Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Keep up to date with all the top stories and latest evidence with our hub page, including official congress videos and expert takeaways.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Dermatology Reports
Published in: Current Dermatology Reports 2/2016

Open Access 01-06-2016 | Teledermatology (D Oh, Section Editor)

Two Decades of Teledermatology: Current Status and Integration in National Healthcare Systems

Authors: E. Tensen, J. P. van der Heijden, M. W. M. Jaspers, L. Witkamp

Published in: Current Dermatology Reports | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Teledermatology, originating in 1995, has been one of the first telemedicine services to see the light of day. Two decades of teledermatology research is summarized in this review. A literature search was conducted in PubMed. Search terms included “teledermatology,” “teledermoscopy,” “tele wound care,” “telederm*,” “(dermatology OR dermoscopy OR wound care OR skin) AND (telemedicine OR ehealth or mhealth OR telecare OR teledermatology OR teledermoscopy).” Inclusion criteria were (i) Dutch or English written papers and (ii) publication year from 2011 to present or (iii) (systematic) reviews with publication year before 2011. One hundred fourteen publications and 14 (systematic) reviews were included for full text reading. Focus of this review is on the following outcomes: (i) actors (primary, secondary, tertiary), (ii) purposes (consultation, triage, follow-up, education) and subspecialties (tele-wound care, burn care, teledermoscopy (teledermatoscopy), teledermatopathology, and mobile teledermatology), (iii) delivery modalities and technologies (store and forward, real-time interactive, and hybrid modalities using web-based systems, email, mobile phones, tablets, or videoconferencing equipment), (iv) business models, (v) integration of teledermatology into national healthcare systems, (vi) preconditions and requirements for implementation (security, ethical issues, responsibility, reimbursement, user satisfaction, technique, and technology standards), and (vii) added value.
To conclude, teledermatology is an efficient and effective healthcare service compared to in-person care. Teledermatology reduces patients’ travel time and waiting time, avoids (unnecessary) dermatologic visits, and improves access of care to underserved patients.
Literature
1.
World Health Organization. A health telematics policy in support of WHO’s Health-For-All strategy for global health development: report of the WHO group consultation on health telematics. 11–16 December, Geneva, 1997, World Health Organization, 1998.
2.
Gonçalves L, Cunha C. Telemedicine project in the Azores Islands. Arch Anat Cytol Pathol. 1995;43(4):285–7.PubMed
3.
Crichton C, Macdonald S, Potts S, Syme A, Toms J, McKinlay J, et al. Teledermatology in Scotland. J Telemed Telecare. 1995;1(3):185.PubMed
4.
5.
Menn ER, Kvedar JC. Teledermatology in a changing health care environment. Telemed J. 1995;1(4):303–8.PubMed
6.•
Bashshur RL, Shannon GW, Tejasvi T, Kvedar JC, Gates M. The empirical foundations of teledermatology: a review of the research evidence. Telemed J E Health. 2015;21(12):953–79. Recent review article which gives a comprehensive explanation of (the epidemiology of) skin disorders and summarizes the scientific evidence of teledermatology.CrossRefPubMed
7.•
Whited JD. Teledermatology. Med Clin North Am. 2015;99(6):1365–79. Article summarizes literature evidence about diagnostic reliability—and accuracy rates and patient—and referring clinician satisfaction.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Eedy DJ, Wootton R. Teledermatology: a review. British Journal of Dermatology. 2001;144(4):696–707.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Wurm EM, Hofmann-Wellenhof R, Wurm R, Soyer HP. Telemedicine and teledermatology: past, present and future. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2008;6(2):106–12.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Hwang JS, Lappan CM, Sperling LC, Meyerle JH. Utilization of telemedicine in the U.S. military in a deployed setting. Mil Med. 2014;179(11):1347–53.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.•
Coates SJ, Kvedar J, Granstein RD. Teledermatology: from historical perspective to emerging techniques of the modern era: part I: history, rationale, and current practice. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72(4):563–74. quiz 75–76. Article summarizes history, rationale, and current practice of teledermatology.
13.
van der Heijden JP, Spuls PI, Voorbraak FP, De Keizer NF, Witkamp L, Bos JD. Tertiary teledermatology: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16(1):56–62.CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
Litzinger G, Rossman T, Demuth B, Roberts J. In-home wound care management utilizing information technology. Home Healthc Nurse. 2007;25(2):119–30.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Clegg A, Brown T, Engels D, Griffin P, Simonds D. Telemedicine in a rural community hospital for remote wound care consultations. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2011;38(3):301–4.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Coates SJ, Kvedar J, Granstein RD. Teledermatology: from historical perspective to emerging techniques of the modern era: part II: emerging technologies in teledermatology, limitations and future directions. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72(4):577–86. quiz 87–8. The focus of this article is on technologies used in teledermatology and it discusses clinical, economic, technological, legal, and ethical considerations.
19.
