Ergonomics for Cleft Providers: A Brief Communication.

Musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries are the most common and debilitating work-related injuries among healthcare providers. These injuries often occur due to a lack of awareness and insufficient guidance during the early years of medical training. Recognizing the need to address this issue, the Comprehensive Cleft Care Workshop (CCCW) has taken steps to integrate an ergonomics session into its curriculum. The goal of this initiative is to enhance awareness on ergonomics, improve the integration of ergonomics into daily routine, and ultimately reduce the occurrence of MSK injuries among healthcare professionals.

Single-Stage Posterior Vomerine Ostectomy and Primary Cheiloplasty in Patients with Bilateral Cleft Lip & Palate and Protuberant Premaxilla.

OBJECTIVE: A protruded premaxilla has always been challenging to care for by cleft care professionals. This study aims to fortify the use of a single-stage premaxillary setback, with posterior vomerine ostectomy and primary cheiloplasty to achieve proper care for patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) and protruded premaxilla. DESIGN: Longitudinal retrospective analysis. SETTING: Twenty-three outreach programs to four countries (Ecuador, Lebanon, Peru, and El-Salvador) between 2016-2022. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-five patients between the ages of 3 months and 6 years and 5 months, with BCLP and severely protruded premaxilla underwent premaxillary setback via posterior vomerine ostectomy and primary cheiloplasty. Patients with diagnosed syndromes and inaccessible vomer bone due to fused palates were excluded from the study. INTERVENTIONS: Premaxillary setback with posterior vomerine ostectomy, bilateral gingivoperiosteoplasties (GPP), and primary cheiloplasty. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Postoperative complications and aesthetic outcomes. RESULTS: The mean age at surgery was 13.17 ± 14.1 months, with an average follow-up time of 26 ± 17 months. Patients underwent their procedures in Ecuador (72%), Peru (9%), Lebanon (8%) and El-Salvador (1%). The majority of patients were aged 1 year or less (66.7%) and were males (58.5%). All patients were operated on successfully and had good aesthetic outcomes. Only one patient developed partial necrosis. CONCLUSION: Patients with BCLP and severe premaxillary protrusion have always carried immense social, psychological, and financial burdens, especially in outreach settings. Our described single-stage technique has proven to be safe and effective with good aesthetic results. Further follow-up after primary repair should be done to document and ensure proper facial growth and normal nasolabial maturation.

Global Smile Foundation's Cleft Surgical Outreach Program: Clinical and Economic Impact During the Past 14 Years.

Clefts of the lip and/or palate can result in significant morbidity as well as economic and psychosocial distress for patients and families. Global Smile Foundation is a non-profit organization committed to providing comprehensive cleft care to patients with cleft of the lip/palate around the world. Primary cleft lip and primary cleft palate repairs performed by the Global Smile Foundation in the last decade were reviewed. Averted disability-adjusted life years were estimated and assessed for their economic value. A total of 15,310 disability-adjusted life years were averted. The financial gain was estimated between $78,323,624 and $152,906,604, with an average financial benefit of $48,021 to $93,750 per patient.

Application of Safety Protocols for International Cleft Outreach Programs During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Global Smile Foundation Precaution Guidelines and Implications.

BACKGROUND: Since COVID-19 was declared a worldwide pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March of 2020, foundation-based cleft outreach programs to Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) were halted considering global public health challenges, scarcity of capacity and resources, and travel restrictions. This led to an increase in the backlog of untreated patients with cleft lip and/or palate, with new challenges to providing comprehensive care in those regions. Resumption of international outreach programs requires an updated course of action to incorporate necessary safety measures in the face of the ongoing pandemic. In this manuscript, the authors outline safety protocols, guidelines, and recommendations implemented in Global Smile Foundation's (GSF) most recent outreach trip to Beirut, Lebanon. METHODS: COVID-19 safety protocols for outreach cleft care and an Action Response Plan were developed by the GSF team based on the published literature and recommendations from leading international organizations. RESULTS: GSF conducted a 1-week surgical outreach program in Beirut, Lebanon, performing 13 primary cleft lip repairs, 7 cleft palate repairs, and 1 alveolar bone grafting procedure. Safety protocols were implemented at all stages of the outreach program, including patient preselection and education, hospital admission and screening, intraoperative care, and postoperative monitoring and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Organizing outreach programs in the setting of infectious diseases outbreaks should prioritize the safety and welfare of patients and team members within the program's local community. The COVID-19 protocols and guidelines described may represent a reproducible framework for planning future similar outreach initiatives in high-risk conditions.

The First Hybrid International Educational Comprehensive Cleft Care Workshop.

