Synchronous and asynchronous teledermatology: A narrative review of strengths and limitations

Abstract

The policy changes prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic caused synchronous models (primarily video visits) to supplant asynchronous models (store-and-forward or shared digital photographs) as the default and predominant modality of teledermatology care. Here, we call attention to the unique strengths and limitations of these models in terms of clinical utility, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness. Strengths of synchronous visits include direct physician-patient interaction and current reimbursement parity; limitations include variable video image quality, technological difficulties, and accessibility barriers. Strengths of asynchronous visits include greater convenience, especially for clinicians, and potential for image quality superior to video; limitations include less direct physician-patient communication, barriers to follow-up, and limited reimbursement. Both synchronous and asynchronous models have been shown to be cost-effective. Teledermatology is positioned to play a prominent role in patient care post-pandemic. Moving forward, dermatologists are challenged to optimize teledermatology use in order to improve outcomes, efficiency, and workflows to meet diverse patient needs. Future directions will depend on sustainable reimbursement of both teledermatology formats by government and private payers.

Keywords: CMS; Teledermatology; accessibility; asynchronous; cost-effectiveness; reimbursement; review; store-and-forward; synchronous; telehealth.