Objective: Evaluate simulation-based comprehensive cleft care workshops as a reproducible model for education with sustained impact. Design: Cross-sectional survey-based evaluation. Setting: Simulation-based comprehensive cleft care workshop. Participants: Total of 180 participants. Interventions: Three-day simulation-based comprehensive cleft care workshop. Main Outcome Measures: Number of workshop participants stratified by specialty, satisfaction with the workshop, satisfaction with simulation-based workshops as educational tools, impact on cleft surgery procedural confidence, short-term impact on clinical practice, medium-term impact on clinical practice. Results: The workshop included 180 participants from 5 continents. The response rate was 54.5%, with participants reporting high satisfaction with all aspects of the workshop and with simulation-based workshops as educational tools. Participants reported a significant improvement in cleft lip (33.3 ± 5.7 vs 25.7 ± 7.6; P < .001) and palate (32.4 ± 7.1 vs 23.7 ± 6.6; P < .001) surgery procedural confidence following the simulation sessions. Participants also reported a positive short-term and medium-term impact on their clinical practices. Conclusion: Simulation-based comprehensive cleft care workshops are well received by participants, lead to improved cleft surgery procedural confidence, and have a sustained positive impact on participants’ clinical practices. Future efforts should focus on evaluating and quantifying this perceived positive impact, as well reproducing these efforts in other areas of need.

Introduction We analyzed the perceptions of participants and faculty members in simulation-based comprehensive cleft care workshops regarding comprehensive cleft care delivery in developing countries. Methods Data were collected from participants and faculty members in 2 simulation-based comprehensive cleft care workshops organized by Global Smile Foundation. We collected demographic data and surveyed what they believed was the most significant barrier to comprehensive cleft care delivery and the most important intervention to deliver comprehensive cleft care in developing countries. We also compared participant and faculty responses. Results The total number of participants and faculty members was 313 from 44 countries. The response rate was 57.8%. The majority reported that the most significant barrier facing the delivery of comprehensive cleft care in developing countries was financial (35.0%), followed by the absence of multidisciplinary cleft teams (30.8%). The majority reported that the most important intervention to deliver comprehensive cleft care was creating multidisciplinary cleft teams (32.2%), followed by providing cleft training (22.6%). We found no significant differences in what participants and faculty perceived as the greatest barrier to comprehensive cleft care delivery (P = 0.46), or most important intervention to deliver comprehensive cleft care in developing countries (P = 0.38). Conclusions Our study provides an appraisal of barriers facing comprehensive cleft care delivery and interventions required to overcome these barriers in developing countries. Future studies will be critical to validate or refute our findings, as well as determine country-specific roadmaps for delivering comprehensive cleft care to those who need it the most.

The authors analyzed the insights of participants and faculty members of Global Smile Foundation's Comprehensive Cleft Care Workshops concerning the barriers and interventions to multidisciplinary cleft care delivery, after stratification based on demographic and geographic factors. Methods: During 2 simulation-based Comprehensive Cleft Care Workshops organized by Global Smile Foundation, participants and faculty members filled a survey. Surveys included demographic and geographic data and investigated the most relevant barrier to multidisciplinary cleft care and the most significant intervention to deliver comprehensive cleft care in outreach settings, as perceived by participants.Results: The total response rate was 57.8%. Respondents reported that the greatest barrier to comprehensive cleft care was financial, and the most relevant intervention to deliver multidisciplinary cleft care was building multidisciplinary teams. Stratification by age, gender, and geographical area showed no statistical difference in reporting that the greatest barrier to cleft care was financial. However, lack of multidisciplinary teams was the most important barrier according to respondents with less than 5 years of experience (P ¼ 0.03). Stratification by gender, years in practice, specialty, and geographical area showed no statistical difference, with building multidisciplinary teams reported as the most significant intervention. However, increased training was reported as the main intervention to cleft care for those aged less than 30 years old (P ¼ 0.04). Conclusions: Our study delivers an assessment for barriers facing multidisciplinary cleft care delivery and interventions required to improve cleft care delivery. The authors are hoping that stratification by demographic and geographic factors will help them delineate community-specific road maps to refine cleft care delivery.

Objective Describe the first hybrid global simulation-based comprehensive cleft care workshop, evaluate impact on participants, and compare experiences based on in-person versus virtual attendance. Design Cross-sectional survey-based evaluation. Setting International comprehensive cleft care workshop. Participants Total of 489 participants. Interventions Three-day simulation-based hybrid comprehensive cleft care workshop. Main Outcome Measures Participant demographic data, perceived barriers and interventions needed for global comprehensive cleft care delivery, participant workshop satisfaction, and perceived short-term impact on practice stratified by in-person versus virtual attendance. Results The workshop included 489 participants from 5 continents. The response rate was 39.9%. Participants perceived financial factors (30.3%) the most significant barrier and improvement in training (39.8%) as the most important intervention to overcome barriers facing cleft care delivery in low to middle-income countries. All participants reported a high level of satisfaction with the workshop and a strong positive perceived short-term impact on their practice. Importantly, while this was true for both in-person and virtual attendees, in-person attendees reported a significantly higher satisfaction with the workshop (28.63 ± 3.08 vs 27.63 ± 3.93; P = .04) and perceived impact on their clinical practice (22.37 ± 3.42 vs 21.02 ± 3.45 P = .01). Conclusion Hybrid simulation-based educational comprehensive cleft care workshops are overall well received by participants and have a positive perceived impact on their clinical practices. In-person attendance is associated with significantly higher satisfaction and perceived impact on practice. Considering that financial and health constraints may limit live meeting attendance, future efforts will focus on making in-person and virtual attendance more comparable.