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

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