Functional outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study - Part 3:oral health and audiology

OBJECTIVES: To compare oral health and hearing outcomes from the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG, 1998) and the Cleft Care UK (CCUK, 2013) studies. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Two UK-based cross-sectional studies of 5-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate undertaken 15 years apart. CSAG children were treated in a dispersed model of care with low-volume operators. CCUK children were treated in a centralized, high volume operator system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oral health data were collected using a standardized proforma. Hearing was assessed using pure tone audiometry and middle ear status by otoscopy and tympanometry. ENT and hearing history were collected from medical notes and parental report. RESULTS: Oral health was assessed in 264 of 268 children (98.5%). The mean dmft was 2.3, 48% were caries free, and 44.7% had untreated caries. There was no evidence this had changed since the CSAG survey. Oral hygiene was generally good, 96% were enrolled with a dentist. Audiology was assessed in 227 of 268 children (84.7%). Forty-three per cent of children received at least one set of grommets--a 17.6% reduction compared to CSAG. Abnormal middle ear status was apparent in 50.7% of children. There was no change in hearing levels, but more children with hearing loss were managed with hearing aids. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for dental caries and hearing were no better in CCUK than in CSAG, although there was reduced use of grommets and increased use of hearing aids. The service specifications and recommendations should be scrutinized and implemented.

A cross-sectional survey of 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate:the Cleft Care UK study. Part 1: background and methodology

OBJECTIVES: We describe the methodology for a major study investigating the impact of reconfigured cleft care in the United Kingdom (UK) 15 years after an initial survey, detailed in the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) report in 1998, had informed government recommendations on centralization. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: This is a UK multicentre cross-sectional study of 5-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Children born between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007 were seen in cleft centre audit clinics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consent was obtained for the collection of routine clinical measures (speech recordings, hearing, photographs, models, oral health, psychosocial factors) and anthropometric measures (height, weight, head circumference). The methodology for each clinical measure followed those of the earlier survey as closely as possible. RESULTS: We identified 359 eligible children and recruited 268 (74.7%) to the study. Eleven separate records for each child were collected at the audit clinics. In total, 2666 (90.4%) were collected from a potential 2948 records. The response rates for the self-reported questionnaires, completed at home, were 52.6% for the Health and Lifestyle Questionnaire and 52.2% for the Satisfaction with Service Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates and measures were similar to those achieved in the previous survey. There are practical, administrative and methodological challenges in repeating cross-sectional surveys 15 years apart and producing comparable data.

Centralization of cleft care in the UK. Part 6:a tale of two studies

OBJECTIVES: We summarize and critique the methodology and outcomes from a substantial study which has investigated the impact of reconfigured cleft care in the United Kingdom (UK) 15 years after the UK government started to implement the centralization of cleft care in response to an earlier survey in 1998, the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG). SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: A UK multicentre cross-sectional study of 5-year-olds born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. Data were collected from children born in the UK with a unilateral cleft lip and palate between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2007. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We discuss and contextualize the outcomes from speech recordings, hearing, photographs, models, oral health and psychosocial factors in the current study. We refer to the earlier survey and other relevant studies. RESULTS: We present arguments for centralization of cleft care in healthcare systems, and we evidence this with improvements seen over a period of 15 years in the UK. We also make recommendations on how future audit and research may configure. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for children with a unilateral cleft lip and palate have improved after the introduction of a centralized multidisciplinary service, and other countries may benefit from this model. Predictors of early outcomes are still needed, and repeated cross-sectional studies, larger longitudinal studies and adequately powered trials are required to create a research-led evidence-based (centralized) service.