and costs was the number second opinion in of care with all not of physical 29% of the cases The authors when skin clearly referrals (n=10611). stated prevented. Among those, explicitly the in daily 16% (n=1723) perspective practice were referred to Quality was that was and the dermatologist expressed as adopted in the applied on the the number study. Only dermatologist’s following of TDCs the advice. patient performed consultation selection for second costs were by the opinion, as -mean response included in general physical time the cost referrals analysis. The TDC 4.6 h (GP). resulting cost (median 2.0, from these components range 1.5 min-49 included were days) not response time of the enough. -GP’s learning experience and the A lot educational (17%)/substantial effect (39%)/slightly experienced (29%)/not at all by the GP. (15%) Costs: -helpfulness to Cost of dermatologist physical
and costs of care when in daily practice and applied following patient selection by the general (GP). with all skin was not clearly the number of physical referrals prevented. Quality was expressed as the number of TDCs performed for second opinion, as physical referrals resulting from these response time of the and the educational effect experienced by the GP. Costs: Cost of physical second opinion in 29% of the cases (n=10611). Among those, 16% (n=1723) were referred to the dermatologist on the dermatologist’s advice. -mean response time TDC 4.6 h (median 2.0, range 1.5 min-49 days) -GP’s learning experience A lot (17%)/substantial (39%)/slightly (29%)/not at all (15%) -helpfulness to dermatologist The authors stated explicitly the perspective that was adopted in the study. Only the consultation costs were included in the cost analysis. The cost components included were not enough.
1360%20-%20FinalAssessmentReport%20-accessible.docx