Achieving and Sustaining Standardized Measurement of Treatment Outcomes in Children With Cleft Lip/Palate: Pilot Study of a Multifaced Implementation Strategy
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Achieving and Sustaining Standardized Measurement of Treatment Outcomes in Children With Cleft Lip/Palate: Pilot Study of a Multifaced Implementation Strategy
Prior work has identified numerous barriers to standardized outcome measurement in cleft care. The objective of this study was to evaluate a multifaceted implementation strategy to collect standardized outcomes for children with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P).
Design
A one-armed, single-site pilot study of a multifaceted implementation strategy.
Setting
A metropolitan children's hospital.
Patients
Five-year-old children with CL/P.
Interventions
A multifaceted implementation strategy for standardized outcome measurement.
Main Outcomes Measures
The primary outcome measure was penetration of the intervention, defined as the proportion of children for whom the standardized measures of aesthetic, dental, and speech outcomes were collected. Penetration pre-implementation and 12 months post-implementation were compared. The secondary outcome was acceptability of standardized outcome measurement among providers and staff, evaluated with the Acceptability of Intervention Measure.
Results
The implementation strategy resulted in high penetration of standardized outcome measurement: measurement of aesthetic outcomes increased from 7% to 82% (p < .0001); measurement of dental outcomes increased from 0% to 56% (p < .0001); measurement of speech outcomes increased from 29% to 77% (p = .0001). Acceptability of standardized outcome measurement was high, with 93% of cleft team providers and staff (n = 14/15) reporting that they somewhat or completely agreed that standardized outcome measurement met their approval, was appealing, was welcomed, and was liked. Penetration continued to improve after the implementation period, with high rates of outcome measure collection sustained for four years following implementation.
Conclusions
Deployment of a multifaceted implementation strategy led to substantial increases in the collection of aesthetic, dental, and speech outcomes among children with CL/P.
ParkerSEMaiCTCanfieldMARickardRWangYMeyerREAndersonPMasonCACollinsJSKirbyRS, et al.Updated National Birth Prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004–2006. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2010;88(12):1008‐1016. doi:10.1002/bdra.20735
2.
Parameters for Evaluation and Treatment of Patients with Cleft Lip/Palate or Other Craniofacial Differences. American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association; 2018.
SitzmanTJGirottoJAMarcusJR. Current surgical practices in cleft care: Unilateral cleft lip repair. Plast Reconstr Surg.2008;121(5):261e‐270e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31816a9feb
5.
LithoviusRHYlikontiolaLPSandorGK. Frequency of pharyngoplasty after primary repair of cleft palate in northern Finland. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol.2014;117(4):430‐434. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2013.12.409
6.
da SilvaAPCostaBde Carvalho CarraraCF. Dental anomalies of number in the permanent dentition of patients with bilateral cleft lip: Radiographic study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(5):473‐476. doi:10.1597/06-099.1
7.
PiotoNRCostaBGomideMR. Dental development of the permanent lateral incisor in patients with incomplete and complete unilateral cleft lip. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(5):517‐520. doi:10.1597/04-045r.1
8.
Paradowska-StolarzAMikulewiczMDuś-IlnickaI. Current concepts and challenges in the treatment of cleft lip and palate patients-A comprehensive review. J Pers Med. 2022;12(12):2089. doi:10.3390/jpm12122089
9.
Hardin-JonesMAJonesDL. Speech production of preschoolers with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):7‐13. doi:10.1597/03-134.1
10.
SellDGrunwellPMildinhallSMurphyTCornishTAOBearnDShawWCMurrayJJWilliamsACSandyJR. 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(1):30‐37.<0030:CLAPCI>2.0.CO;2
11.
CrerandCEConradALBellucciCCAlbertMHeppnerCESheikhFWoodardSUdaipuriaSKapp-SimonKA. Psychosocial outcomes in children with cleft lip and/or palate: Associations of demographic, cleft morphologic, and treatment-related variables. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;61(11):1784‐1802. doi:10.1177/10556656231181581
12.
