Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Postoperative care following cleft surgery requires caregivers to follow multiple recommendations related to feeding, wound care, medications, oral hygiene, activity restrictions, and recognition of warning signs. In low-resource settings, differences in health literacy and availability of recommended supplies may further complicate postoperative care. Global Smile Foundation (GSF) identified variability and text-heavy content in existing discharge instructions, resulting in inconsistent recommendations among providers and caregiver confusion. The authors developed standardized, literacy-friendly discharge instructions for use across GSF cleft care programs in Ecuador, El Salvador, Lebanon, and Peru. A multidisciplinary team of surgeons, pediatricians, nutrition specialists, speech-language pathologists, nurse practitioners, and dentists developed and reviewed the materials. Existing postoperative recommendations were adapted to the local resource and cultural contexts. Patient-facing instructions were designed using simplified language, a fourth-grade reading level, visual aids, color-coded elements, and translations into Spanish and Arabic. Materials were developed for 4 procedures: cleft lip repair, cleft palate repair, premaxillary setback with cleft lip repair, and alveolar bone grafting. Provider-facing instructions were also developed to promote consistency in education. Implementation included standardized communication pathways, caregiver teach-back, and provision of procedure-appropriate feeding and wound care supplies. Informal feedback from providers and caregivers suggested improved clarity and consistency in postoperative education. This initiative demonstrates a practical approach to standardizing cleft discharge education through health literacy–informed, visually oriented materials that can be adapted to resource-limited settings. Formal evaluation of comprehension, usability, and clinical outcomes is warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andari et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: