Inter-centre comparison of data on surgery and speech outcomes at 5 years of age based on the Swedish quality registry for patients born with cleft palate with or without cleft lip

BACKGROUND

The objective of the Swedish cleft lip and palate registry (CLP registry) is to promote quality control, research and improvement of treatment, by the comparison of long-term results. The aim was to compare data from the CLP registry among the six treatment centres, regarding data on surgery and speech outcomes at 5 years of age.

METHODS

The participants were 430 children born in Sweden from 2009 to 2014, with cleft palate with or without cleft lip and without known syndromes and/or additional malformations. The number of primary and secondary palatal surgeries up to 5 years of age, timing of the last primary palatal surgery, percentage consonants correct, percentage non-oral speech errors and perceived velopharyngeal competence at 5 years were assessed. Multivariable binary logistic regression adjusted for sex and cleft type was used to compare results between the six centres.

RESULTS

At one centre (centre 4), the palate was closed in one to three stages, and at the remaining centres in one or two stages. At centre 4, more children underwent a higher number of palatal surgeries, and the last primary palatal surgery was performed at a higher age. Children in centre 4 were also less likely to achieve ≥86% correct consonants (OR = 0.169, P = < 0.001), have no non-oral speech errors (OR = 0.347, P = < 0.001), or have competent or marginally incompetent velopharyngeal competence (OR = 0.244, P = < 0.001), compared to the average results of the other centres. No clear association between patient volume and speech outcome was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicated the risk of a negative speech result if the last primary palatal surgery was performed after 25 months of age. Whether the cleft in the palate was closed in one or two stages did not affect speech outcome. The Swedish CLP registry can be used for open comparisons of treatment results to provide the basis for improvements of treatment methods. If deviating negative results are seen consistently at one centre, this information should be acted upon by further investigation and analysis, making changes to the treatment protocol as needed.

Reliability of Outcome Measures to Assess Consonant Proficiency Following Cleft Palate Speech Intervention: The Percentage of Consonants Correct Metric and the Probe Scoring System

Purpose This study compared the inter- and intrarater reliability of the percentage of consonants correct (PCC) metrics and the probe scoring system between an experienced and a less experienced rater and between two experienced raters. In addition, these outcome measures' ability to reflect changes following speech intervention was measured. Method During Phase 1, two raters (Rater 1 with 5 years of experience in cleft-related speech disorders and Rater 2 with limited experience in cleft-related speech disorders) independently assessed 134 speech samples at the word and sentence levels, which were collected on different data points before, during, and following a cleft palate speech intervention. During Phase 2, a third rater (with 8 years of experience) analyzed 34 speech samples. The percentage of consonants correct-revised, the percentage of correct places and manners, and probe scores at the word and sentence levels were measured. Results Poor-to-moderate interreliability between Raters 1 and 2 was found due to differences in error classification. Interrater reliability between Raters 1 and 3 was very good for both the PCC metrics and the probe scores. The interrater reliability for the amount of targets elicited was lower compared to the interrater reliability for the amount of targets correct. The probe scoring system demonstrated a greater ability to detect changes toward the correct production of the target consonant compared to the PCC metrics. Conclusions Having an experience with the assessment of cleft-related speech disorders is a crucial factor to gain reliable results. The interrater reliability for the PCC metrics and the probe scoring system between two experienced raters did not differ, suggesting that both outcome measures can be used in cleft palate speech intervention studies. Despite the ability of the probe scoring system to detect changes, further research should provide insight in the benefits of this system both for research and clinical purposes.

Coverage, reporting degree and design of the Swedish quality registry for patients born with cleft lip and/or palate

Background

The objective of the Swedish cleft lip and palate (CLP) registry is to promote quality control, research and improvement of treatment, by comparison of the long-term results of surgery, orthodontics and speech from all six Swedish CLP centres. The purpose of the study was to investigate the coverage and reporting degree of the Swedish CLP registry, and to describe the design of the registry and discuss questions of reliability and validity of the data included.