BrittonLAlberyLBowdenMHarding-BellAPhippenGSellD. A cross-sectional cohort study of speech in five-year-olds with cleft palate ± lip to support development of national audit standards: Benchmarking speech standards in the United Kingdom. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51(4):431‐451. doi:10.1597/13-121
13.
NessARWillsAKMahmoudOHallASellDSmallridgeJSouthbyLStokesDTomsSWaylenA, et al.Centre-level variation in treatment and outcomes and predictors of outcomes in 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip treated within a centralized service: The Cleft Care UK study. Part 6: Summary and implications. Orthod Craniofac Res.2017;20(Suppl. 2):48‐51. doi:10.1111/ocr.12188
14.
AtackNHathornIMarsMSandyJ. Study models of 5 year old children as predictors of surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthodont. 1997;19(2):165‐170.
15.
GambleCPerssonCWilladsenEAlberyLSoegaard AndersenHZattoni AntoneliMAppelqvistMAuknerRBodlingPBowdenM, et al.Timing of primary surgery for cleft palate. N Engl J Med.2023;389(9):795‐807. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2215162
16.
HallBLHamiltonBHRichardsKBilimoriaKYCohenMEKoCY. Does surgical quality improve in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: An evaluation of all participating hospitals. Ann Surg.2009;250(3):363‐376. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b4148f
17.
O'ConnorGTPlumeSKOlmsteadEMMortonJRMaloneyCTNugentWCHernandezFCloughRLeavittBJCoffinLH, et al.A regional intervention to improve the hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery: The Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. JAMA. 1996;275(11):841‐846.
18.
Global strategies to reduce the health care burden of craniofacial anomalies: Report of WHO meetings on international collaborative research on craniofacial anomalies. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41(3):238‐243. doi:10.1597/03-214.1
19.
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. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-148
20.
NessARWillsARWaylenASmallridgeJHallAJSellDSandyJR. Closing the loop on centralization of cleft care in the United Kingdom. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(2):248‐251. doi:10.1177/1055665617736779
21.
WeidlerEMBrittoMTSitzmanTJ. Facilitators and barriers to implementing standardized outcome measurement for children with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(1):7‐18. doi:10.1177/1055665620940187
22.
AponIRogers-VizenaCRKoudstaalMJAlloriACPetersonPVersnelSLRamirezJP. Barriers and facilitators to the international implementation of standardized outcome measures in clinical cleft practice. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(1):5‐13. doi:10.1177/1055665621997668
23.
ProctorEKPowellBJMcMillenJC. Implementation strategies: Recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8:139. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-139
24.
PowellBJMcMillenJCProctorEKCarpenterCRGriffeyRTBungerACGlassJEYorkJL. A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Med Care Res Rev.2012;69(2):123‐157. doi:10.1177/1077558711430690
25.
ProctorESilmereHRaghavanRHovmandPAaronsGBungerAGriffeyRHensleyM. Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2011;38(2):65‐76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
26.
PinnockHBarwickMCarpenterCREldridgeSGrandesGGriffithsCJRycroft-MaloneJMeissnerPMurrayEPatelA, et al.Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) statement. Br Med J.2017;356:i6795. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6795
27.
PinnockHBarwickMCarpenterCREldridgeSGrandesGGriffithsCJRycroft-MaloneJMeissnerPMurrayEPatelA, et al.Standards for reporting implementation studies (StaRI): Explanation and elaboration document. BMJ Open. 2017;7(4):e013318. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013318
28.
Al-DajaniM. Comparison of dental caries prevalence in patients with cleft lip and/or palate and their sibling controls. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46(5):529‐531. doi:10.1597/08-003.1
29.
ChapmanKLBaylisATrost-CardamoneJCorderoKNDixonADobbelsteynCThurmesAWilsonKHarding-BellASweeneyT, et al.The americleft speech project: A training and reliability study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(1):93‐108. doi:10.1597/14-027
30.
