To evaluate a smartphone application for clinical photography that prioritizes and facilitates patient security.
Methods:
Ethics was obtained to trial the application Sharesmart. Calgary plastic surgeons/residents used the application for clinical photography and communication. Surveys gauging the application usability, incorporated consent process, and photograph storage/sharing were then sent to surgeons and patients.
Results:
Over a 1-year trial period, 16 Calgary plastic surgeons and 24 residents used the application to photograph 84 patients. Half (56%) of the patients completed the survey. The majority of patients found the applications consent process acceptable (89%) and felt their photograph was secure (89%). Half (51%) of the surgeons/residents completed the survey and would use the application as is (67%) or with modifications (33%). The consent process was felt to be superior (73%) or equivalent (23%) to participant’s prior methods and was felt to resolve issues present with current photography practices of secure transmission and storage of photographs by 100% and 95% of respondents, respectively. Perceived limitations of the application included difficulties in use with poor cellphone service or Internet, decreased speed compared to current practices, the lack of a desktop platform, video capability, and ability to transmit the photograph directly to the patient’s medical record.
Conclusions:
A smartphone clinical photography application addresses the risks of patient confidentiality breach present with current photography methods; broad implementation should be considered.
HunterTHardwickeJRayattS. The smart phone: an indispensable tool for the plastic surgeon?J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63(4):e426–e427.
2.
MarekAJChuEYMingMEKhanZAKovarikCL. Impact of a smartphone application on skin self-examination rates in patients that are new to total body photography: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79(3):564–567.
3.
AbbottLMMagnussonRSGibbsESmithSD. Smartphone use in dermatology for clinical photography and consultation: current practice and the law. Australas J Dermatol. 2018;59(2):101–107.
4.
ChanNCharetteJDumestreDOFraulinFO. Should ‘smart phones’ be used for patient photography?Plast Surg (Oakv). 2016. 24(1):32–34.
5.
KundeLMcMenimanEParkerM. Clinical photography in dermatology: ethical and medico-legal considerations in the age of digital and smartphone technology. Australas J Dermatol. 2013;54(3):192–197.
6.
McG TaylorDFosterEDunkinCSFitzgeraldAM. A study of the personal use of digital photography within plastic surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2008;61(1):37–40.
7.
FranchittoNGavarriLDédouitFTelmonNRougéD. Photography, patient consent and scientific publications: medicolegal aspects in france. J Forensic Leg Med. 2008;15(4):210–212.
8.
BrinkworthSKennyAKnightsC. Managing out of hours clinical photography at the university hospitals bristol. J Vis Commun Med. 2018;41(2):85–89.
9.
FrankoOITirrellTF. Smartphone app use among medical providers in ACGME training programs. J Med Syst. 2012;36(5):3135–3139.
10.
DumestreDOFraulinFOG. Balancing the need for clinical photography with patient privacy issues: the search for a secure smartphone application to take and store clinical photographs. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2017;25(4):255–260.
11.
Al-HadithyNGhoshS. Smartphones and the plastic surgeon. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66(6):e155–e161.
12.
ReuscheRBuchananPJKozlowJHVerclerCJ. A systematic review of smartphone applications for plastic surgery providers: target audience, uses, and cost. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;77(1):6–12.
13.
WallaceDLJonesSMMilroyCPickfordMA. Telemedicine in acute plastic surgical trauma and burns. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2004. 86(4):239–242.
14.
WallaceDLJonesSMMilroyCPickfordMA. Telemedicine for acute plastic surgical trauma and burns. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2008;61(1):31–36.
15.
Den HollanderDMarsM. Smart phones make smart referrals: the use of mobile phone technology in burn care—a retrospective case series. Burns. 2017;43(1):190–194.
16.
TrovatoMJScholerAFVallejoE, et al.EConsultation in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Eplasty. 2011. 11:e48.
17.
