Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35921146›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Teledermatology to Facilitate Patient Care Transitions From Inpatient to Outpatient Dermatology: Mixed Methods Evaluation.

Samantha M R Kling, Erika A Saliba-Gustafsson, Marcy Winget, Maria A Aleshin, Donn W Garvert, Alexis Amano, Cati G Brown-Johnson, Bernice Y Kwong, Ana Calugar, Ghida El-Banna and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Samantha M R Kling *Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9169-763X
Erika A Saliba-Gustafsson *Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1587-9591
Marcy WingetDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5893-280X
Maria A AleshinDepartment of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8893-9212
Donn W GarvertDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0827-9611
Alexis AmanoDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7136-2197
Cati G Brown-JohnsonDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5415-3665
Bernice Y KwongDepartment of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9677-9332
Ana CalugarDepartment of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0288-3375
Ghida El-BannaDepartment of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6534-2648
Jonathan G ShawDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7884-3604
Steven M AschDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5838-5335
Justin M KoDepartment of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4232-5906
Stanford University · USCenter for Innovation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBoth clinicians and patients have increasingly turned to telemedicine to improve care access, even in physical examination-dependent specialties such as dermatology. However, little is known about whether teledermatology supports effective and timely transitions from inpatient to outpatient care, which is a common care coordination gap.

objectiveUsing mixed methods, this study sought to retrospectively evaluate how teledermatology affected clinic capacity, scheduling efficiency, and timeliness of follow-up care for patients transitioning from inpatient to outpatient dermatology care.

methodsPatient-level encounter scheduling data were used to compare the number and proportion of patients who were scheduled and received in-clinic or video dermatology follow-ups within 14 and 90 days after discharge across 3 phases: June to September 2019 (before teledermatology), June to September 2020 (early teledermatology), and February to May 2021 (sustained teledermatology). The time from discharge to scheduling and completion of patient follow-up visits for each care modality was also compared. Dermatology clinicians and schedulers were also interviewed between April and May 2021 to assess their perceptions of teledermatology for postdischarge patients.

resultsMore patients completed follow-up within 90 days after discharge during early (n=101) and sustained (n=100) teledermatology use than at baseline (n=74). Thus, the clinic's capacity to provide follow-up to patients transitioning from inpatient increased from baseline by 36% in the early (101 from 74) and sustained (100 from 74) teledermatology periods. During early teledermatology use, 61.4% (62/101) of the follow-ups were conducted via video. This decreased significantly to 47% (47/100) in the following year, when COVID-19-related restrictions started to lift (P=.04), indicating more targeted but still substantial use. The proportion of patients who were followed up within the recommended 14 days after discharge did not differ significantly between video and in-clinic visits during the early (33/62, 53% vs 15/39, 38%; P=.15) or sustained (26/53, 60% vs 28/47, 49%; P=.29) teledermatology periods. Interviewees agreed that teledermatology would continue to be offered. Most considered postdischarge follow-up patients to be ideal candidates for teledermatology as they had undergone a recent in-person assessment and might have difficulty attending in-clinic visits because of competing health priorities. Some reported patients needing technological support. Ultimately, most agreed that the choice of follow-up care modality should be the patient's own.

conclusionsTeledermatology could be an important tool for maintaining accessible, flexible, and convenient care for recently discharged patients needing follow-up care. Teledermatology increased clinic capacity, even during the pandemic, although the timeliness of care transitions did not improve. Ultimately, the care modality should be determined through communication with patients to incorporate their and their caregivers' preferences.

Indexed as

COVID-19DermatologyTelemedicineAftercareHumansInpatientsOutpatientsPatient DischargePatient TransferRetrospective Studiescare coordinationcare transitionsdermatologydischarge planningfollow-upinpatientmixed methodsmobile phoneoutpatientsmartphoneteledermatologytelehealthtelemedicinevideo visits

Identifiers

PMID35921146
PMCPMC9386584
OpenAlexW4283277236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.