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.

A perceptual outcome measure of velopharyngeal function based on the Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech-Augmented (CAPS-A VPC-Sum): Validation through a speech osteotomy study.

BACKGROUND: The status of the velopharyngeal mechanism can be inferred from perceptual ratings of specified speech parameters. Several studies have proposed the measure of an overall velopharyngeal composite score based on these perceptual ratings and have reported good validity. The Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech-Augmented (CAPS-A) is a validated and reliable perceptual framework for the assessment of cleft speech and velopharyngeal function used by all Regional Cleft Services in the UK and Ireland. An overall velopharyngeal composite summary score based on the CAPS-A would serve as an important surgical outcome measure of speech. AIMS: To develop and validate a velopharyngeal composite summary score based on perceptual ratings made on the CAPS-A (CAPS-A VPC-Sum) using data from a maxillary osteotomy (MO) study. METHODS & PROCEDURES: There were two surgical groups: a cleft lip and palate (CLP) (N = 20) group and a non-CLP group (N = 10), and a normal control group (N = 20). Participants in groups 1 and 2 were seen for perceptual and instrumental assessments of speech and velopharyngeal function preoperatively (T1), 3 months (T2) and 12 months (T3) postoperatively. Perceptual speech data were collected and rated by independent listeners using CAPS-A. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Moderate to strong interrater reliability for perceptual data (rs = 0.503-1.000, all p < 0.01) and strong to very strong reliability for videofluoroscopic measurements (rs = 0.746-0.947) were found. Construct validity of the CAPS-A VPC-Sum was shown by an increase in postoperative scores for the CLP group only Ï°2 (2) = 9.769, p = 0.008 and significant differences between the CLP and the other two groups at T2 and T3 using independent t-tests. Convergent and divergent validity was indicated by a positive moderate correlation with related parameters (e.g., hypernasality rs = 0.869, p < 0.01) and a weak correlation with unrelated parameters (e.g., amount of forward advancement rs = 0.160, p = 0.526). Criterion validity was found by a moderate correlation between closure ratio rs = -0.541, p = 0.020 and CAPS-A VPC-Sum. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: A velopharyngeal composite score based on perceptually rated parameters serves as an important surgical speech outcome measure. The CAPS-A VPC-Sum is a useful, reliable and valid outcome measure of velopharyngeal function. There are added positive implications for other clinicians using geographically and language-specific adapted versions of the CAPS-A internationally. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject Velopharyngeal composite scores based on perceptually rated speech parameters have been shown to have both clinical and research utility, serving as a useful surgical outcome measure. However, such a composite score must be specifically validated on the perceptual speech framework upon which it is based, as there are differences in measurement methods and terminology across cleft speech perceptual frameworks internationally. What this paper adds to existing knowledge The CAPS-A is a nationally used tool in the UK and Ireland for audit and research purposes with validated and adapted international versions. This paper reports on the validation of the derived velopharyngeal composite score measure based on the CAPS-A and an English-speaking sample, providing evidence of its validity through a speech osteotomy study. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This work provides CLP teams who use CAPS-A with a validated surgical speech outcome measure of velopharyngeal function. It has positive implications also for adapted versions of the CAPS-A internationally.

Identifying Predictors of Acquired Velopharyngeal Insufficiency in Cleft Lip and Palate Following Maxillary Osteotomy Using Multiple Regression Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Maxillary osteotomy is typically undertaken to correct abnormal facial growth in cleft lip and palate. The surgery can cause velopharyngeal insufficiency resulting in hypernasality. This study aims to identify valid predictors of acquired velopharyngeal insufficiency following maxillary osteotomy by using a range of perceptual and instrumental speech investigations and multiple regression. METHODS: A prospective study was undertaken consisting of a consecutive series of patients with cleft lip and palate (N = 20) undergoing maxillary osteotomy by a single surgeon. Participants were seen at: 0 to 3 months pre-surgery (T1), 3-months (T2), and 12-months (T3) post-surgery. Hypernasality was rated using the cleft audit protocol for speech-augmented (CAPS-A) and visual analog scales, and nasalance was measured on the Nasometer II 6400. For lateral videofluorosopic and nasendoscopic images, visual perceptual ratings and quantitative ratiometric measurements were undertaken. Multiple regression analyses were undertaken to identify predictors. RESULTS: T3 models with hypernasality as the dependent variable were found to be a good fit and significant (eg, CAPS-A: R2 = 0.920, F(11,7) = 7.303, P = 0.007). Closure ratio (a quantitative ratiometric measurement) and proportion of palate contacting the posterior pharyngeal wall (a visual perceptual rating) were identified as significant predictors for the CAPS-A model (P = 0.030, P = 0.002).

Effect of Maxillary Osteotomy on Speech in Cleft Lip and Palate: Instrumental Outcomes of Velopharyngeal Function.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of maxillary osteotomy on velopharyngeal function in cleft lip and palate (CLP) using instrumental measures. DESIGN: A prospective study. PARTICIPANTS: A consecutive series of 20 patients with CLP undergoing maxillary osteotomy by a single surgeon were seen at 0 to 3 months presurgery (T1), 3 months (T2), and 12 months (T3) post-surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Nasalance was measured on the Nasometer II 6400. For videofluoroscopy and nasendoscopy data, visual perceptual ratings, for example, palatal lift angle (PLAn), and quantitative ratiometric measurements, for example, closure ratio (CRa), were made using a validated methodology and computer software. Reliability studies were undertaken for all instrumental measures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Repeated measures analysis of variance (with time at 3 levels) for nasalance and each velar parameter. Planned comparisons across pairs of time points (T1-T2, T1-T3, and T2-T3) including effect sizes. RESULTS: A significant difference over time was found for nasalance (P = .001) and planned comparisons across pairs of time points were significant between T1 and T2 (P = .008), T1 and T3 (P = .002), but not between T2 and T3 (P = .459) providing evidence that maxillary osteotomy can impact on nasalance adversely and that the changes seen are permanent and stable. There were also significant differences over time for PLAn (P = .012) and CRa (P = -.059) and planned comparisons for both velar parameters reflected similar findings to those of nasalance. CONCLUSIONS: Maxillary osteotomy can adversely affect velopharyngeal function in patients with CLP. The study provides evidence for a much earlier post-surgery review even as early as 3 months after surgery.