Krupinski Elizabeth A, Engstrom Mike, Barker Gail, Levine Norman, Weinstein Ronald S
Arizona Telemedicine Program, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85724, USA.
J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10(1):21-4. doi: 10.1258/135763304322764149.
We retrospectively reviewed the follow-up and outcomes of 50 store-and-forward teledermatology patients, and compared the findings with those from a control group of 50 patients who had been seen in person. Patient records were examined for a six-month period following the initial referral to a dermatologist. Variables examined included medical records from the referral, evidence of actions taken (e.g. biopsy), evidence of follow-up visits, and what (if any) clinical outcomes were noted. There were few differences between the teledermatology and in-person groups. The main difference was whether there was any report in the record that the referring clinician took some action based on the consultation with the specialist: there were more reports of action being taken in the teledermatology group than in the in-person group. Reports of outcomes were found in only 6% and 8% of the records of the teledermatology and in-person groups, respectively. The challenges of assessing outcomes in teledermatology for rural patients include patient loss to follow-up, lack of information in the patient records and low rates of patient return to the referring clinician for follow-up.
我们回顾性地研究了50例存储转发远程皮肤病学患者的随访情况和结果,并将结果与50例亲自就诊的对照组患者进行了比较。在首次转诊至皮肤科医生后的六个月内检查患者记录。检查的变量包括转诊的病历、采取行动的证据(如活检)、随访就诊的证据以及记录的临床结果(如有)。远程皮肤病学组和亲自就诊组之间差异不大。主要差异在于记录中是否有转诊临床医生根据与专科医生的会诊采取某种行动的报告:远程皮肤病学组采取行动的报告比亲自就诊组更多。在远程皮肤病学组和亲自就诊组的记录中,分别只有6%和8%的记录有结果报告。评估农村患者远程皮肤病学结果面临的挑战包括患者失访、患者记录中信息不足以及患者返回转诊临床医生处进行随访的比例较低。