Wallace DL, Hussain A, Khan N, Wilson YT. A systematic review of the evidence for telemedicine in burn care: with a UK perspective. Burns. 2012;38(4):465–80.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Armstrong AW, Wu J, Kovarik CL, Goldyne ME, Oh DH, McKoy KC, et al. State of teledermatology programs in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67(5):939–44.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Landow SM, Oh DH, Weinstock MA. Teledermatology within the Veterans Health Administration, 2002–2014. Telemed J E Health. 2015;21(10):769–73.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Romero G, Garrido JA, García-Arpa M. Telemedicine and teledermatology (I): concepts and applications. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2008;99:506–22.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
25.
26.
Foley. 2014 Telemedicine survey, executive summary November 2014.
27.
Prins M, Hek K, Verberne L, Nielen M, Opperhuizen G, Verheij R. Rapport: Zorg door de huisarts, jaarcijfers 2014 en trendcijfers 2010–2014 (Report: care by the General Practitioner), Netherlands institute for health services research (NIVEL). 2015.
28.
29.
Ogbechie OA, Nambudiri VE, Vleugels RA. Teledermatology perception differences between urban primary care physicians and dermatologists. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151(3):339–40.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Armstrong AW, Kwong MW, Chase EP, Ledo L, Nesbitt TS, Shewry SL. Why some dermatologists do not practice store-and-forward teledermatology. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148(5):649–50.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Chanussot-Deprez C, Contreras-Ruiz J. Telemedicine in wound care: a review. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2013;26(2):78–82.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Moreno-Ramirez D, Ferrándiz L. A 10-year history of teledermatology for skin cancer management. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151(12):1289–90.CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
35.
36.
Orruño E, Gagnon MP, Asua J, Ben AA. Evaluation of teledermatology adoption by health-care professionals using a modified technology acceptance model. J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(6):303–7.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13(3):319–40.CrossRef
38.
Edison KE, Dyer JA, Whited JD, Mutrux R. Practice gaps. The barriers and the promise of teledermatology. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148(5):650–1.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Quigley EA, Tokay BA, Jewell ST, Marchetti MA, Halpern AC. Technology and technique standards for camera-acquired digital dermatologic images: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151(8):883–90.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Bittorf A, Fartasch M, Schuler G, Diepgen TL. Resolution requirements for digital images in dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1997;37(2 Pt 1):195–8.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Krupinski E, Burdick A, Pak H, Bocachica J, Earles L, Edison K, et al. American Telemedicine Association’s Practice Guidelines for teledermatology. Telemed J E Health. 2008;14(3):289–302.CrossRefPubMed
42.
43.
Wootton R, Bahaadinbeigy K, Hailey D. Estimating travel reduction associated with the use of telemedicine by patients and healthcare professionals: proposal for quantitative synthesis in a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:185.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Eminović N, de Keizer NF, Wyatt JC, ter Riet G, Peek N, van Weert HC, et al. Teledermatologic consultation and reduction in referrals to dermatologists: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(5):558–64.PubMed
45.
van der Heijden JP, de Keizer NF, Bos JD, Spuls PI, Witkamp L. Teledermatology applied following patient selection by general practitioners in daily practice improves efficiency and quality of care at lower cost. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165(5):1058–65.CrossRefPubMed
46.
von Wangenheim A, de Souza Nobre LF, Tognoli H, Nassar SM, Ho K. User satisfaction with asynchronous telemedicine: a study of users of Santa Catarina’s system of telemedicine and telehealth. Telemed J E Health. 2012;18(5):339–46.CrossRef
47.
Landow SM, Mateus A, Korgavkar K, Nightingale D, Weinstock MA. Teledermatology: key factors associated with reducing face-to-face dermatology visits. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71(3):570–6.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2010;79(11):736–71.CrossRefPubMed
49.
50.
Whited JD. Quality of life: a research gap in teledermatology. Int J Dermatol. 2015;54(10):1124–8.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Nami N, Massone C, Rubegni P, Cevenini G, Fimiani M, Hofmann-Wellenhof R. Concordance and time estimation of store-and-forward mobile teledermatology compared to classical face-to-face consultation. Acta Derm Venereol. 2015;95(1):35–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Two Decades of Teledermatology: Current Status and Integration in National Healthcare Systems
Authors
E. Tensen
J. P. van der Heijden
M. W. M. Jaspers
L. Witkamp
Publication date
01-06-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Dermatology Reports / Issue 2/2016
Electronic ISSN: 2162-4933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13671-016-0136-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Current Dermatology Reports 2/2016 Go to the issue

Teledermatology (D Oh, Section Editor)

Mobile Device Use in Dermatologic Patient Care

Teledermatology (D Oh, Section Editor)

Diagnosis and Management of Pigmented Skin Lesions Using Teledermatology

Teledermatology (D Oh, Section Editor)

Inpatient and Tertiary Consultations in Teledermatology

Laser Therapy (J Jagdeo, Section Editor)

Optimization of Laser Tattoo Removal: Optical Clearing Agents and Multiple Same-Day Treatments via the R0 and R20 Methods

Laser Therapy (J Jagdeo, Section Editor)

Whole-Body Rejuvenation Utilizing Energy-Based Modalities

Hospital-based Dermatology (D Kroshinsky, Section Editor)

Approach and Management of Autoimmune Blistering Diseases