Search

Objectives: To examine school absence and academic achievement among 7-year-old children with isolated orofacial clefts in England., Design: Analysis of educational data linked to national cleft registry and administrative hospital data., Setting: English state schools., Patients: 3523 children with isolated clefts aged 7 years between 2006 and 2014., Main Outcome Measures: Annual school absence and reaching the national 'expected level' according to teacher-assessed academic achievement., Results: Children with isolated clefts had higher mean annual school absence (10.5 days) than their peers in the national population (8.9 days). Total absence was higher in children with a cleft lip and palate (CLP; 11.3 days) or with a cleft palate only (CPO; 10.5 days) than in children with a cleft lip only (CLO; 9.5 days). The percentage reaching the expected academic level decreased with increasing school absence (from 77.4% (923/1192) with annual school absence ≤5 days to 43.4% (193/445) with annual school absence >20 days). However, differences in school absence did not explain that children with CPO (65.9% reaching expected level) or CLP (66.1% reaching expected level) had poorer levels of academic achievement than children with CLO (73.5% reaching expected level). Children with a cleft were twice as often recognised as having special education needs (40.5%) than their peers (21.6%)., Conclusions: School absence and cleft type are both independently associated with school attainment at 7 years. Children with an isolated cleft, especially when the palate is involved, and those with high levels of school absence may benefit from increased support addressing their educational needs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: We used national data to study differences in academic achievement between 5-year-old children with an isolated oral cleft and the general population. We also assessed differences by cleft type., Methods: Children born in England with an oral cleft were identified in a national cleft registry. Their records were linked to databases of hospital admissions (to identify additional anomalies) and educational outcomes. Z-scores (signed number of SD actual score is above national average) were calculated to make outcome scores comparable across school years and across six assessed areas ( personal development, communication and language, maths, knowledge of world, physical development and creative development )., Results: 2802 children without additional anomalies, 5 years old between 2006 and 2012, were included. Academic achievement was significantly below national average for all six assessed areas with z-scores ranging from -0.24 (95% CI -0.32 to -0.16) for knowledge of world to -0.31 (-0.38 to -0.23) for personal development . Differences were small with only a cleft lip but considerably larger with clefts involving the palate. 29.4% of children were documented as having special education needs (national rate 9.7%), which varied according to cleft type from 13.2% with cleft lip to 47.6% with bilateral cleft lip and palate., Conclusions: Compared with national average, 5-year-old children with an isolated oral cleft, especially those involving the palate, have significantly poorer academic achievement across all areas of learning. These outcomes reflect results of modern surgical techniques and multidisciplinary approach. Children with a cleft may benefit from extra academic support when starting school., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: To assess grommet insertion practice in the first 5 years of life among children with an orofacial cleft in England., Design: Analysis of national administrative data of hospital admissions., Setting: National Health Service hospitals, England., Patients: Patients born between 1997 and 2005 who underwent surgical cleft repair., Intervention: Children receiving grommets before the age of 5 years., Outcome Measures: The proportion of children receiving grommets before the age of 5 years, the timing of the first grommet insertion, and the proportion of children having repeat grommet insertions were examined according to cleft type, the absence or presence of additional anomalies, socioeconomic deprivation, and region of residence., Results: The study included 8,269 children. Before the age of 5 years, 3,015 (36.5%) children received grommets. Of these, 33.2% received their first grommets at primary cleft repair and 33.3% underwent multiple grommet insertion procedures. The most common age for the first procedure was between 6 and 12 months. Children with a cleft affecting the palate were more likely to receive grommets than children with a cleft lip alone (45.5% versus 4.5%). Grommet insertion practice also varied according to year of birth, absence or presence of additional anomalies, socioeconomic deprivation, and region of residence., Conclusion: Grommets practice in children with a cleft appears to vary according to their clinical characteristics. The differences in practice observed according to deprivation and region of residence need to be further explored.

Background: Children with clefts have an increased tendency for dental anomalies and caries., Aim: To determine the pattern of hospital admissions for dental treatment during primary dentition among children with clefts., Design: Cohort study based on Hospital Episode Statistics, an administrative database of all admissions to National Health Service hospitals in England. Patients born alive between 1997 and 2003 who had both a cleft diagnosis and cleft repair were included. The number of hospital admissions for surgical removal of teeth, simple extraction of teeth, and restoration of teeth before the age of seven was examined., Results: Eight hundred and fifty-eight hospital admissions for dental treatment among 6551 children (<7 year) with a cleft were identified. 66.4% of admissions were primarily for caries and 95.6% involved extractions. 11.4% of children had at least one admission for dental treatment. The presence of additional anomalies, having a more severe cleft type, and living in relatively deprived areas increased the risk of hospital admission., Conclusions: Factors increasing the risk of hospital admission among cleft children should be taken into account when planning services. Efforts to reduce the number of hospital admissions should be focused on disease prevention, particularly among those most at risk of caries., (© 2013 BSPD, IAPD and John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To analyse hospital admissions in the first 2 years of life among children with cleft lip and/or palate in England., Design: Analysis of national administrative data of hospital admissions., Setting: National Health Service hospitals., Patients: Patients born alive between 1997 and 2008 who underwent surgical cleft repair., Outcome Measures: Number of admissions, including the birth episode, and days spent in hospital were examined. Children were analysed according to cleft type and whether or not they had additional congenital anomalies., Results: 10 892 children were included. In their first 2 years, children without additional anomalies (n=8482) had on average 3.2 admissions and 13.2 days in hospital, which varied from 2.6 admissions and 9.2 days with cleft lip to 4.7 admissions and 19.7 days with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP). Children with additional anomalies (n=2410) had on average 6.7 admissions and 51.4 days in hospital, which varied from 6.4 admissions and 48.5 days with cleft palate to 8.8 admissions and 67.5 days with BCLP. The mean number and duration of cleft-related admissions was similar in children without (1.6 admissions and 6.4 days) and in those with additional anomalies (1.5 admissions and 8.5 days). 35.2% of children without additional anomalies had at least one emergency admission, whereas the corresponding figure was 67.3% with additional anomalies., Conclusions: The burden of hospital care in the first 2 years of life varied according to cleft type and presence of additional anomalies. However, cleft-specific hospital care did not differ between children with and without additional anomalies.

Background: In 1998, a process of centralisation was initiated for services for children born with a cleft lip or palate in the UK. We studied the timing of this process in England according to its impact on the number of hospitals and surgeons involved in primary surgical repairs., Methods: All live born patients with a cleft lip and/or palate born between April 1997 and December 2008 were identified in Hospital Episode Statistics, the database of admissions to English National Health Service hospitals. Children were included if they had diagnostic codes for a cleft as well as procedure codes for a primary surgical cleft repair. Children with codes indicating additional congenital anomalies or syndromes were excluded as their additional problems could have determined when and where they were treated., Results: We identified 10,892 children with a cleft. 21.0% were excluded because of additional anomalies or syndromes. Of the remaining 8,606 patients, 30.4% had a surgical lip repair only, 41.7% a palate repair only, and 28.0% both a lip and palate repair. The number of hospitals that carried out these primary repairs reduced from 49 in 1997 to 13, with 11 of these performing repairs on at least 40 children born in 2008. The number of surgeons responsible for repairs reduced from 98 to 26, with 22 performing repairs on at least 20 children born in 2008. In the same period, average length of hospital stay reduced from 3.8 to 3.0 days for primary lip repairs, from 3.8 to 3.3 days for primary palate repairs, and from 4.6 to 2.6 days for combined repairs with no evidence for a change in emergency readmission rates. The speed of centralisation varied with the earliest of the nine regions completing it in 2001 and the last in 2007., Conclusions: Between 1998 and 2007, cleft services in England were centralised. According to a survey among patients' parents, the quality of cleft care improved in the same period. Surgical care became more consistent with current recommendations. However, key outcomes, including facial appearance and speech, can only be assessed many years after the initial surgical treatment.

The article discusses research which assessed grommet insertion practice in the first five years of life among children with an orofacial cleft in England. Topics discussed include data analysis gathered from patients born between 1997 and 2005 who underwent surgical cleft repair, the proportion of children having repeat grommet insertions, and the absence or presence of additional anomalie, socioeconomic deprivation and region of residence.