(1) Background: Teledermatology (TD) has exponentially grown since the onset of COVID-19, as the Face-to-Face Dermatology (F-F/D) modality changed within Public Health Systems. Although studies have been conducted on health results, we did not find any that analyzed the experiences of individuals who received care through TD. Therefore, the main objective of the study was to analyze the experiences of dermatology patients and the communication with health personnel. (2) Methods: A multicenter, controlled, randomized, non-blinded clinical trial was designed. Data were collected during the six months of follow-up. Four-hundred and fifty patients participated in the present study, who were assigned to two different groups: TD and F-F/D. The sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the participants were collected. The ‘Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire’ (GS-PEQ) was used to assess patients’ experiences, and the Healthcare Communication Questionnaire (HCCQ) was used to measure the communication of patients with healthcare professionals. (3) Results: After six months of follow-up, 450 patients completed the study (TD = 225; F-F/D = 225) of which 53.3% were women, with an average age of 52.16 (SD = 19.97). The main reasons for the consultations were skin lesions (51.56%) located on the head and neck (46.8%), followed by the legs (20.7%). According to the GS-PEQ, TD users indicated having a greater confidence in the professional skills of the doctors (p < 0.01). However, the F-F/D group indicated having received more adequate information about their diagnosis/afflictions (p < 0.01), were more involved in the decisions related to their treatment (p < 0.01), and more satisfied with the help and treatment received (p < 0.01). Regarding the HCCQ, the TD group obtained better assessments with respect to if the patients had been treated in a rude and hasty manner, if the health professionals had addressed them with a smile, and if these could adequately manage the reason for the consultation (p < 0.01). (4) Conclusions: The results of the study generally showed positive experiences and communication. The TD group indicated having received less information about the diagnosis, were less involved in the decisions, and were less satisfied with the help and treatment received. However, they indicated having more confidence on the professional skills of the doctors, and that the work at the institution was better organized. In addition, they perceived better communication skills of the health professionals, although less respect for their privacy.

The health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the patients cared for with teledermatology (TD) services was analyzed as compared with face-to-face dermatology (F-F/D) at the hospital. This study was a controlled, non-blinded, intra-level, and multicenter randomized clinical trial, with a 6-month follow-up. A total of 450 patients were randomly assigned to two different groups. The Spanish version of the generic EuroQol-5-dimensions-5-Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire and the specific Skindex-29 questionnaire were used at 0 and 6 months. The number of primary care visits (2.24 TD; 1.68 F-F/D) and number of hospital visits (0.01 TD; 1.48 F-F/D) were statistically significant. It was observed that from month 0 onwards, the users included in the F-F/D group self-perceived a lower HRQoL than the users included in the TD group (Skindex-29 total: p ≤ 0.00; EQ-5D-5L VAS = p ≤ 0.00; EQ-5D-5L utilities = p ≤ 0.00). At the end of the study, the patients included in the F-F/D group still obtained lower scores in their perception of HRQoL, as compared to those included in the other type of follow-up (Skindex-29 total: p ≤ 0.00; EQ-5D-5L VAS = p ≤ 0.00; EQ-5D-5L utilities = p ≤ 0.00). TD was an effective diagnosis and follow-up tool. At the end of the study period, the HRQoL of the patients in both groups was significantly higher as compared to their baseline levels. Additionally, both the general and specific HRQoL perceived by the TD patients was higher than the F-F/D group from the start of the study.

(1) Background: The global health crisis caused by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has led to extreme overloading of different public healthcare systems worldwide. The Spanish Public Healthcare System is one of them. This study aimed to conduct a comparative cost analysis to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on small- and medium-sized regional hospitals in Andalusia (Spain). (2) Methods: This comparative, multicentre, observational, and retrospective study was designed to perform a comparative cost analysis between the Alto Guadalquivir Health Agency (AGHA) and Poniente University Hospital (PUH), both of which belong to the Spanish Public Health System (PHS). The data included in this study corresponds to the total costs by area and year incurred by the 61,335 patients from both healthcare institutions (AGHA = 36,110; PUH = 25,225) in the areas of hospital emergency service (HES), hospitalisation, and intensive care unit (ICU), during the 24 months of the study period (from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020). (3) Results: The analysis results showed a significant increase in costs incurred in 2020 for HES relative to those incurred in 2019 for both AGHA (+14%; p < 0.003) and PUH (+36%; p = 0.002). Additionally, costs incurred for ICU increased significantly in 2020 relative to those incurred in 2019 for both AGHA (+30%; p = 0.003) and PUH (+46%; p = 0.002). Hospitalisation costs for AGHA also increased significantly (+9%; p < 0.012) in 2020 versus those obtained in 2019; however, no significant differences were found for PUH (+6%; p = 1) in the same period analysed. However, the number of patients treated in the areas of HES, hospitalisation, and ICU was significantly reduced throughout 2020 compared to 2019. (4) Conclusions: Our findings show that the costs incurred during 2020 in the regional hospitals of Andalusia (Spain) increased significantly in most of the parameters analysed relative to those incurred in the year before the pandemic (i.e., 2019).