Closing the Loop on Centralization of Cleft Care in the United Kingdom. (February 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ness, Andrew R.; Wills, Andrew R.; Waylen, Andrea; Smallridge, Jackie; Hall, Amanda J.; Sell, Debbie; Sandy, Jonathan R.
• Is Part Of: Cleft palate-craniofacial journal. Volume 55:Number 2(2018)
• Page Start: 248
• Page End: 251
• Publication Date: 2018-02
• Subjects: cleft care -- unilateral cleft lip and palate outcomes -- United Kingdom; Cleft palate -- Periodicals; Skull -- Abnormalities -- Periodicals; Cranial manipulation -- Periodicals; Skull -- Abnormalities -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Abnormalities -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Fente palatine -- Périodiques; Crâne -- Malformations -- Périodiques; Manipulation crânienne -- Périodiques; Crâne -- Malformations -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Face -- Malformations -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Cleft palate; Cranial manipulation; Face -- Abnormalities -- Surgery; Skull -- Abnormalities; Skull -- Abnormalities -- Surgery; Cleft Lip; Cleft Palate; Facial Bones -- abnormalities; Skull -- abnormalities; Periodicals; Periodicals; Periodicals; 617.522
• DOI: 10.1177/1055665617736779
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1055-6656

Abstract

Objective: 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.