Doctor and Consultation FAQs

Dr Chetna Ghura is the lead dermatologist at Delhi Derma Clinic. Her qualifications are MBBS followed by MD Dermatology, with Delhi Medical Council registration DMC 2851. The framework treats medical-board registration as the floor of credentialing rather than as a marketing line; the registration number is published on the site so any patient can verify it through the DMC public register. The Dr Chetna Ghura page covers the wider professional profile.

MD Dermatology is the postgraduate medical degree in dermatology, venereology, and leprology after the MBBS. It is the dermatology-specialist credential within Indian medical training and reflects three years of postgraduate dermatology training under recognised teaching institutions. The framework distinguishes the MD-Dermatology pathway from non-postgraduate routes and from cosmetology certifications. The our doctors page covers the framework in plain language.

Dermatology is the postgraduate medical specialty that covers skin, hair, and nail medicine and selected procedural pathways. Cosmetology certifications and short-course skin training are not equivalent to MD-Dermatology training and do not carry the same diagnostic and pharmacological scope. Selected non-specialist skin clinics in India are run by practitioners without postgraduate dermatology training; the framework at Delhi Derma Clinic positions the dermatologist as the clinical decision-maker rather than the front-desk advisor or the device-operator alone. The our doctors page covers the distinction.

Medical questions are best handled within the consultation framework — at the booked visit, in scheduled follow-up, or through the formal channel for clinical queries the clinic operates around active patient pathways. The framework does not promise on-demand WhatsApp medical advice for prospective patients because individual case decisions warrant the full consultation context. Patients with active concerns about a current pathway have the formal route through the clinic, and the formal grievance pathway sits in the policies section.

For selected pathway elements, trained clinical-team members operate calibrated procedural protocols under the dermatologist's supervision and within scopes the framework establishes. The framework treats the dermatologist as the clinical decision-maker — assessment, recommendation, and care-plan ownership sit with the dermatologist rather than being transferred to a non-medical team-member. Where additional medical specialties are clinically relevant (internal medicine for systemic context, gynaecology for selected hormonal contexts, surgical referral for specific cases), the framework collaborates with appropriately credentialed practitioners outside the dermatology pathway rather than absorbing decisions outside its scope.

The consultation begins with history-taking around the patient's presenting concern (onset, trajectory, prior treatment history, current medications and supplements, relevant systemic context, family pattern where applicable), proceeds to examination of the relevant area or areas, may include photographic baseline establishment where the pathway warrants it, may include blood-work request where the picture suggests systemic context, and concludes with a calibrated written plan covering the recommendation, the rationale, the realistic outcome range, and the residual-risk profile. The framework treats the visit as a clinical conversation rather than a sales appointment.

A typical consultation runs around thirty-to-forty-five minutes. Complex multi-concern presentations and first-visit assessments with extensive prior treatment history may run longer; routine follow-up visits within an active pathway are shorter. The framework calibrates visit length to the case rather than to a fixed clock-driven slot. Patients should plan adequate time at the consultation rather than scheduling it immediately before another commitment.

The written plan includes the calibrated recommendation, the rationale connecting the assessment to the recommendation, the realistic outcome range across an evidence-based time window, the maintenance pattern where applicable, the residual-risk profile, the per-component pricing for the recommended pathway, the proposed follow-up cadence, and any blood-work or referral information. The patient leaves the visit with the written plan and decides whether and when to proceed at a subsequent visit.

Sometimes. For straightforward cases where the suitability assessment supports it, calibrated procedural work can begin on the consultation day. For most cases the consultation ends with the written plan and procedural work begins at a subsequent visit after the patient has had time to consider the plan. The framework explicitly avoids "you must book your treatment today" sales pressure; consideration time is part of how decisions are arrived at well.

