Commentary

Quality or convenience: Pick one


 

A 35-year-old male with a 5-year-history of a changing mole on his back sends a picture of the lesion to a telemedicine website for advice. The photo reveals a black nodule. The clinician replies, advising the patient that the lesion is benign.

To most dermatologists, the above scenario would occur only in a bizarre nightmare, never in real life. In real life, if the words “black” and “nodule” are used to describe a lesion, they are followed by the verb “biopsy.” Most dermatologists would recognize this as a high-risk growth and recommend additional investigation.

Dr. Jeffrey Benabio

Dr. Jeffrey Benabio

Unfortunately, a recent study of direct-to-consumer (DTC) telemedicine in JAMA Dermatology showed that 21% of the time, the patient was wrongfully reassured that a lesion was benign (JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152[7]:768-75). The study examined how 16 DTC telemedicine websites and apps handled six standardized dermatology cases designed to test the quality of the services. While some provided good care, others missed important diagnoses such as syphilis, eczema herpeticum, and melanoma. If these cases had been actual patients, the consequences for such mistakes could have been dire.

“The services failed to ask simple, relevant questions of patients about their symptoms, leading them to repeatedly miss important diagnoses,” Jack Resneck Jr., MD, a dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and lead author of the study, told the Wall Street Journal.

The study is timely, as telemedicine is accelerating explosively. The low cost of connectivity, viable business models, and changing consumer behaviors are fueling its rocket growth. Startups in digital health and telemedicine have raised over $700 million already this year, indicating that there is more fuel to be burned and more money to be made.

DTC telemedicine describes the model when a patient sends photos directly to a clinician without a prior history with that provider. A teleconsultation, in contrast, is an interaction between two doctors. In DTC, the episode of care is usually isolated from the patient’s record, and the information is not transferred to the primary care physician. Patients pay a fee, which can range from $1.59 to $250.

Advocates of DTC cite its low cost and extraordinary convenience as arguments for its adoption. However, these disconnected visits are notable exceptions to the current trend toward better care coordination and information sharing among providers.

Quality is also a concern. Although consumers were often promised answers from board-certified physicians, the JAMA Dermatology study was unable to verify this in many cases. The researchers also found that nondermatologists, physician extenders, and physicians practicing in India were often the providers, facts that were not obvious to users.

Worse, the study found both the quality of the diagnoses and the recommendations were poor. All the providers missed the cases of syphilis and most missed eczema herpeticum. Risks of prescription medications were not disclosed two-thirds of the time. Worse yet, three services mistakenly advised that a nodular melanoma did not need further treatment. Had these been real patients, such wrongful recommendations could have resulted in deaths.

In an effort to ensure safety and reliability for consumers, the American Telemedicine Association has begun credentialing telemedicine providers. Such credentials are not required, however, and consumers are likely to be unaware of which providers have or have not met this standard. The American Academy of Dermatology addresses DTC teledermatology in its position statement, updated in 2016: “Dermatologists providing direct-to-patient teledermatology must make every effort to collect accurate, complete, and quality clinical information. When appropriate, the dermatologist may wish to contact the primary care providers or other specialists to obtain additional corroborating information.”

Currently, patients remain on their own in choosing telemedicine and other digital health services: caveat emptor. Do they want quality and convenient care? For now, it seems, they must pick only one.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego. He is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

Recommended Reading

Teledermatology making inroads
MDedge Dermatology
ACOs score slight bump in bonus payments
MDedge Dermatology
For dermatologists, leadership opportunities abound
MDedge Dermatology
CMS offers lower-stress reporting options for MACRA in 2017
MDedge Dermatology
AAD president shares legal tips
MDedge Dermatology
Study: One hour with patients means two hours on EHR
MDedge Dermatology
Getting prior lab results is worth the effort
MDedge Dermatology
Veterans’ keratinocyte carcinoma, actinic keratosis care cost $356 million in 2012
MDedge Dermatology
Health sector claims 4 spots among top 10 lobbyers in 2016
MDedge Dermatology
Doctors urge Congress to pass Zika funding
MDedge Dermatology