RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite the existence of American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association (ACPA)-approved Cleft and Craniofacial Teams, access to multidisciplinary team-based care remains challenging for patients from rural areas, leading to disparities in care. We investigated the geospatial relationship between U.S. counties and ACPA-approved centers. METHODS: The geographic location of all ACPA-approved cleft and craniofacial centers in the U.S. was identified. Distance between individual U.S. counties (n=3,142) and their closest ACPA-approved team was determined. Counties were mapped based on distance to nearest cleft or craniofacial team. Distance calculations were combined with U.S Census data to model the number of children served by each team and economic characteristics of families served. These relationships were analyzed using independent t-tests and ANOVA. RESULTS: Over 40% of U.S. counties did not have access to an ACPA-approved craniofacial team within a 100-mile radius (n=1,267) versus 29% for cleft teams (n=909). Over 90% of counties greater than 100 miles to a craniofacial team had a population <7,500 (n=1,150). Of the counties >100 miles from a cleft team, 64% had a child poverty rate greater than national average (n=579). Counties with the highest birth rate and >100 miles to travel to an ACPA team are in the Mountain West. CONCLUSIONS: Given the time-sensitive nature of operative intervention and access to multidisciplinary care, the lack of equitable distribution in certified cleft and craniofacial teams is concerning. Centers may better serve families from distant areas by establishing satellite clinics, telehealth visits, and training local primary care providers in referral practices.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Our primary aim was to understand and describe the impact of COVID-19 on the incidence and etiology of facial trauma in the state of Mississippi. METHODS: Retrospective review of facial trauma-related Emergency Department encounters in Mississippi from March 11, 2019 to March 10, 2021, divided into three time periods using the state of Mississippi's Governor's Office Executive Orders. Chi-square tests and segmented linear regressions were used for analysis. RESULTS: Patients presenting with facial trauma were typically male, 18-44 years old, and lived in urban zip codes. Insurance payors significantly differed across time periods. There were no significant differences in self-inflicted assault or accidental injury between the 3 time periods, with pre- and pandemic patients more likely to be self-pay while patients during recovery being more likely to have private insurance. During the pandemic, facial trauma from a family member, partner or spouse, or other person in the household significantly increased. CONCLUSION: Similar accidental facial trauma trends may reflect lower adherence to social distancing guidelines. The increase in facial trauma perpetrated by family members is consistent with reported increases in domestic violence during the pandemic. While overall facial trauma demographic patterns did not change significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic, there were notable changes in the etiology and insurance payor of facial trauma cases. LAY SUMMARY: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted healthcare systems worldwide, and our study seeks to understand how the pandemic affected incidence of facial trauma.
