019;36(6):893-897.
Yang X, Barbieri JS, Kovarik CL. Cost analysis of a store-and-forward teledermatology consult system in Philadelphia. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81(3):758-764.
AAFP summary of the 2019 final Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. American Academy of Family Physicians. https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/advocacy/payment/medicare/feesched/ES-2019FinalMPFS-110818.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2020.