The pandemic of COVID‐19 is a global challenge for health care, and dermatologists are not standing apart from trying to meet this challenge. The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) has collected recommendations from its Task Forces (TFs) related to COVID‐19. The Journal of the EADV has established a COVID‐19 Special Forum giving free access to related articles. The psychosocial effects of the pandemic, an increase in contact dermatitis and several other skin diseases because of stress, disinfectants and protective equipment use, especially in healthcare workers, the temporary limited access to dermatologic care, the dilemma whether or not to pause immunosuppressive therapy, and, finally, the occurrence of skin lesions in patients infected by COVID‐19 all contribute to significant quality of life (QoL) impairment. Here, we present detailed recommendations of the EADV TF on QoL and patient‐oriented outcomes on how to improve QoL in dermatologic patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic for several different groups of patients and for the general population.

Background: Digital imaging of dermatological patients is a novel approach to remote assessment and has recently become more relevant since telehealth and remote decentralized clinical trials are gaining ground. Objective: We aimed to investigate whether photographs taken by a smartphone are of adequate quality to allow severity assessments to be made and to explore the usefulness of an established atopic dermatitis severity assessment instrument on photograph evaluation. Methods: During scheduled visits in a previously published study, the investigating doctor evaluated the severity of atopic dermatitis using the Scoring AD (SCORAD) index and took photographs of the most representative lesions (target lesions) with both a smartphone and a digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR). The photographs were then assessed by 5 dermatologists using the intensity items of the SCORAD (iSCORAD), which consists of erythema, oedema/papulation, excoriations, lichenification, oozing/crusts, and dryness (scale 0-3, maximum score 18). The mean iSCORAD of the photographs was calculated and compared with in-person assessments using Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman plots. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used for interrater reliability. Results: A total of 942 photographs from 95 patients were assessed. The iSCORAD based on smartphone photographs correlated strongly with the evaluations performed in person (iSCORAD: r=0.78, P<.001; objective SCORAD: r=0.81, P<.001; and total SCORAD: r=0.78, P<.001). For iSCORAD specifically, a Bland-Altman plot showed a difference in mean score of 1.31 for in-person and remote iSCORAD. In addition, the interrater agreement between the 5 rating dermatologists was 0.93 (95% CI 0.911-0.939). A total of 170 lesions were photographed, and the difference in mean scores was 1.32, 1.13, and 1.43 between in-person and remote evaluations based on photographs taken by a DSLR camera, a smartphone without flash, and a smartphone with flash, respectively. Conclusions: In terms of quality, remote atopic dermatitis severity assessments based on photographs are comparable to in-person assessments, and smartphone photos can be used to assess atopic dermatitis severity to a similar degree as photographs from a DSLR camera. Further, the variation in how the dermatologists in this study rated the iSCORAD based on the photographs was very low.

Many events, including the COVID‐19 pandemic, have accelerated the implementation of teledermatology pathways within dermatology departments and across healthcare organizations. Quality of Life (QoL) assessment in dermatology is also a rapidly developing field with a gradual shift from theory to practice. The purpose of this paper organized jointly by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Force (TF) on QoL and patient‐oriented outcomes and the EADV TF on teledermatology is to present current knowledge about QoL assessment during the use of teledermatology approaches, including data on health‐related (HR) QoL instruments used in teledermatology, comparison of influence of different treatment methods on HRQoL after face‐to‐face and teledermatology consultations and to make practical recommendations concerning the assessment of QoL in teledermatology. The EADV TFs made the following position statements: HRQoL assessment may be an important part in most of teledermatology activities; HRQoL assessment may be easily and effectively performed during teledermatology consultations. It is especially important to monitor HRQoL of patients with chronic skin diseases during lockdowns or in areas where it is difficult to reach a hospital for face‐to‐face consultation; regular assessment of HRQoL of patients with skin diseases during teledermatology consultations may help to monitor therapy efficacy and visualize individual patient's needs; we recommend the use of the DLQI in teledermatology, including the use of the DLQI app which is available in seven languages; it is important to develop apps for dermatology‐specific HRQoL instruments for use in children (for example the CDLQI and InToDermQoL) and for disease‐specific instruments.