OBJECTIVE: Describe the first hybrid global simulation-based comprehensive cleft care workshop, evaluate impact on participants, and compare experiences based on in-person versus virtual attendance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey-based evaluation. SETTING: International comprehensive cleft care workshop. PARTICIPANTS: Total of 489 participants. INTERVENTIONS: Three-day simulation-based hybrid comprehensive cleft care workshop. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participant demographic data, perceived barriers and interventions needed for global comprehensive cleft care delivery, participant workshop satisfaction, and perceived short-term impact on practice stratified by in-person versus virtual attendance. RESULTS: The workshop included 489 participants from 5 continents. The response rate was 39.9%. Participants perceived financial factors (30.3%) the most significant barrier and improvement in training (39.8%) as the most important intervention to overcome barriers facing cleft care delivery in low to middle-income countries. All participants reported a high level of satisfaction with the workshop and a strong positive perceived short-term impact on their practice. Importantly, while this was true for both in-person and virtual attendees, in-person attendees reported a significantly higher satisfaction with the workshop (28.63 ± 3.08 vs 27.63 ± 3.93; P = .04) and perceived impact on their clinical practice (22.37 ± 3.42 vs 21.02 ± 3.45 P = .01). CONCLUSION: Hybrid simulation-based educational comprehensive cleft care workshops are overall well received by participants and have a positive perceived impact on their clinical practices. In-person attendance is associated with significantly higher satisfaction and perceived impact on practice. Considering that financial and health constraints may limit live meeting attendance, future efforts will focus on making in-person and virtual attendance more comparable.

Perceived Barriers to Comprehensive Cleft Care Delivery: Results From A Capacity-Building Educational Initiative and Implications.

INTRODUCTION: We analyzed the perceptions of participants and faculty members in simulation-based comprehensive cleft care workshops regarding comprehensive cleft care delivery in developing countries. METHODS: Data were collected from participants and faculty members in 2 simulation-based comprehensive cleft care workshops organized by Global Smile Foundation. We collected demographic data and surveyed what they believed was the most significant barrier to comprehensive cleft care delivery and the most important intervention to deliver comprehensive cleft care in developing countries. We also compared participant and faculty responses. RESULTS: The total number of participants and faculty members was 313 from 44 countries. The response rate was 57.8%. The majority reported that the most significant barrier facing the delivery of comprehensive cleft care in developing countries was financial (35.0%), followed by the absence of multidisciplinary cleft teams (30.8%). The majority reported that the most important intervention to deliver comprehensive cleft care was creating multidisciplinary cleft teams (32.2%), followed by providing cleft training (22.6%). We found no significant differences in what participants and faculty perceived as the greatest barrier to comprehensive cleft care delivery (P = 0.46), or most important intervention to deliver comprehensive cleft care in developing countries (P = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides an appraisal of barriers facing comprehensive cleft care delivery and interventions required to overcome these barriers in developing countries. Future studies will be critical to validate or refute our findings, as well as determine country-specific roadmaps for delivering comprehensive cleft care to those who need it the most.

Comprehensive Cleft Care Delivery in Developing Countries: Impact of Geographic and Demographic Factors.

INTRODUCTION: The authors analyzed the insights of participants and faculty members of Global Smile Foundation's Comprehensive Cleft Care Workshops concerning the barriers and interventions to multidisciplinary cleft care delivery, after stratification based on demographic and geographic factors. METHODS: During 2 simulation-based Comprehensive Cleft Care Workshops organized by Global Smile Foundation, participants and faculty members filled a survey. Surveys included demographic and geographic data and investigated the most relevant barrier to multidisciplinary cleft care and the most significant intervention to deliver comprehensive cleft care in outreach settings, as perceived by participants. RESULTS: The total response rate was 57.8%. Respondents reported that the greatest barrier to comprehensive cleft care was financial, and the most relevant intervention to deliver multidisciplinary cleft care was building multidisciplinary teams. Stratification by age, gender, and geographical area showed no statistical difference in reporting that the greatest barrier to cleft care was financial. However, lack of multidisciplinary teams was the most important barrier according to respondents with less than 5 years of experience (P = 0.03). Stratification by gender, years in practice, specialty, and geographical area showed no statistical difference, with building multidisciplinary teams reported as the most significant intervention. However, increased training was reported as the main intervention to cleft care for those aged less than 30 years old (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Our study delivers an assessment for barriers facing multidisciplinary cleft care delivery and interventions required to improve cleft care delivery. The authors are hoping that stratification by demographic and geographic factors will help them delineate community-specific road maps to refine cleft care delivery.