Are virtual consultations suitable for patients with vulval disease? A multicentre audit of outcomes in the COVID‐19 pandemic

BACKGROUND: During the COVID‐19 pandemic, virtual consultation (VC) was used to replace in‐person consultations. This raises specific questions when dealing with vulval conditions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and the efficiency of VC with and without supplementary imaging, in patients with vulval conditions, and to evaluate the images provided as an aid to diagnosis. METHODS: This prospective multicentre audit took place in three specialized vulval clinics in London and Paris. Anonymized data on patients' clinical characteristics, consultation characteristics (including the number and quality of any supplementary images provided) and consultation outcomes (diagnostic certainty and physician satisfaction) were collected. Characteristics and outcomes in those with or without supplementary imaging were compared amongst both new and follow‐up consultations. RESULTS: A total of 316 VCs were included. In total, 18.7% (n = 59) were new patient consultations and 81.3% (n = 257) were follow‐up. Supplementary imaging (photographs and/or video recordings) were provided by 28.5% (n = 90) of the total cohort. Median photographic quality was significantly higher on a five‐point Likert‐type scale when photographs were taken by a third party as opposed to the patient themselves (4 vs. 3, Mann‐Whitney U‐test, p < 0.0001). There was no association between the provision of supplementary imaging and diagnostic certainty amongst new patient consultations. However, a higher proportion of follow‐up patients who provided supplementary imaging received definitive management decisions (χ (2) test, p < 0.001) and physician satisfaction with these consultations, as measured on a five‐point Likert‐type scale, was significantly higher (Mann‐Whitney U‐test, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, median physician satisfaction scores ≥4 were observed in follow‐up consultations for candidiasis, lichen simplex/eczema and vulvodynia. CONCLUSIONS: Although in‐person consultation remains the gold standard of care, VC may have a role in the management of selected patients with vulval disease. It is possible to provide good‐quality photographs for clinical assessment, particularly with the help of a third party and follow‐up patients with an established, cancer‐unrelated diagnosis may be best suited for this consultation modality.