Yes. Younger patients accompanied by a parent or guardian, patients who prefer support during the visit, and visits that cover significant decisions all welcome companion attendance with the patient's consent. The framework treats companion presence as patient-supportive rather than as inconvenient. Companions are welcomed in the consultation room with the patient's explicit permission.

Recommendations follow the suitability framework: the assessment establishes what the patient is asking the pathway to do, the realistic options across the evidence base, the expected outcome range for the patient's skin and life-context, the residual-risk profile of each option, and the alternatives that the framework considered and de-prioritised. The recommendation arrives at the consultation through the conversation rather than as a pre-decided pathway routed by booking-page selection. The treatment suitability philosophy page covers the framework.

Where the assessment establishes that the pathway the patient asked about is not the right fit — because of skin context, prior pattern, residual-risk profile, or because foundations need to be established first — the framework communicates that openly rather than enrolling the patient in an unsuitable pathway. Alternatives that fit the case are presented; where no in-clinic pathway is appropriate, referral to a different specialty or to medical foundations is the recommendation. The framework de-prioritises selling over honest fit, and the consultation conversation includes that reality where it applies.

The consultation listens to the patient's stated preference, addresses the rationale behind it, and discusses whether X is the appropriate fit for the patient's case. Where X is appropriate, the pathway proceeds with calibrated parameters. Where X is not appropriate, the conversation surfaces what is appropriate and why, with the alternatives that the framework would recommend. The framework respects patient autonomy without abandoning clinical responsibility; selected requests cannot be honoured because they fall outside what is clinically defensible, and that boundary is communicated rather than worked around.

Second opinions are a normal part of patient decision-making and the framework supports the patient seeking one. Where a patient wishes to consult another dermatologist before proceeding, the consultation summary and any photographic documentation can typically be made available to the patient for their reference. The framework treats second-opinion-seeking as patient-supportive rather than as challenging.

Where family-context disagreement affects the decision (parent-child contexts, partner contexts, family-elder contexts), the framework respects the adult patient's autonomy as the primary decision-maker for their own care. For minor patients accompanied by a guardian, the conversation includes both the patient and the guardian, and proceeds when the appropriate consent is in place. Where disagreement persists, additional consideration time is the framework's response rather than rushed decision-making.

Follow-up cadence is calibrated to the pathway. Active procedural pathways are typically reviewed at the relevant response window (three-to-six months for most calibrated cases). Maintenance pathways for hair-loss, pigmentation, and ageing trajectory are typically reviewed six-monthly to annually. Selected medical-dermatology pathways have their own review pattern. The framework treats follow-up as ongoing rather than as the end of a project, and the pattern is included in the written plan from the start.

Selected follow-up reviews — where in-person examination is not necessary for the question at hand — are appropriate for video format. Decisions that depend on hands-on examination findings are routed to in-person visits rather than handled over video. The Teleconsultation Policy document in the policies section is the formal source for the operational mechanics around video visits.

Where the patient relocates during an active pathway, the framework can structure the remaining pathway around fewer in-person trips with selected video review touch-points where clinical context permits, and refer the patient to an appropriately qualified dermatologist near the new location for ongoing in-person needs. Patient continuity of care is part of the planning conversation rather than left to the patient to organise alone.

Patient records — consultation notes, baseline photography where applicable, blood-work results where applicable, the written plan, and follow-up notes — are maintained as patient health information per the framework. Patient access to their own clinical record is treated as a patient-rights element within the framework, with records held as a patient-supportive resource rather than as a proprietary clinic asset. The formal record-handling and confidentiality framework is detailed in the Patient Privacy and Records Policy in the policies section.

Concerns about a current pathway are handled through the active follow-up framework — scheduled review visits, contact between visits where relevant, and the formal channel the clinic operates for active patient queries. Where a concern warrants formal handling, the Complaints and Grievance Redressal Policy in the policies section is the route. The framework distinguishes between calibration-stage adjustment within an active pathway (handled through follow-up) and formal grievance handling (handled through the formal policy).