ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2025
Quality Improvement of Single-Institution Craniofacial Center Multidisciplinary Meetings Using Standardized Meeting Guides.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: The American Cleft Palate Association-Craniofacial Association (ACPA-CPF) recommends regular multidisciplinary team meetings for comprehensive craniofacial patient care, yet standardized meeting guidelines are lacking. Lack of standardization may result in varying quality of care within and between institutions, as well as difficulty in creation of new multidisciplinary craniofacial teams at institutions without one. This study sought to assess craniofacial multidisciplinary team meetings and determine the utility of a meeting guidance tool in such meetings. It was set in a single institution's craniofacial center, and participants included multidisciplinary team members. Methods: This project used the Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement method, completed in two phases. In the project's first phase, craniofacial team members assessed their current meetings with an evaluation instrument previously created. The evaluation results identified areas needing improvement, and a new meeting guide was created and implemented over four meetings. Team members also completed a survey comparing historical versus new meeting structures. Results: Initial meeting quality was perceived positively, but evaluation with a standardized instrument revealed deficiencies, particularly in case presentation topics. Implementing a custom guide improved the provision of current and historical patient information and treatment plan summarization, although excessive repetition persisted. Adjustments to the custom meeting guide led to further quality enhancement, particularly in case presentation efficiency and meeting effectiveness. Conclusion: Multidisciplinary team meetings are vital for comprehensive craniofacial care, but ensuring consistent quality is challenging. Our study demonstrates the value of utilizing standardized meeting guides to evaluate and create custom guides leading to quality improvement. Ongoing refinement is essential to address persisting issues and optimize patient outcomes. Level of Evidence: 5.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.