BT12 A comparison of outcomes and cost-effectiveness in a teledermatology vs. a standard face-to-face 2-week wait UK model

Abstract

Abstract Teledermatology (TD) assessment of lesions referred on the 2-week wait (2WW) pathway reduces the need for in-person review, and thus facilitates increased clinical capacity. Although studies have demonstrated that TD can be cost-effective compared with a standard face-to-face (F2F) model, there is a lack of literature on the cost-effectiveness of TD with medical photography in the UK 2WW skin cancer pathway (Snoswell C, Finnane A, Janda M et al. Cost-effectiveness of store-and-forward teledermatology. JAMA Dermatol 2016; 152:702). In this study, we undertook a retrospective analysis of a store-and-forward TD 2WW pathway supported by medical photography at a UK centre (October–November 2022). As a comparator, we looked at the outcomes of a 2WW F2F clinic that took place 1 year earlier. Primary outcomes included comparing costs associated with both TD and F2F clinics, and outcomes after initial TD vs. F2F review (discharges, surgeries and subsequent F2F reviews). Inclusion criteria for TD were age 18–60 years, < 3 lesions referred and lesions being on culturally nonsensitive body sites. Cost estimates were included for physicians, nurses, healthcare assistants, administration staff and medical photographers. The tariff per 2WW skin cancer referral to the trust is £159.27. In total, 292 patient images were reviewed virtually in this study. Thirty of 68 patients in the F2F group met the same age criteria as those in the TD group (18–60 years), and thus these patients were used as comparators. Each 4-h TD session comprised an assessment of 25 patients vs. 12 patients per F2F session. Discharge rates from the first clinic appointment were higher for F2F clinics than for TD clinics (76.7% vs. 58.6%). Referrals for surgery were similar between the two groups (16.7% for F2F and 17.8% for TD). However, we found there were substantially more follow-ups requested after TD assessment vs. patients reviewed in F2F clinics (23.2% vs. 6.7%). The nonattendance rate for TD was 36 of 328 patients (11.0%) vs. five of 73 (6.8%) for F2F. Per-patient cost of the TD pathway was estimated to be £16.16 vs. £25.68 for a F2F 2WW appointment. Total revenue to the trust per clinical session was estimated to be £3981.75 (TD) vs. £1911.24 (F2F). This represented additional revenue of approximately £1975 for TD. Twenty-nine of 33 TD patients who completed feedback questionnaires reported overall satisfaction with the TD pathway. In this study, outcome rates between TD and F2F groups were similar in terms of planned surgeries. Planned subsequent F2F review rates were higher for TD, and discharge rates were higher for F2F. The revenue to the trust was greater for TD than F2F.