Edison Karen E, Ward Dana S, Dyer Jonathan A, Lane Whitney, Chance Louanne, Hicks Lanis L
Department of Dermatology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65212, USA.
Telemed J E Health. 2008 Nov;14(9):889-95. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2008.0001.
Teledermatology studies have examined diagnostic concordance between live-interactive (LI) and in-person examinations (IP); and between store-and-forward (SF) and IP examinations. However, no studies have looked simultaneously across all three care delivery modalities, and few have measured management concordance and diagnostic confidence of the dermatologist. The purpose of this study was to compare LI and SF modalities with IP with respect to diagnostic and management concordance and to compare physician diagnostic confidence across the three modalities. Four dermatologists, in random rotation among all three care modalities, examined 110 new patients. Confidence was rated on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (5 = total confidence; 1 = no confidence). Identical diagnoses were given to the patient by examiners from all three examination modalities in 70/110 patients (64%). More identical diagnoses were given for IP and LI examinations than for IP and SF examinations (80% vs. 73%); however, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.13). The highest self-reported confidence rating was given for 87% of IP examinations, 59% for LI, and 54% for SF. Diagnostic confidence ratings for SF and LI were not significantly different from each other (p = 0.50); however, diagnostic confidence ratings for LI and SF were both statistically lower than IP (p < 0.0001). Dermatologists were more confident with IP examination than either form of teledermatology. The percent of diagnostic and management agreement among IP, LI, and SF modalities was high.
远程皮肤病学研究已经考察了实时互动(LI)检查与面对面检查(IP)之间,以及存储转发(SF)检查与IP检查之间的诊断一致性。然而,尚无研究同时对所有三种医疗服务模式进行全面考察,而且很少有研究衡量皮肤科医生的管理一致性和诊断信心。本研究的目的是比较LI和SF模式与IP模式在诊断和管理一致性方面的差异,并比较三种模式下医生的诊断信心。四位皮肤科医生在所有三种医疗模式中随机轮流,检查了110名新患者。信心按照李克特量表从1到5进行评分(5 = 完全有信心;1 = 没有信心)。在110名患者中,有70名(64%)患者在所有三种检查模式下的检查者都给出了相同的诊断。IP和LI检查给出相同诊断的比例高于IP和SF检查(80%对73%);然而,差异无统计学意义(p = 0.13)。在所有检查中,87%的IP检查自我报告信心评分最高;LI检查为59%,SF检查为54%。SF和LI的诊断信心评分彼此之间无显著差异(p = 0.50);然而,LI和SF的诊断信心评分在统计学上均低于IP(p < 0.0001)。皮肤科医生对IP检查的信心高于任何一种远程皮肤病学检查形式。IP、LI和SF模式之间的诊断和管理一致性百分比很高。