Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology · 2003
Treatment of oralfacial clefts by state-affiliated craniofacial centers and cleft palate clinics.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Williams Charles A, Mardon Russell E, Grove Douglas, Wharton Paul, Hauser Kimberlea W, Frías Jaime L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Oralfacial clefting (OFC) disorders require expedient evaluation and treatment to obtain optimal outcome. In Florida, there is a statewide program targeted to the care of infants with OFC. We therefore sought to determine statewide referral and treatment patterns of children born with OFC identified through the Florida Birth Defects Registry.
METHODS: Using data for 1996 and 1997 and ICD-9 CM codes 749.00 - 749.25, we identified 539 OFC cases. All cases were matched with the evaluation and treatment records of the statewide Children's Medical Services' (CMS) craniofacial centers (CFC) and cleft palate clinics (CPC). The likelihood of CMS contact was examined with respect to demographic and other descriptive data characterizing the OFC cases.
RESULTS: 42% (227/539) of OFC cases were evaluated at or known to the CFC or CPC. Children with cleft lip and palate were more likely to have had contact than were those with cleft lip or cleft palate alone. The CFC and CPC programs were most likely to provide evaluation between age 2 months and 3 years. Of 12 counties with occurrences of more than 15 OFC cases, 2 had significantly lower contact rates, suggesting possible problems in accessibility or reporting of services.
CONCLUSIONS: Statewide Birth Defect Registry data can be used in collaboration with statewide treatment programs to gain insight into referral patterns and provision of services. Factors influencing access to services and quality of care, though not addressed by this study, could be prospectively incorporated into such a project.
METHODS: Using data for 1996 and 1997 and ICD-9 CM codes 749.00 - 749.25, we identified 539 OFC cases. All cases were matched with the evaluation and treatment records of the statewide Children's Medical Services' (CMS) craniofacial centers (CFC) and cleft palate clinics (CPC). The likelihood of CMS contact was examined with respect to demographic and other descriptive data characterizing the OFC cases.
RESULTS: 42% (227/539) of OFC cases were evaluated at or known to the CFC or CPC. Children with cleft lip and palate were more likely to have had contact than were those with cleft lip or cleft palate alone. The CFC and CPC programs were most likely to provide evaluation between age 2 months and 3 years. Of 12 counties with occurrences of more than 15 OFC cases, 2 had significantly lower contact rates, suggesting possible problems in accessibility or reporting of services.
CONCLUSIONS: Statewide Birth Defect Registry data can be used in collaboration with statewide treatment programs to gain insight into referral patterns and provision of services. Factors influencing access to services and quality of care, though not addressed by this study, could be prospectively incorporated into such a project.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Abnormalities, MultipleAsian PeopleBlack PeopleChild, PreschoolChromosome AberrationsCleft LipCleft PalateFemaleFloridaForms and Records ControlHispanic or LatinoHospitals, StateHumansInfantMaleMaternal AgeMedical RecordsPacific IslandsPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePrevalenceReferral and ConsultationRegistriesRetrospective StudiesSex RatioTeratogensWhite PeopleBlack or African American