R P Strauss1. 1. Department of Dental Ecology, UNC School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 27599-7450, USA. ron_strauss@unc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study is the first comprehensive national survey of the organization, function, and composition of cleft palate and craniofacial teams in the U.S. and Canada. Complete descriptions of cleft and craniofacial teams are not currently provided in the literature, and this study will provide an overview for health services research and policy use. Conducted by a national organization, this study examines teams in detail using a pretested and standardized methodology. DESIGN: All known (n = 296) North American cleft palate and craniofacial teams were contacted for team listing purposes using a self-assessment method developed by an interdisciplinary committee of national stature. Team clinical leaders classified their teams into several possible categories and provided data on team care. The response rate was 83.4% (n = 247). RESULTS: The distribution of listed teams was: 105 (42.5%) cleft palate teams, 102 (41.3%) craniofacial teams (including craniofacial teams that are both cleft palate and craniofacial teams), 12 (4.9%) geographically listed teams, and 28 (11.3%) other teams (including interim cleft palate teams, low-density cleft palate teams, and evaluation and treatment review cleft palate teams). Eighty-five percent of all teams systematically collected and stored clinical data on their team's patient population in the past year. Furthermore, 50% of all teams had a quality assurance program in place to measure treatment outcomes. Other findings presented include the annual number of face-to-face team meetings; new and follow-up patient censuses; and surgical rates for initial repair of cleft lip/palate, orthognathic/osteotomy procedures, and intracranial/craniofacial procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Two of five North American teams classify themselves as having the capacity to provide both cleft palate and craniofacial care. An additional two of five teams limit their primary role to cleft palate care. Issues are raised regarding the distribution of teams, the regionalization of craniofacial services, health policy, and resource allocation.
OBJECTIVE: This study is the first comprehensive national survey of the organization, function, and composition of cleft palate and craniofacial teams in the U.S. and Canada. Complete descriptions of cleft and craniofacial teams are not currently provided in the literature, and this study will provide an overview for health services research and policy use. Conducted by a national organization, this study examines teams in detail using a pretested and standardized methodology. DESIGN: All known (n = 296) North American cleft palate and craniofacial teams were contacted for team listing purposes using a self-assessment method developed by an interdisciplinary committee of national stature. Team clinical leaders classified their teams into several possible categories and provided data on team care. The response rate was 83.4% (n = 247). RESULTS: The distribution of listed teams was: 105 (42.5%) cleft palate teams, 102 (41.3%) craniofacial teams (including craniofacial teams that are both cleft palate and craniofacial teams), 12 (4.9%) geographically listed teams, and 28 (11.3%) other teams (including interim cleft palate teams, low-density cleft palate teams, and evaluation and treatment review cleft palate teams). Eighty-five percent of all teams systematically collected and stored clinical data on their team's patient population in the past year. Furthermore, 50% of all teams had a quality assurance program in place to measure treatment outcomes. Other findings presented include the annual number of face-to-face team meetings; new and follow-up patient censuses; and surgical rates for initial repair of cleft lip/palate, orthognathic/osteotomy procedures, and intracranial/craniofacial procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Two of five North American teams classify themselves as having the capacity to provide both cleft palate and craniofacial care. An additional two of five teams limit their primary role to cleft palate care. Issues are raised regarding the distribution of teams, the regionalization of craniofacial services, health policy, and resource allocation.
Authors: Peter C Damiano; Margaret C Tyler; Paul A Romitti; Charlotte Druschel; April A Austin; Whitney Burnett; James M Robbins Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2010-10-01
Authors: Kristin D Pfeifauf; Kamlesh B Patel; Alison Snyder-Warwick; Gary B Skolnick; Sibyl Scheve; Sybill D Naidoo Journal: Cleft Palate Craniofac J Date: 2018-05-21
Authors: April A Austin; Charlotte M Druschel; Margaret C Tyler; Paul A Romitti; Imara I West; Peter C Damiano; James M Robbins; Whitney Burnett Journal: Cleft Palate Craniofac J Date: 2010-01
Authors: A Butali; W L Adeyemo; P A Mossey; H O Olasoji; I I Onah; A Adebola; A Akintububo; O James; O O Adeosun; M O Ogunlewe; A L Ladeinde; B O Mofikoya; M O Adeyemi; O A Ekhaguere; C Emeka; T A Awoyale Journal: Cleft Palate Craniofac J Date: 2013-04-04
Authors: Kevin T Jubbal; Dmitry Zavlin; Shola Olorunnipa; Anthony Echo; Edward P Buchanan; Larry H Hollier Journal: Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr Date: 2017-04-03