Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to D J Eedy.
This article represents a planned regular updating of the previous British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) guidelines for management of Bowen's disease. They have been prepared for dermatologists on behalf of the BAD. They present evidence-based guidance for treatment, with identification of the strength of evidence available at the time of preparation of the guidelines.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The conference highlighted the progress made in understanding recent biological, epidemiological and therapeutic advances in dermatology. Here we provide a synopsis of the main research and clinical findings presented at the meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) held during 5-8 July 2005, in Glasgow, U.K., drawing attention to the most important advances and summaries. The BAD meeting was held at the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre, Glasgow (Fig. 1). The annual dinner was held in the wonderful setting of Stirling Castle, with Dr Robin Graham-Brown as host.
This summarizes a meeting held in London at the Royal Society of Medicine, which was brought together by Prof. Fenella Wojnarowska, Professor of Dermatology at Churchill Hospital, Oxford and cofounder of Skin Care in Organ Recipients, UK (SCOR.UK).
Herein is a synopsis of the main research and clinical findings presented at the British Association of Dermatologists meeting held during 6-9 July 2004, in Belfast, U.K. The conference highlighted the progress that has been made in understanding the increasing biological, epidemiological and therapeutic advances that have been made recently in the field of dermatology. The authors highlight the more important advances or summaries, but this is not meant as a substitute for reading the conference proceedings and related references quoted in this article.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Teledermatology holds great potential for revolutionizing the delivery of dermatology services, providing equitable service to remote areas and allowing primary care physicians to refer patients to dermatology centres of excellence at a distance. However, before its routine application as a service tool, its reliability, accuracy and cost-effectiveness need to be verified by rigorous evaluation. Teledermatology can be applied in one of two ways: it may be conducted in real-time, utilizing videoconferencing equipment, or by store-and-forward methods, when transmitted digital images or photographs are submitted with a clinical history. While there is a considerable range of reported accuracy and reliability, evidence suggests that teledermatology will become increasingly utilized and incorporated into more conventional dermatology service delivery systems. Studies to date have generally found that real-time dermatology is likely to allow greater clinical information to be obtained from the patient. This may result in fewer patients requiring conventional consultations, but it is generally more time-consuming and costly to the health service provider. It is often favoured by the patient because of the instantaneous nature of the diagnosis and management regimen for the condition, and it has educational value to the primary care physician. Store-and-forward systems of teledermatology often give high levels of diagnostic accuracy, and are cheaper and more convenient for the health care provider, but lack the immediacy of patient contact with the dermatologist, and involve a delay in obtaining the diagnosis and advice on management. It is increasingly likely that teledermatology will prove to be a significant tool in the provision of dermatology services in the future. These services will probably be provided by store-and-forward digital image systems, with real-time videoconferencing being used for case conferences and education. However, much more research is needed into the outcomes and limitations of such a service and its effect on waiting lists, as well as possible cost benefits for patients, primary health care professionals and dermatology departments.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
A randomized controlled trial was carried out to measure the cost-effectiveness of realtime teledermatology compared with conventional outpatient dermatology care for patients from urban and rural areas. One urban and one rural health centre were linked to a regional hospital in Northern Ireland by ISDN at 128 kbit/s. Over two years, 274 patients required a hospital outpatient dermatology referral--126 patients (46%) were randomized to a telemedicine consultation and 148 (54%) to a conventional hospital outpatient consultation. Of those seen by telemedicine, 61% were registered with an urban practice, compared with 71% of those seen conventionally. The clinical outcomes of the two types of consultation were similar--almost half the patients were managed after a single consultation with the dermatologist. The observed marginal cost per patient of the initial realtime teledermatology consultation was 52.85 Pounds for those in urban areas and 59.93 Pounds per patient for those from rural areas. The observed marginal cost of the initial conventional consultation was 47.13 Pounds for urban patients and 48.77 Pounds for rural patients. The total observed costs of teledermatology were higher than the costs of conventional care in both urban and rural areas, mainly because of the fixed equipment costs. Sensitivity analysis using a real-world scenario showed that in urban areas the average costs of the telemedicine and conventional consultations were about equal, while in rural areas the average cost of the telemedicine consultation was less than that of the conventional consultation.
OBJECTIVES: Comparison of real time teledermatology with outpatient dermatology in terms of clinical outcomes, cost-benefits, and patient reattendance. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with a minimum follow up of three months. SETTING: Four health centres (two urban, two rural) and two regional hospitals. SUBJECTS: 204 general practice patients requiring referral to dermatology services; 102 were randomised to teledermatology consultation and 102 to traditional outpatient consultation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reported clinical outcome of initial consultation, primary care and outpatient reattendance data, and cost-benefit analysis of both methods of delivering care. RESULTS: No major differences were found in the reported clinical outcomes of teledermatology and conventional dermatology. Of patients randomised to teledermatology, 55 (54%) were managed within primary care and 47 (46%) required at least one hospital appointment. Of patients randomised to the conventional hospital outpatient consultation, 46 (45%) required at least one further hospital appointment, 15 (15%) required general practice review, and 40 (39%) no follow up visits. Clinical records showed that 42 (41%) patients seen by teledermatology attended subsequent hospital appointments compared with 41 (40%) patients seen conventionally. The net societal cost of the initial consultation was pound132.10 per patient for teledermatology and pound48.73 for conventional consultation. Sensitivity analysis revealed that if each health centre had allocated one morning session a week to teledermatology and the average round trip to hospital had been 78 km instead of 26 km, the costs of the two methods of care would have been equal. CONCLUSIONS: Real time teledermatology was clinically feasible but not cost effective compared with conventional dermatological outpatient care. However, if the equipment were purchased at current prices and the travelling distances greater, teledermatology would be a cost effective alternative to conventional care.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
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.
The clinical effectiveness of realtime teledermatology, store-and-forward teledermatology and conventional outpatient dermatological care were evaluated in a randomized control trial. A total of 204 patients took part--102 patients were randomized to the realtime teledermatology consultation, 96 of whose cases were also referred using a store-and-forward technique, and 102 to the conventional outpatient consultation. There were no differences in the reported clinical outcomes of realtime teledermatology and conventional dermatology. Of those randomized to the realtime teledermatology consultation, 46% required at least one subsequent hospital appointment compared with 45% of those randomized to the conventional outpatient consultation. In contrast, the dermatologist requested a subsequent hospital appointment for 69% of those seen by store-and-forward teledermatology. An analysis of costs showed that realtime teledermatology was clinically feasible but more expensive than conventional care, while the store-and-forward teledermatology consultation was less expensive but its clinical usefulness was limited. Sensitivity analysis indicated that realtime teledermatology was as economical as conventional care when less artificial assumptions were made about equipment utilization, costs and travel distances to hospital.