| Literature DB >> 34849962 |
Phumzile Hlongwa1, Laetitia C Rispel2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cleft lip and palate (CLP), one of the most common congenital anomalies of the craniofacial complex, has a worldwide prevalence rate of 1 in 700 live births. In South Africa, a middle-income country, the CLP prevalence rate is 0.3 per 1000 live births in the public health sector. The complexity of the condition requires that individuals with CLP be treated by a multi-disciplinary team of health professionals, with the integral involvement of caregivers and families.Entities:
Keywords: Ekhaya Lethu; South Africa; cleft lip and palate; coproduction; quality of care
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34849962 PMCID: PMC8633900 DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzab082
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Qual Health Care ISSN: 1353-4505 Impact factor: 2.038
Key findings on clef lip and palate in South Africa’s public health sector
|
The estimated prevalence rate of CL/P in South Africa’s public sector is 0.3 per 1000 live births. The clinical profile showed that in females, cleft palate (CP) was more common, whereas cleft lip and palate (CLP) was more common in males. Surgical repair of the lip and palate (10/11 centres) and speech therapy (7/11 centres) dominated the type of CLP treatment provided in the public health sector. Although all 11 centres reported a multidisciplinary team approach for CLP care provision, there were gaps in the availability of certain categories of health care professionals (e.g. orthodontists), which in turn influenced the types of treatment provided. Only six centres provided written, standard treatment protocols for CLP. IPC was sub-optimal for all seven domains of care expertise, shared power, collaborative leadership, shared decision-making, optimizing professional role and scope, effective group function and competent communication. The highest mean score of 2.92 was obtained for care expertise, whereas effective group functioning obtained the lowest score of 2.55. The category of health care professional (e.g. doctor, speech therapist, etc.), to a lesser extent CLP centre, explained the differences in mean scores. The majority of caregivers of children with CLP were single, unemployed, women who had only completed primary schooling. Caregivers narrated their mixed feelings of shock, anxiety, and sadness at the birth of their children with CLP and highlighted the burden of care provision, amidst their experiences of health system deficiencies and insufficient social support services. |
Source: Hlongwa, 2019: page 113 [15].
Figure 1Cleft lip and palate Ekhaya Lethu model.
Potential benefits and risks of consolidation of CLP centres
| Potential benefits | Potential risks |
|---|---|
|
Increase in the critical mass of health care providers. Enhance expertise in CLP. Development of standard treatment protocols. Cost-effectiveness for CLP treatment. Improved quality of care. IPC. Coproduction of CLP care with caregivers and affected individuals. Facilitate research or evaluation of long-term treatment outcomes audits. |
Decreased training opportunities for health professionals at closed centres. Reduced access to treatment and care for individuals with CLP. Increased travel costs for caregivers. Discontinuation of care due to long distances and lack of financial support. Increased inequities in health care access and treatment between urban and rural areas. |
Source: Adapted from Hlongwa, 2019 [15].
Steps towards implementing Ekhaya Lethu
|
Introduction of specialised orthodontic clinic for children with CLP. Teaching dentistry students the importance of IPC and coproduction. As part of teaching, requesting parents to share their experiences in living and caring for their children with orofacial cleft conditions. Involving parents in decisions on treatment and care. Inviting other members of the health care team to share experiences on CLP treatment and care. |