Clinicians' perspectives and experiences of providing cervical ripening at home or in-hospital in the United Kingdom.

Induction of labour, or starting labour artificially, is offered when the risks of continuing pregnancy are believed to outweigh the risks of the baby being born. In the United Kingdom, cervical ripening is recommended as the first stage of induction. Increasingly, maternity services are offering this outpatient or 'at home', despite limited evidence on its acceptability and how different approaches to cervical ripening work in practice. There is also a paucity of literature on clinicians' experiences of providing induction care in general, despite their central role in developing local guidelines and delivering this care. This paper explores induction, specifically cervical ripening and the option to return home during that process, from the perspective of midwives, obstetricians and other maternity staff. As part of a process evaluation involving five case studies undertaken in British maternity services, interviews and focus groups were conducted with clinicians who provide induction of labour care. The thematic findings were generated through in-depth analysis and are grouped to reflect key points within the process of cervical ripening care: 'Implementing home cervical ripening', 'Putting local policy into practice', 'Giving information about induction' and 'Providing cervical ripening'. A range of practices and views regarding induction were recorded, showing how the integration of home cervical ripening is not always straightforward. Findings demonstrate that providing induction of labour care is complex and represents a significant workload. Home cervical ripening was seen as a solution to managing this workload; however, findings highlighted ways in which this expectation might not be borne out in practice. More comprehensive research is needed on workload impacts and possible lateral effects within other areas of maternity services.

Experience of induction of labour: a cross-sectional postnatal survey of women at UK maternity units.

OBJECTIVES: This study explored women's views and experiences of key elements of the induction of labour (IOL) process, including at home or in hospital cervical ripening (CR). DESIGN: A questionnaire-based postnatal survey undertaken as part of the CHOICE Study process evaluation. The questionnaire was administered online and included fixed response and free-text options. SETTING: National Health Service maternity units in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 309 women who had an IOL. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was experience of IOL. Few women returned home during CR, meaning that statistical comparison between those who experienced home-based and hospital-based CR was not possible. Findings are reported as descriptive statistics with content analysis of women's comments providing context. RESULTS: Information to support choice and understand what to expect about IOL is often inadequate or unavailable. Having IOL can create anxiety and remove options for birth that women had hoped would enhance their experience. Although it can provide a more comfortable environment, home CR is not always an acceptable solution. Women described maternity care negatively impacted by staffing shortages; delays to care sometimes led to unsafe situations. Women who had a positive experience of IOL described supportive interaction with staff as a significant contribution to that. CONCLUSIONS: Women do not experience IOL as a benign and consequence free intervention. There is urgent need for research to better target IOL and optimise safety and experience for women and their babies. Relatively few women were offered CR at home and further research is needed on this experience.

Cervical ripening at home or in-hospital-prospective cohort study and process evaluation (CHOICE) study: a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the cervical ripening at home or in-hospital-prospective cohort study and process evaluation (CHOICE) study is to compare home versus in-hospital cervical ripening to determine whether home cervical ripening is safe (for the primary outcome of neonatal unit (NNU) admission), acceptable to women and cost-effective from the perspective of both women and the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a prospective multicentre observational cohort study with an internal pilot phase. We will obtain data from electronic health records from at least 14 maternity units offering only in-hospital cervical ripening and 12 offering dinoprostone home cervical ripening. We will also conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and a mixed methods study to evaluate processes and women/partner experiences. Our primary sample size is 8533 women with singleton pregnancies undergoing induction of labour (IOL) at 39+0 weeks' gestation or more. To achieve this and contextualise our findings, we will collect data relating to a cohort of approximately 41 000 women undergoing IOL after 37 weeks. We will use mixed effects logistic regression for the non-inferiority comparison of NNU admission and propensity score matched adjustment to control for treatment indication bias. The economic analysis will be undertaken from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) and the pregnant woman. It will include a within-study cost-effectiveness analysis and a lifetime cost-utility analysis to account for any long-term impacts of the cervical ripening strategies. Outcomes will be reported as incremental cost per NNU admission avoided and incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gained. RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION: CHOICE has been funded and approved by the National Institute of Healthcare Research Health Technology and Assessment, and the results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN32652461.

Prospective epidemiologic study of the outcome and cost-effectiveness of antenatal screening to detect neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia due to anti-HPA-1a.

BACKGROUND: To assess the value of antenatal screening to detect neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia (NAIT) due to anti-HPA-1a, a prospective study was carried out to quantify the potential clinical benefits and determine whether screening would be cost-effective. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: An observational prospective controlled study was carried out on 26,506 pregnant women over 2 years. HPA-1a phenotyping was performed in the first trimester and women confirmed HPA-1a-negative were tested for anti-HPA-1a during pregnancy, at delivery, and 10 to 14 days after birth. Babies of HPA-1a-negative women were tested at delivery for thrombocytopenia and examined for signs of bleeding. Economic evaluation was undertaken on the basis of the data collected during the study. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 318 women (7.9%) had anti-HPA-1a detected for the first time. Eight women (43 per 100,000) gave birth to babies with NAIT, and 5 (27 per 100,000) had severe thrombocytopenia. Three babies had mild signs of bleeding, and no cases of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) or fetal loss were detected. It is estimated that it would cost 60,596 pounds (98,771 US dollars) to detect a case of severe NAIT, where anti-HPA-1a has been identified for the first time, and 1,151,323 pounds (1,876,656 US dollars) to prevent a case of ICH, assuming that detection allowed successful intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that severe HPA-1a NAIT is underdiagnosed in the absence of routine antenatal screening. Serious bleeding complications and ICH, however, occur less frequently in first cases of NAIT than suspected from the literature, and the costs of screening and possible intervention must be balanced against the procedural risks.