Search

Background: Although the United Kingdom (UK) cleft surgeons follow a similar training pathway, and cleft centers adhere to similar protocols regarding the timing of palate surgery and surgical technique, speech outcomes still vary between centers., Objective: To explore the training experiences of consultant cleft lip and palate (CL/P) surgeons, performing a Sommerlad radical intravelar veloplasty (IVVP) and their approach to teaching others., Design: An exploratory, qualitative approach was adopted to understand the views of UK cleft surgeons performing a Sommerlad radical IVVP and discuss what was important during training and upon qualifying as a consultant., Method: A semi-structured interview schedule was designed, interviews were conducted in-person or via videoconferencing, depending on preference and availability, with interested surgeons. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and checked for accuracy. Analysis involved inductive thematic analysis., Results: Fourteen cleft consultants from the UK participated (3F:11M). Seven of the consultants were trained in plastic surgery and four in maxillofacial surgery. Seven themes were identified from the thematic analysis. Three themes, namely Learning to perform palate repair, Teaching others to perform palate repair, and Ongoing learning as a consultant are discussed., Conclusions: Cleft palate repair is clearly a technically challenging procedure to learn and teach with the potential to cause harm if performed incorrectly. Positive changes have been made to improve exposure to palate surgery, encourage practice away from the patient, and increase supervised practical experience. The role of colleagues in providing mentorship and support appears invaluable. We provide some simple recommendations that may improve the training experience and ensure parity for all trainees.

Background: As a growing paradigm of health research, trainee collaboratives can influence clinical practice through the generation of cost-effective multicenter audit and research projects. The aims of the present article are to outline and discuss the establishment of a multidisciplinary collaborative in the context of cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P)., Methods: The Cleft Multidisciplinary Collaborative (CMC) was formed in April 2016 under the overarching supervision of the National Institute for Health Research. Membership of the CMC is open to all members of the CL/P multidisciplinary team, who are encouraged to submit ideas for new research projects that will benefit clinical practice., Results: To date, 48 clinical participants are involved in the CMC. These participants represent all 17 cleft teams from the United Kingdom and encompass a wide range of disciplines. The CMC has undertaken 2 major projects so far. The first involved collection of phenotype data to support a national cohort study. The second, still in progress, is a systematic review investigating factors associated with outcomes for velopharyngeal competence following cleft palate repair., Conclusions: The concept of a multidisciplinary collaborative in CL/P has been demonstrated through the generation of a United Kingdom-wide network of committed clinicians and researchers and the effective undertaking of 2 large research projects. As the CMC gathers momentum, it hopes to attract funding to support its activities, to promote more involvement from the allied health and nursing professions, to encourage a more ingrained research culture within the CL/P community, and to promote the wider ambition of a global collaborative.

Background: Although the United Kingdom (UK) cleft surgeons follow a similar training pathway, and cleft centers adhere to similar protocols regarding the timing of palate surgery and surgical technique, speech outcomes still vary between centers. Objective: To explore the training experiences of consultant cleft lip and palate (CL/P) surgeons, performing a Sommerlad radical intravelar veloplasty (IVVP) and their approach to teaching others. Design: An exploratory, qualitative approach was adopted to understand the views of UK cleft surgeons performing a Sommerlad radical IVVP and discuss what was important during training and upon qualifying as a consultant. Method: A semi-structured interview schedule was designed, interviews were conducted in-person or via videoconferencing, depending on preference and availability, with interested surgeons. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and checked for accuracy. Analysis involved inductive thematic analysis. Results: Fourteen cleft consultants from the UK participated (3F:11M). Seven of the consultants were trained in plastic surgery and four in maxillofacial surgery. Seven themes were identified from the thematic analysis. Three themes, namely Learning to perform palate repair, Teaching others to perform palate repair, and Ongoing learning as a consultant are discussed. Conclusions: Cleft palate repair is clearly a technically challenging procedure to learn and teach with the potential to cause harm if performed incorrectly. Positive changes have been made to improve exposure to palate surgery, encourage practice away from the patient, and increase supervised practical experience. The role of colleagues in providing mentorship and support appears invaluable. We provide some simple recommendations that may improve the training experience and ensure parity for all trainees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As a growing paradigm of health research, trainee collaboratives can influence clinical practice through the generation of cost-effective multicenter audit and research projects. The aims of the present article are to outline and discuss the establishment of a multidisciplinary collaborative in the context of cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P). Methods: The Cleft Multidisciplinary Collaborative (CMC) was formed in April 2016 under the overarching supervision of the National Institute for Health Research. Membership of the CMC is open to all members of the CL/P multidisciplinary team, who are encouraged to submit ideas for new research projects that will benefit clinical practice. Results: To date, 48 clinical participants are involved in the CMC. These participants represent all 17 cleft teams from the United Kingdom and encompass a wide range of disciplines. The CMC has undertaken 2 major projects so far. The first involved collection of phenotype data to support a national cohort study. The second, still in progress, is a systematic review investigating factors associated with outcomes for velopharyngeal competence following cleft palate repair. Conclusions: The concept of a multidisciplinary collaborative in CL/P has been demonstrated through the generation of a United Kingdom-wide network of committed clinicians and researchers and the effective undertaking of 2 large research projects. As the CMC gathers momentum, it hopes to attract funding to support its activities, to promote more involvement from the allied health and nursing professions, to encourage a more ingrained research culture within the CL/P community, and to promote the wider ambition of a global collaborative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]