We highlight a major study that investigated the impact of reconfigured cleft care in the United Kingdom some 15 years after centralization. We argue that centralization as an intervention has a major impact on outcomes.
Setting:
Audit clinics held in Cleft Centers in the United Kingdom.
Patients, Participants:
Five-year-olds born between April 1, 2005, and March 31, 2007, with nonsyndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate.
Interventions:
Centralization of cleft care.
Main Outcome Measure(s):
We collected routine clinical measures (speech recordings, hearing, photographs, models, oral health, psychosocial factors) in a very similar way to a previous survey.
Results:
We identified 359 eligible children and recruited 268 (74.7%) to the study. Overall, their outcomes were better post-centralization. There have been marked improvements in dentoalveolar arch relationships and in speech whereas the prevalence of dental caries and hearing loss are unchanged.
Conclusions:
Centralized cleft care has changed UK outcomes considerably and there is no argument for returning to a dispersed model of treatment.
Al-GhatamRJonesTEIrelandAJAtackNEChawlaODeaconSAlberyLCobbARCadoganJLearyS. Structural outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study—dentofacial outcomes. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(suppl 2):56–62.
2.
AtackNHathornIMarsMSandyJ. Study models of 5 year old children as predictors of surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 1997;19:165–170.
3.
BearnDMildinhallSMurphyTMurrayJJSellDShawWCWilliamsACSandyJR. Cleft lip and palate care in the United Kingdom—the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) Study. Part 4: outcome comparisons, training, and conclusions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38:38–43.
4.
Clinical Standards Advisory Group Cleft Lip and/or Palate, HSMO, ISBN 0-11-322103-7 London, 1998.
5.
FitzsimonsKJMukarramSCopleyLPDeaconSAvan der MeulenJH. Centralisation of services for children with cleft lip or palate in England: a study of hospital episode statistics. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:148.
6.
JohnASellDSweeneyTWilliamsA. The Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech–Augmented: a validated and reliable measure for auditing cleft speech. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43:272–288.
7.
KimJBStrikePCadierMC. A simple assessment method for auditing multi-centre unilateral cleft lip repairs. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64:195–200.
8.
LiljaJMarsMElanderAEnocsonLHagbergCWorrellEBatraPFriedeH. Analysis of dental arch relationships in Swedish unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects: 20-year longitudinal consecutive series treated with delayed hard palate closure. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43:606–611.
9.
LohmanderA. Surgical intervention and speech outcomes in cleft lip and palate. In: HowardSLohmanderA, eds. Cleft Palate Speech. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2011:55–85.
10.
NessARWillsAKWaylenAAl-GhatamRJonesTEPrestonRIrelandAJPerssonMSmallridgeJHallAJ. Centralization of cleft care in the UK. Part 6: a tale of two studies. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(suppl 2):56–62.
11.
PerssonMSandyJRWaylenAWillsAKAl-GhatamRIrelandAJHallAHollingworthWJonesTPetersTJ. A cross-sectional survey of five year old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate: Cleft Care UK. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(suppl 2):1–13.
12.
SandyJRumseyNPerssonMWaylenAKilpatrickNIrelandTNessA. Using service rationalisation to build a research network: lessons from the centralisation of UK services for children with cleft lip and palate. Br Dent J. 2012;212:553–555.
13.
SandyJRWilliamsACBearnDMildinhallSMurphyTSellDMurrayJJShawWC. Cleft lip and palate care in the United Kingdom-the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) Study. Part 1: background and methodology. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38:20–23.
14.
ScottJKLearySDNessASandyJPerssonMKilpatrickNWaylenA. Centralisation of services for children born with orofacial clefts in the United Kingdom: a cross sectional survey. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51:e102–e109.
15.
ScottJKLearySDNessARSandyJRPerssonMKilpatrickNWaylenAE. Perceptions of team members working in cleft services in the United Kingdom: a pilot study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52:e1–e7.
16.
SellDGrunwellPMildinhallSMurphyTCornishTABearnDShawWCMurrayJJWilliamsACSandyJR. Cleft lip and palate care in the United Kingdom—the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) Study. Part 3: speech outcomes. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38:30–37.
17.
SellDAMildinhallSAlberyLWillsAKSandyJRNessAR. Perceptual speech outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(suppl 2):36–46.
18.
SinkoKCaacbayEJagschRTurhaniDBaumannAMarsM. The GOSLON yardstick in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: review of a Vienna sample. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45:87–92.
19.
SmallridgeJHallAJChorbachiRParfectVPerssonMIrelandAJWillsAKNessARSandyJR. Functional outcomes in the Cleft Care UK study: oral health and audiology. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(suppl 2):25–35.
20.
WaylenANessARWillsAKPerssonMRumseyNSandyJR. Child psychosocial outcomes and satisfaction with cleft services in the Cleft Care UK study. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(suppl 2):47–55.
21.
WilliamsACBearnDMildinhallSMurphyTSellDShawWCMurrayJJSandyJR. Cleft lip and palate care in the United Kingdom–the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) Study. Part 2: dentofacial outcomes and patient satisfaction. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38:24–29.