KummerAW. The Mackay-Kummer Simplified Nasometric Assessment Procedures-Revised (SNAP-R). In: PENTAX Medical Instruction Manual for Nasometer II: Model 6450. PENTAX Medical. 2005. www.researchgate.net/publication/273060845_The_MacKay-Kummer_SNAP_Test-R_Simplified_Nasometric_Assessment_Procedures_Revised_2005
31.
GoldmanRFristoeM. Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation 3 (GFTA-3). Pearson; 2015.
32.
WeinerBJLewisCCStanickCPowellBJDorseyCNClaryASBoyntonMHHalkoH. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. Aug 29 2017;12(1):108. doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3
33.
PowellBJWaltzTJChinmanMJDamschroderLJSmithJLMatthieuMMProctorEKKirchnerJAE. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1
34.
PerlaRJProvostLPMurraySK. The run chart: A simple analytical tool for learning from variation in healthcare processes. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(1):46‐51. doi:10.1136/bmjqs.2009.037895
35.
ProvostLMurrayS. The Health Care Data Guide: Learning from Data for Improvement. 1st ed. Jossey-Bass; 2011.
36.
BellgAJBorrelliBResnickBHechtJMinicucciDSOryMOgedegbeGOrwigDErnstDCzajkowskiS. Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: Best practices and recommendations from the NIH Behavior Change Consortium. Health Psychol. 2004;23(5):443‐451. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.23.5.443
37.
von Thiele SchwarzUGiannottaFNeherMZetterlundJHassonH. Professionals’ management of the fidelity-adaptation dilemma in the use of evidence-based interventions-an intervention study. Implement Sci Commun. 2021;2(1):31. doi:10.1186/s43058-021-00131-y
38.
PerssonMSandyJRWaylenAWillsAKAl-GhatamRIrelandAJHallAJHollingworthWJonesTPetersTJ, et al.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. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(Suppl 2):1‐13. doi:10.1111/ocr.12104
39.
BittarPGCarlsonARMabie-DeRuyterAMarcusJRAlloriAC. Implementation of a standardized data-collection system for comprehensive appraisal of cleft care. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(10):1382‐1390. doi:10.1177/1055665618764952
40.
CoughlinKPosenchegMA. Common quality improvement methodologies including the model for improvement, lean, and six sigma. Clin Perinatol. 2023;50(2):285‐306. doi:10.1016/j.clp.2023.02.002
41.
TaylorMJMcNicholasCNicolayCDarziABellDReedJE. Systematic review of the application of the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(4):290‐298. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862
42.
ForsytheLPCarmanKLSzydlowskiVFayishLDavidsonLHickamDHHallCBhatGNeuDStewartL, et al.Patient engagement in research: Early findings from the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019;38(3):359‐367. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05067
43.
van RoeyVLMink van der MolenABMathijssenIMJAkotaIde BlacamCBreugemCCCraveiro MatosEMDávidovicsKDissauxCDowgierdK, et al.Between unity and disparity: Current treatment protocols for common orofacial clefts in European expert centres. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2025;54(6):519‐528. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2024.12.001
44.
DamschroderLJAronDCKeithREKirshSRAlexanderJALoweryJC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci.2009;4(1):50‐50. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
45.
KlassenAFRaeCWong RiffKWBulstrodeNDenadaiRGoldsteinJHolMLFMurrayDJBrackenSCourtemancheDJ, et al.FACE-Q Craniofacial Module: Part 1 validation of CLEFT-Q scales for use in children and young adults with facial conditions. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021;74(9):2319‐2329. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2021.05.040
46.
SkirkoJRWeaverEMPerkinsJAKinterSEblenLSieKCY. Validity and responsiveness of VELO: A velopharyngeal insufficiency quality of life measure. Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. 2013;149(2):304‐311. doi:10.1177/0194599813486081
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