PapSALachEUptonJ. Telemedicine in plastic surgery: e-consult the attending surgeon. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110(2):452–456.
18.
VerhoevenFVan Gemert-PijnenLDijkstraK, et al.The contribution of teleconsultation and videoconferencing to diabetes care: a systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res. 2007;9(5):e37.
19.
JayaramanCKennedyPDutuGLawrensonR. Use of mobile phone cameras for after-hours triage in primary care. J Telemed Telecare. 2008;14(5):271–274.
20.
MarekAJChuEYMingMEKovarikCL. Assessment of smartphone applications for total body digital photography-guided skin exams by patients. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75(5):1063–1064 e1.
21.
WangSCAndersonJAJonesDVEvansR. Patient perception of wound photography. Int Wound J. 2016;13(3):326–330.
22.
ArmstrongKACoytePCSempleJL. The first smartphone application for microsurgery monitoring: silparamanitor. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(2):458e.
23.
ArmstrongKACoytePCBhatiaRSSempleJL. The effect of mobile app home monitoring on number of in-person visits following ambulatory surgery: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2015;4(2):e65.
24.
WongSSGeorgeTJJrGodfreyMLeJPereiraDB. Using photography to explore psychological distress in patients with pancreatic cancer and their caregivers: a qualitative study. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27(1):321–328.
25.
GardinerSHartzellTL. Telemedicine and plastic surgery: a review of its applications, limitations and legal pitfalls. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65(3):e47–e53.
26.
EngelHHuangJJTsaoCK, et al.Remote real-time monitoring of free flaps via smartphone photography and 3G wireless internet: a prospective study evidencing diagnostic accuracy. Microsurgery. 2011;31(8):589–595.
27.
PatelNGRozenWMMarshD, et al.Modern use of smartphone applications in the perioperative management in microsurgical breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2016;5(2):150–157.
28.
Van der RijtRHoffmanS. Ethical considerations of clinical photography in an area of emerging technology and smartphones. J Med Ethics. 2014;40(3):211–212.
29.
MaharPDFoleyPASheed-FinckABakerCS. Legal considerations of consent and privacy in the context of clinical photography in australian medical practice. Med J Aust. 2013;198(1):48–49.
30.
ThomasVARugeleyPBLauFH. Digital photograph security: what plastic surgeons need to know. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(5):1120–1126.
31.
ScheinfeldN. Photographic images, digital imaging, dermatology, and the law. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140(4):473–476.
32.
LakdawalaNFontanellaDGrant-KelsJM. Ethical considerations in dermatologic photography. Clin Dermatol. 2012;30(5):486–491.
33.
HeynsMSADumestreDOFraulinFOYeungJK. Canadian guidelins on smartphone clinical photography. Canad J Phys Leadership. 2018;4(4):158–163.
34.
HeynsMSADumestreDOFraulinFOYeungJK. Best practices for smartphone and smart-device photo taking and sharing. CMA Policy Base. 2018;1:18–34.
35.
PayneKFTahimAGoodsonAMDelaneyMFanK. A review of current clinical photography guidelines in relation to smartphone publishing of medical images. J Vis Commun Med. 2012;35(4):188–192.
36.
LauCKSchumacherHHIrwinMS. Patients’ perception of medical photography. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63(6):e507–e511.
37.
NairAGPotdarNADadiaSAulakhSAliMJShindeCA. Patient perceptions regarding the use of smart devices for medical photography: results of a patient-based survey. Int Ophthalmol. 2018;39(4):783–789.
38.
LegerMCWuTHaimovicA, et al.Patient perspectives on medical photography in dermatology. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(9):1028–1037.
39.
NguyenTTVanderWaldeLBellavanceE, et al.Ethical considerations of medical photography in the management of breast disease. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(10):2801–2806.
40.
RubenzikMKWuWJZelicksonBRGoldbergLH. Optimizing smartphones for clinical photography. Dermatol Surg. 2018;44(1):138–140.
