Exploratory study assesses satisfaction with video consultations in dermatology, suggesting high acceptance but areas needing improvement.
Summary Background and Objectives Teledermatology has become an essential part of dermatological care, although challenges in its implementation remain. We conducted a real‐life survey on video consultations over a one‐year period to assess satisfaction and identify barriers. Material and Methods A monocentric, questionnaire‐based study was conducted, using a self‐developed questionnaire and the German adaptation of the validated Client Satisfaction Questionnaire. Results Of 250 scheduled consultations, 89.6% were completed. A total of 128 patients and 13 physicians participated in the survey. The majority of patients (94.5%) and physicians (94.7%) would recommend video consultations. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction, with 93% rating ease of use positively and 80.4% reporting a positive overall experience. Physicians reported high satisfaction, with 98% providing positive feedback regarding scheduling, 94.7% regarding ease of use, and 90.8% regarding overall experience. Feedback on connection stability and skin assessment varied, with connectivity issues correlating with poorer skin findings (p < 0.001). Feedback regarding connection stability and adequacy of skin assessment showed variability. Connectivity issues were significantly associated with poorer dermatologic assessment (p < 0.001). Physicians who were dissatisfied with the quality of skin assessment were less likely to recommend video consultations (p < 0.001) and reported a less favorable overall experience (p < 0.001). Conclusions Video consultations can improve access to dermatologic care, patient and physician satisfaction, and efficient use of healthcare resources. Our real‐world data show high acceptance among patients and physicians while highlighting areas for optimization, particularly video quality and adequacy of dermatologic assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krogh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: