A clinical mnemonic to promote best practice in neonatal palate examination.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The incidence of late diagnosis of isolated cleft palate continues to be reported, without improvement, in the United Kingdom (UK). The CRANE database progress report for 2012 identified late diagnosis for children with isolated cleft palate at 28% of all known cases (Fitzsimmons et al 2012), with this proportion increasing to 32%, reported by CRANE the following year (Fitzsimmons et al 2013).

These findings are measured against agreed national standards which state that all babies born with cleft lip and/or palate should be identified at birth or soon after (Bannister 2008). However, as the previous statistics demonstrate, clinicians are still failing to identify isolated cleft palate, whether of the soft palate alone or involving the hard palate. As Butcher (2007) suggested several years ago the inadequacy of digital palate examination alone can easily miss a soft palate cleft, highlighting the importance of visualisation to identify and classify clefts of both the soft and hard palate, as well as incidences of bifid uvula. Despite this knowledge, and from clinical experience, the authors would suggest that much of current practice for neonatal palate examination relies only on digital examination, an assertion which is supported by the continuing incidence of late diagnosis. To help illustrate this point the following case studies have been adapted from the author’s own experiences.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)373-375
JournalMIDIRS Midwifery Digest
Volume25
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2015

Fingerprint

Palate
Cleft Palate
Practice Guidelines
Delayed Diagnosis
Hard Palate
Soft Palate
Incidence
Uvula
Cleft Lip
Parturition
Databases

Cite this

@article{8965abafc3a84d97b10b2080afd8c30e,
title = "A clinical mnemonic to promote best practice in neonatal palate examination.",
abstract = "The incidence of late diagnosis of isolated cleft palate continues to be reported, without improvement, in the United Kingdom (UK). The CRANE database progress report for 2012 identified late diagnosis for children with isolated cleft palate at 28{\%} of all known cases (Fitzsimmons et al 2012), with this proportion increasing to 32{\%}, reported by CRANE the following year (Fitzsimmons et al 2013). These findings are measured against agreed national standards which state that all babies born with cleft lip and/or palate should be identified at birth or soon after (Bannister 2008). However, as the previous statistics demonstrate, clinicians are still failing to identify isolated cleft palate, whether of the soft palate alone or involving the hard palate. As Butcher (2007) suggested several years ago the inadequacy of digital palate examination alone can easily miss a soft palate cleft, highlighting the importance of visualisation to identify and classify clefts of both the soft and hard palate, as well as incidences of bifid uvula. Despite this knowledge, and from clinical experience, the authors would suggest that much of current practice for neonatal palate examination relies only on digital examination, an assertion which is supported by the continuing incidence of late diagnosis. To help illustrate this point the following case studies have been adapted from the author’s own experiences.",
author = "Thomas McEwan and Linda Hannah",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "373--375",
journal = "MIDIRS Midwifery Digest",
issn = "0961-5555",
publisher = "Midwives Information and Resource Service",
number = "3",

}

A clinical mnemonic to promote best practice in neonatal palate examination. / McEwan, Thomas; Hannah, Linda.

In: MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, Vol. 25, No. 3, 09.2015, p. 373-375.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A clinical mnemonic to promote best practice in neonatal palate examination.

AU - McEwan, Thomas

AU - Hannah, Linda

PY - 2015/9

Y1 - 2015/9

N2 - The incidence of late diagnosis of isolated cleft palate continues to be reported, without improvement, in the United Kingdom (UK). The CRANE database progress report for 2012 identified late diagnosis for children with isolated cleft palate at 28% of all known cases (Fitzsimmons et al 2012), with this proportion increasing to 32%, reported by CRANE the following year (Fitzsimmons et al 2013). These findings are measured against agreed national standards which state that all babies born with cleft lip and/or palate should be identified at birth or soon after (Bannister 2008). However, as the previous statistics demonstrate, clinicians are still failing to identify isolated cleft palate, whether of the soft palate alone or involving the hard palate. As Butcher (2007) suggested several years ago the inadequacy of digital palate examination alone can easily miss a soft palate cleft, highlighting the importance of visualisation to identify and classify clefts of both the soft and hard palate, as well as incidences of bifid uvula. Despite this knowledge, and from clinical experience, the authors would suggest that much of current practice for neonatal palate examination relies only on digital examination, an assertion which is supported by the continuing incidence of late diagnosis. To help illustrate this point the following case studies have been adapted from the author’s own experiences.

AB - The incidence of late diagnosis of isolated cleft palate continues to be reported, without improvement, in the United Kingdom (UK). The CRANE database progress report for 2012 identified late diagnosis for children with isolated cleft palate at 28% of all known cases (Fitzsimmons et al 2012), with this proportion increasing to 32%, reported by CRANE the following year (Fitzsimmons et al 2013). These findings are measured against agreed national standards which state that all babies born with cleft lip and/or palate should be identified at birth or soon after (Bannister 2008). However, as the previous statistics demonstrate, clinicians are still failing to identify isolated cleft palate, whether of the soft palate alone or involving the hard palate. As Butcher (2007) suggested several years ago the inadequacy of digital palate examination alone can easily miss a soft palate cleft, highlighting the importance of visualisation to identify and classify clefts of both the soft and hard palate, as well as incidences of bifid uvula. Despite this knowledge, and from clinical experience, the authors would suggest that much of current practice for neonatal palate examination relies only on digital examination, an assertion which is supported by the continuing incidence of late diagnosis. To help illustrate this point the following case studies have been adapted from the author’s own experiences.

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 373

EP - 375

JO - MIDIRS Midwifery Digest

JF - MIDIRS Midwifery Digest

SN - 0961-5555

IS - 3

ER -