Sample policy · Dermatology

Teledermatology and remote consultation policy (dermatology)

Statutory anchor: Regulation 12 (safe care and treatment), Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/2936). The primary professional source for remote clinical assessment is GMC guidance on remote consultations and prescribing, supported by British Association of Dermatologists teledermatology and clinical-image guidance. · primary source

1. What the regulation says

Care and treatment must be provided in a safe way for service users. (Reg 12(1) (the headline duty))

assessing the risks to the health and safety of service users of receiving the care or treatment, (Reg 12(2)(a) (risk assessment))

doing all that is reasonably practicable to mitigate any such risks, (Reg 12(2)(b) (risk mitigation))

ensuring that persons providing care or treatment to service users have the qualifications, competence, skills and experience to do so safely, (Reg 12(2)(c) (staff competence))

The full text is at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2936/regulation/12. Where this policy and the regulation diverge, the regulation wins.

2. Plain-English summary

Care and treatment must be provided in a safe way. The regulation lists the areas a provider must address, including risk assessment, risk mitigation, staff competence, safe premises, safe equipment, sufficient equipment and medicines, medicines safety, infection prevention and shared-care planning. Regulation 12 is central to CQC's safety expectations.

3. Purpose

Teledermatology, assessing skin remotely from images, is convenient and often effective, but a remote view has limits: an image can miss a lesion, hide a worrying feature, or be too poor to judge. This policy sets out when the Service assesses skin remotely, the standards the images must meet, and how it makes sure a patient who needs to be seen in person is seen.

The Service must verify this policy against current British Association of Dermatologists teledermatology guidance and GMC guidance on remote consultations before adoption.

4. Sources to verify before adoption

5. Scope

This policy applies to:

6. When remote assessment is appropriate

7. Image quality and what is captured

8. Identity, consent and the record

9. Safety-netting

The patient is told, in a form they can keep:

The Service does not close a remote case where the assessment was uncertain without arranging the next step.

10. Protecting remote-consultation data

Operational controls to adapt

Roles and responsibilities

Teledermatology procedure

  1. Triage suitability. Decide whether remote assessment is safe for the concern, patient group, lesion type and available image quality.
  2. Confirm identity and consent. Confirm the patient, explain remote assessment and image use, and record consent.
  3. Capture the required images. Obtain overview, close-up and dermoscopic images where needed, with the lesion site clearly identified.
  4. Reject unsafe image sets. If images are out of focus, incomplete, wrongly labelled or clinically inadequate, request new images or arrange face-to-face review.
  5. Record the assessment limits. State what could and could not be assessed remotely, and the level of confidence in the decision.
  6. Escalate to face-to-face care. Escalate where cancer, infection, safeguarding, treatment failure, uncertain diagnosis or patient deterioration cannot be safely managed remotely.
  7. Close only when safe. Give the patient clear advice, follow-up, safety-netting and a contact route before closing the remote case.
  8. Protect the data trail. Store images only in the approved system and treat any wrong-recipient, lost image or personal-device use as a possible data breach.

Records and register links

The remote-consultation record should include:

Unsafe remote assessment, delayed escalation, image mix-up and data breaches are opened on the incident or data-breach route. Repeated image-quality or pathway failures are tracked through the risk register and improvement-actions register.

11. Training

Clinicians assessing skin remotely are competent to do so and understand the limits of remote assessment, and are refreshed on a stated cadence. The Service records who is competent and the next refresher date.

12. Audit cadence

The Service checks, on a stated cadence, that:

The Registered Manager and the clinical lead review the results and record the improvement actions that follow.

13. Sources and further reading

This template is based on CQC's guidance for providers and managers, the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, and other topic-specific legislation and guidance listed below. It is a starting point for adaptation, not a substitute for legal, clinical, HR, safeguarding or specialist professional advice.

Related reading

14. When to seek further advice

Seek specialist advice where the issue involves serious harm, safeguarding, deprivation of liberty, restraint, children, professional misconduct, controlled drugs, radiation, termination of pregnancy, infection outbreak, water safety, employment dismissal, DBS barring referral, or regulatory enforcement.

15. Document control

Version Date Author Changes
v1.1 2026-07-14 Verivius (sample) Added role ownership, teledermatology workflow, record fields, register links and related reading.
v1 2026-06-10 Verivius (sample) Conformed to the Verivius policy standard: added statutory anchor, verbatim Regulation 12 text and plain-English summary, sources and further reading, and document control. Original purpose, scope and operational sections preserved.

This sample policy template was issued by Verivius. It is a template, not a substitute for legal advice or the tenant's own policy-development process. Where this template and live law or regulator guidance diverge, the live source wins.

What good looks like here

Written from an ex-CQC inspector's chair, but the point is safe, well-led care your team can stand behind. Each row shows what strong evidence looks like, what thin evidence looks like, and where the expectation comes from.

