Cited by 42Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealthcare Systems and TechnologyDigital Imaging in Medicine

Teledermatology: A tool for remote supervision of a general practitioner with special interest in dermatology

Thind, C. K., Brooker, I., Ormerod, A. D.·2011·Clinical and Experimental Dermatology

Abstract

Summary: Background. Teledermatology (TD) has been developed as an alternative to face-to-face (FTF) dermatology care in remote areas. Aim. To assess the feasibility of TD in remote supervision and education of a general practitioner with special interest (GPwSI), to reduce FTF consultations with the consultant dermatologist, and to provide appropriate diagnosis and care. Our secondary aim was to evaluate patient satisfaction with this mode of consultation. Methods. A TD service in Aberdeen was set up to augment supervision of a remote rural GP training in dermatology. This service was audited over a 2-year period to assess its usefulness in the education of the remote GP. Results. Prospective data on 230 selected referrals was analysed. Store-and-forward TD provided a high level of patient satisfaction, and was effective in remote supervision and education of a GPwSI in dermatology. FTF consultations with the consultant were avoided in 69% of consultations, and diagnostic agreement was considered high (61%). Educational feedback was given to the GP in 66% of consultations. Conclusions. TD can supplement infrequent specialist dermatology service in remote areas, as in this case. We conclude that for selected patients, TD was a useful training tool for supervising the GPwSI, and ensuring clinical governance and quality assurance in clinics in a remote rural area. However, this model of care was limited by cost and the inherent limitations of TD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2230.2011.04073.x

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thind, C. K., Brooker, I., & Ormerod, A. D.
Affiliations
  • Aberdeen Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
Corresponding author
Ormerod, A. D.
Venue
Clinical and Experimental Dermatology
Published
2011-07-01
Volume
36
Issue
5
Pages
489-494
ISSN
  • 0307-6938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2230
OpenAlex
W1940395721
Cited by
42
References
16
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical and Experimental Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Digital Imaging in Medicine
Keywords
teledermatology, store-and-forward telemedicine, distant supervision, patient satisfaction, diagnostic agreement, clinical governance, quality assurance, instructional feedback
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Child, Preschool, Dermatology, Diagnosis, Differential, Education, Medical, Graduate, Family Practice, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Infant, Knowledge of Results, Psychological, Male, Medical Audit, Middle Aged, Photography, Scotland, Skin Diseases, Patient Satisfaction, Telemedicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review