BACKGROUND: Cleft surgery follow-up in developing regions is challenging. This study evaluated rates, costs, and satisfaction of 2 follow-up programs at the Guwahati Comprehensive Cleft Care Centre (GC4) in Assam, India. METHODS: For this study, 10,582 postoperative visits were analyzed from May 2011 to November 2013. A questionnaire was administered to subsets of follow-up patients at both locations. Costs were calculated. RESULTS: Eighty-five percent of patients had follow-up at GC4, and 15% were seen in the patients' local districts. One hundred ninety-five questionnaires were completed (122 at GC4, 73 in local districts). Patients with local follow-up had fewer accompanying family members (mean, 1.95 vs 0.99; P = 0.00), fewer days off work (mean, 1.84 vs 1.15; P = 0.19), less lost income (Indian rupees 367 vs 143, P = 0.00), and lower direct costs (mean Rs, 911 vs 299; P = 0.00). The financial burden of local follow-up was significantly lower (P = 0.003). No significant differences were seen for convenience, likelihood of attending follow-up, or satisfaction. Follow-ups increased after revising programs from a mean of 139 monthly visits (follow-up to surgery ratio of 0.722) to a mean of 363 visits (ratio of 1.57). The center's mean cost for local follow-up was Rs 303 per patient, whereas the estimated costs would have been Rs 1100 for follow-up at the center. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates potential improvements in costs and outcomes by changing the model of care. Despite significant follow-up challenges, much progress can be achieved through process changes and outreach follow-up programs. The results have important applications across the developing world.
BACKGROUND: Cleft surgery follow-up in developing regions is challenging. This study evaluated rates, costs, and satisfaction of 2 follow-up programs at the Guwahati Comprehensive Cleft Care Centre (GC4) in Assam, India. METHODS: For this study, 10,582 postoperative visits were analyzed from May 2011 to November 2013. A questionnaire was administered to subsets of follow-up patients at both locations. Costs were calculated. RESULTS: Eighty-five percent of patients had follow-up at GC4, and 15% were seen in the patients' local districts. One hundred ninety-five questionnaires were completed (122 at GC4, 73 in local districts). Patients with local follow-up had fewer accompanying family members (mean, 1.95 vs 0.99; P = 0.00), fewer days off work (mean, 1.84 vs 1.15; P = 0.19), less lost income (Indian rupees 367 vs 143, P = 0.00), and lower direct costs (mean Rs, 911 vs 299; P = 0.00). The financial burden of local follow-up was significantly lower (P = 0.003). No significant differences were seen for convenience, likelihood of attending follow-up, or satisfaction. Follow-ups increased after revising programs from a mean of 139 monthly visits (follow-up to surgery ratio of 0.722) to a mean of 363 visits (ratio of 1.57). The center's mean cost for local follow-up was Rs 303 per patient, whereas the estimated costs would have been Rs 1100 for follow-up at the center. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates potential improvements in costs and outcomes by changing the model of care. Despite significant follow-up challenges, much progress can be achieved through process changes and outreach follow-up programs. The results have important applications across the developing world.