Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of large-scale midwifery-led, paediatrician-overseen home phototherapy and neonatal jaundice surveillance: A retrospective cohort study.

AIM: To evaluate a large midwifery-led, paediatrician-overseen home jaundice surveillance and home phototherapy (HPT) programme. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study over 2019. Included were all infants with birth gestation ≥35 weeks, discharged at 4-96 h and receiving care from midwifery-at-home (a 12-h daily, 365-days hospital-based outreach service, supported by hospital paediatricians). Phototherapy was delivered via BiliSoft blanket with treatment thresholds determined by standard nomograms. The main outcomes of interest were unplanned readmissions, and cost-effectiveness based on hospital finance department actual costs. Also examined were parental compliance, device issues and safety. RESULTS: During 2019, 4308 infants received home jaundice surveillance with 86% hospital-discharged before 72 h, 82% exclusively breastfed and 69% having overseas-born mothers. Four hundred infants received HPT, comprising 101 continuing from inpatient phototherapy (IPT), 56 rebounding after IPT, and 243 home-diagnosed as needing phototherapy and triaged to HPT. Only 1 of 400 (0.25%) HPT infants required readmission. Additionally, there were 80 home-diagnosed jaundiced infants triaged to immediate readmission for IPT. Maximal serum bilirubin was 454 µmol/L. No exchange transfusion, encephalopathy or HPT-device problems occurred. An early 2019 bilirubin analyser upgrade resulted in higher bilirubin readings and some unintended subthreshold phototherapy. Supported by midwives, most parents managed HPT with ease. HPT cost $640/day compared to $2100/day for infant IPT readmission and $1000/day for a longer birth-admission stay. Up to 2 weeks' midwifery-at-home care for the whole cohort cost $2 m less than a 2-day longer birth-admission stay. CONCLUSION: Large-scale, midwifery-led, paediatrician-overseen jaundice surveillance and HPT can achieve very low unplanned readmission rates and be cost-effective.

Outpatient cervical ripening: discomfort/pain during speculum and Foley catheter insertion.

OBJECTIVE: To examine discomfort/pain associated with the Foley catheter insertion process and explore factors affecting discomfort/pain. DESIGN: This cohort study conducted in the context of larger randomised clinical trial comparing silicone and latex Foley catheters. SETTING: A tertiary hospital in Western Sydney. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatient pregnant women (eligible participants in the main study). INTERVENTIONS: We asked about the discomfort/pain expectations and experience during the digital vaginal examination and insertion of the speculum, insertion of the Foley catheter and while the catheter was in situ. MEASUREMENTS: We used visual analog scale and a purposefully designed questionnaire to measure outcomes. FINDINGS: We found digital vaginal examination and speculum insertion (mean pain score = 4.6-4.7/10) to be significantly more uncomfortable than Foley catheter insertion (mean pain score = 3/10), while having the catheter in situ for a median of 14 h was mid-way in discomfort (mean pain score = 3.7/10). Only 12-13% of women experienced no discomfort during digital vaginal examination and speculum insertion, while about 40% experienced no discomfort during Foley catheter insertion. We identified no factors that influenced the experience of discomfort during speculum insertion. However, being overseas-born (odds ratio = 1.91, 95% = 1.10, 3.33) and experiencing discomfort during the speculum insertion (odds ratio = 8.15, 95% = 3.19, 20.79) increased the chance of discomfort on catheter insertion. Women's discomfort was not influenced by inserter designation or experience. KEY CONCLUSIONS: Digital vaginal examination and speculum insertion were moderately uncomfortable while insertion of a Foley catheter and having the catheter in situ for several hours were less uncomfortable procedures. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Only 8% of insertions were rated as difficult by staff while 70% were rated easy. This, together with the fact that the inserter's level of experience had no influence on women's discomfort, are reassuring for midwives who wish to teach and learn this common procedure.