Inconsistencies in Clinical Reporting of Nasopharyngoscopy for Evaluating Velopharyngeal Closure: A Multisite Study.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Inconsistencies in Clinical Reporting of Nasopharyngoscopy for Evaluating Velopharyngeal Closure: A Multisite Study.
Authors:	Chee-Williams, Jessica L.^1,2 jcheewilliams@phoenixchildrens.com, Stewart, Emma K.³, Sitzman, Thomas J.^1,4,5, Perry, Jamie L.³
Source:	American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Jul2026, Vol. 35 Issue 4, p1744-1755. 12p.
Subject Terms:	Documentation standards, Documentation, Longitudinal method, Research, Pharynx physiology, Medical protocols, Cross-sectional method, Research funding, Scientific observation, Fisher exact test, Endoscopic surgery, Descriptive statistics, Chi-squared test, Decision making in clinical medicine, Palatal muscles, Pharyngeal muscles, Data analysis software, Endoscopy, Cleft palate, Velopharyngeal insufficiency
Geographic Terms:	United States
Abstract:	Purpose: Nasopharyngoscopy is an imaging method used to visualize the velopharyngeal mechanism. To quantify the movement of the mechanism during speech, an international working group recommended standardized rating guidelines. While these guidelines are widely cited in research, the extent to which cleft teams apply them in a clinical setting is unclear. Method: This cross-sectional study examined clinical nasopharyngoscopy reports from 11 cleft teams in North America. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the proportion of reports that included ratings for the extent of velar movement, left and right lateral pharyngeal wall movement, gap size, and a surgical recommendation. Fisher's exact and chi-square tests were used to assess differences in reporting by cleft team and whether the inclusion of quantitative ratings was associated with a surgical recommendation being included. Results: A total of 188 nasopharyngoscopy reports were included. The extent of velar movement was reported in 68% (n = 127) of reports, the left and right lateral pharyngeal wall movement was reported in 38% (n = 71), and the size of the gap was reported in 70% (n = 132). Only 34% (n = 63) of reports included all three quantitative ratings. Inclusion of all three quantitative ratings varied significantly (p < .001) across teams. Teams either never included all the ratings (n = 4/11) or inconsistently included all ratings (n = 7/11). Conclusions: Findings suggest that what is documented clinically in nasopharyngoscopy reports varies both within and across teams. To achieve more consistent reporting within individual teams, providers may consider implementing standardized clinical templates. To achieve consistency across teams, these findings suggest a need for renewed efforts at developing consensus on the nasopharyngoscopy elements important to clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Education Research Complete

Description
Abstract:	Purpose: Nasopharyngoscopy is an imaging method used to visualize the velopharyngeal mechanism. To quantify the movement of the mechanism during speech, an international working group recommended standardized rating guidelines. While these guidelines are widely cited in research, the extent to which cleft teams apply them in a clinical setting is unclear. Method: This cross-sectional study examined clinical nasopharyngoscopy reports from 11 cleft teams in North America. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the proportion of reports that included ratings for the extent of velar movement, left and right lateral pharyngeal wall movement, gap size, and a surgical recommendation. Fisher's exact and chi-square tests were used to assess differences in reporting by cleft team and whether the inclusion of quantitative ratings was associated with a surgical recommendation being included. Results: A total of 188 nasopharyngoscopy reports were included. The extent of velar movement was reported in 68% (n = 127) of reports, the left and right lateral pharyngeal wall movement was reported in 38% (n = 71), and the size of the gap was reported in 70% (n = 132). Only 34% (n = 63) of reports included all three quantitative ratings. Inclusion of all three quantitative ratings varied significantly (p < .001) across teams. Teams either never included all the ratings (n = 4/11) or inconsistently included all ratings (n = 7/11). Conclusions: Findings suggest that what is documented clinically in nasopharyngoscopy reports varies both within and across teams. To achieve more consistent reporting within individual teams, providers may consider implementing standardized clinical templates. To achieve consistency across teams, these findings suggest a need for renewed efforts at developing consensus on the nasopharyngoscopy elements important to clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	10580360
DOI:	10.1044/2026_AJSLP-25-00622