Methods

All six Swedish CLP centres participate in the registry. All children in Sweden with cleft lip and/or cleft palate, born from 2009 onwards, are included in the registry. Baseline data such as cleft type (ICD-10 diagnosis), heredity, birth weight and additional deformities and/or syndromes, as well as pre-surgical treatment, are recorded at first visit. Data on surgical treatment are recorded continuously. Treatment outcome regarding dentofacial development and speech are recorded at follow-ups at 5, 10, 16 and 19 years of age. Data on dentofacial development are also recorded 1 year after orthognathic surgery. In addition, data on babbling and speech are recorded at 18 months of age. Coverage degree and reporting degree of surgery was assessed by comparison with registrations in the Swedish Central patient registry. Reporting degree of orthodontic and speech registrations at 5 years of age was assessed by comparison with registrations at baseline.

Results

The average coverage degree for children born 2009 to 2018 was 95.1%. For cleft-related surgeries, the average reporting degree was 92.4%. Average reporting degree of orthodontic registrations and speech registrations at age 5 years was 92 and 97.5% respectively.

Conclusion

In order to achieve valid and reliable data in a healthcare quality registry, the degree of coverage and reporting needs to be high, the variables included should be limited and checked for reliability, and the professionals must calibrate themselves regularly. The Swedish CLP registry fulfils these requirements.

Reliability of Speech Variables and Speech-Related Quality Indicators in the Swedish Cleft Lip and Palate Registry

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reliability of speech variables and speech-related quality indicators in the Swedish quality registry for cleft lip and palate (CLP).

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Primary care university hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-two 5-year-old children with unilateral CLP and 41 with bilateral CLP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Registry data for "percent nonoral errors" and "perceived velopharyngeal competence" (VPC) were compared to reassessments by 4 independent judges based on audio recordings. Interjudge agreement for "percent consonants correct" (PCC) and the reliability of 3 quality indicators were also assessed. Agreement was calculated with single measures intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for articulation outcomes, quadratic weighted κ and ICC for VPC, and percentage agreement and κ for quality indicators.

RESULTS

When the agreement between registry data and the judges' reassessments was assessed, the ICC was 0.79 for percent nonoral errors. For VPC, the κ coefficient was 0.66 to 0.75 and the ICC was 0.73. Interjudge agreement for PCC calculated with ICC was 0.85. For the quality indicator "proportion of children with ≥86% correct consonants," all 4 judges were in agreement for 72% of the cases. For "proportion of children without nonoral speech errors" and "proportion of children with competent or marginally incompetent velopharyngeal function," the agreement between registry data and the 4 judges was 89% and 85%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that registry data on PCC, percent nonoral errors, VPC, and the quality indicators "proportion of children without nonoral speech errors" and "proportion of children with competent or marginally incompetent velopharyngeal function" are reliable.

Stages in the Development and Validation of a Belgian Dutch Outcome Tool for the Perceptual Evaluation of Speech in Patients With Cleft Palate

Objective:

To develop and validate a Belgian Dutch outcome tool for the perceptual evaluation of speech in patients with cleft palate.

Setting:

Cleft palate team in a tertiary university hospital.

Methods:

The tool was based on the Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech–Augmented (John et al., 2006; Sell et al., 2009), with adaptations to some of the speech variables and the structured listening protocol. Following a preliminary listening experiment in phase 1, the tool was optimized. In the second phase, a listening experiment with 4 experienced listeners was set up to assess face validity, inter- and intrarater reliability and criterion validity.

Results:

Results of phase 1 indicated good to very good inter- and intrarater reliability for the majority of the speech variables, good discriminant validity, and varying sensitivity and specificity based on a comparison with nasalance values and the Nasality Severity Index 2.0 (criterion validity). Results of phase 2 showed good to very good interrater reliability for 5 of the 14 variables and good intrarater reliability in 3 of the 4 experienced listeners. Sensitivity and specificity were sufficient, except the specificity of the hypernasality judgments in comparison with the nasalance values of the oral text. Overall, listeners positively judged the face validity of the tool.

Conclusion:

The 2-phase evaluation indicated varying validity and reliability results. Future studies will aim to optimize validity and reliability of the developed tool based on adaptations to the listening protocol, the addition of speech variables, and the inclusion of a more elaborate training.