Teledermatology fails quietly. A melanoma photographed in poor light, at an awkward angle or without a dermoscopic view can look like an unremarkable mole, and a patient told it looks fine has every reason to stop worrying and not come back, so the harm surfaces months later as a delayed diagnosis rather than as anything anyone noticed on the day. That is why the record has to show what the clinician could not see as plainly as what they could, and why an image set that falls short of the standard is rejected rather than squinted at. Lesion siting carries the same weight: a patient with several moles can be reassured about the wrong one, and a labelling error made at the point of capture travels untouched through every decision that follows. Because the whole assessment rests on the images, where those images travel and where they come to rest is a clinical safety question as much as a privacy one, and a patient who learns their skin photographs sat on someone's personal phone loses trust in the service that treated them.

  1. Where the images are inadequate, the history is concerning, or the lesion may be cancer, the patient is brought in face-to-face rather than signed off on a poor remote view.

    Strong evidence: The suitability decision and its reason, the reason any image set was rejected, and the face-to-face escalation record (sections 6 and 7, procedure steps 4 and 6, records and register links).

    Weak evidence: The record carries a remote sign-off with no trace of the suitability decision: no line on why remote assessment was safe for this lesion, this history and this patient, and no reason logged where an image set was accepted although it was out of focus, incomplete or wrongly labelled. Rejected image sets appear nowhere, and the only face-to-face reviews on file are the ones the patient chased for themselves rather than ones the Service arranged.

    A legal duty. This comes from legislation that applies to your service, so meeting it is not optional. The exact provision is cited beneath the badge.

    Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, reg 12(1) and reg 12(2)(a)-(b)

  2. The record shows what could and could not be assessed remotely and the confidence in the decision, not a remote consultation written up as if it were a full examination.

    Strong evidence: The assessment-limits field and confidence level in the remote-consultation record (sections 7 and 8, procedure step 5, audit cadence).

    Weak evidence: A note written as though a full skin examination took place when nothing was palpated, no dermoscopic view was taken and the lesion was never seen in three dimensions: "images reviewed, benign appearance, reassured" and nothing further. The assessment-limits field is blank, filled with "n/a", or carries the same auto-populated sentence on every record, and no confidence level is stated, so a later clinician cannot tell whether this was a firm view or a best guess from two photographs.

    The recognised standard from a professional or clinical body, such as NICE or a royal college. Not a legal duty, but the accepted mark of safe practice, and a departure needs a documented reason.
  3. The patient is given safety-netting in a form they can keep, and an uncertain case is not closed without arranging the next step.

    Strong evidence: The safety-net advice, contact route and follow-up recorded, with evidence the case was not closed while the assessment was uncertain (section 9, procedure step 7).

    Weak evidence: Safety-netting logged as "advised to monitor" or "safety-net advice given", with nothing recorded about which changes should prompt a return, how quickly, or which number to ring, and no copy the patient actually holds. The clearest weak spot is a case closed on the same day that the note still calls the diagnosis uncertain, with no follow-up appointment, review date or referral attached to it.

    Our recommended baseline. Not a legal or regulatory requirement, but a sensible standard we suggest where the rules leave the detail to you. Adapt it to your service.
  4. Images and consultation data sit on secure systems, not personal phones or unprotected apps, and a wrong-recipient or lost image is assessed as a possible personal-data breach.

    Strong evidence: The data-transfer route and storage-location fields, and the breach assessment raised where data is lost, misdirected or handled on a personal device (section 10, procedure step 8).

    Weak evidence: Images arriving on a clinician's personal phone or through a consumer messaging app, with "deleted afterwards" offered as the control, and the storage-location and data-transfer fields on the record left empty. A photograph sent to the wrong patient or the wrong colleague is written up as an administrative slip and put right informally, with no breach assessment raised and nothing for the Information Governance Lead to review.

    A legal duty. This comes from legislation that applies to your service, so meeting it is not optional. The exact provision is cited beneath the badge.

    UK GDPR Articles 5(1)(f) and 32(1)(b), and Article 33(1) and 33(5); Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, reg 17(2)(c)

  5. The patient's identity is confirmed, and consent to the remote consultation and to the images is recorded, before the assessment begins.

    Strong evidence: The identity-check and consent fields with the contact method in the remote-consultation record (section 8, procedure step 2, records and register links).

    Weak evidence: A consent tick-box carried across by template, undated, with no note of what the patient was told about the limits of remote assessment or about images being stored, shared and retained. Identity is recorded as "known to me" or simply assumed from the number that rang, the contact method is not stated, and consent to the consultation is captured while consent to the images is silent.

    The recognised standard from a professional or clinical body, such as NICE or a royal college. Not a legal duty, but the accepted mark of safe practice, and a departure needs a documented reason.

Last verified 20 July 2026

Spotted something to improve?

These are sample templates, not the last word. If you would change a wording, or want to help us confirm a detail, tell us and we will look at it.

Related Verivius content

Want help adapting this to your service?

A Verivius consultant can read your adapted policy against the live regulation and your service shape. The work fits inside a Mock Inspection engagement or a shorter consulting brief. A 20-minute conversation is the fastest way to find out whether the fit is right.

Get started free

Free to start, no card. A 14-day trial when you subscribe.

Last reviewed 10 June 2026