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.

Birth Outcomes, Intervention Frequency, and the Disappearing Midwife-Potential Hazards of Central Fetal Monitoring: A Single Center Review.

INTRODUCTION: Many birth units use central fetal monitoring (CFM) under the assumption that greater surveillance improves perinatal outcomes. The unexpected loss of the CFM system at a tertiary unit provided a unique opportunity to evaluate outcomes and staff attitudes toward CFM. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared patient data from 2,855 electronically monitored women delivering over a 12-month period, where CFM was available for the first 6 months but unavailable for the following 6 months. Primary outcomes relating to neonatal morbidity and secondary outcomes relating to intrapartum interventions were examined. Additionally, birth unit staff members were surveyed about aspects of care related to CFM. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in perinatal outcomes between the cohorts. While unadjusted analysis suggested a lower spontaneous vaginal birth rate (55.4% vs 60.3%) and a higher cesarean delivery rate (25.1% vs 22.0%, p = 0.026), together with higher epidural (53.0% vs 49.2%, p = 0.04) and fetal blood sampling (11.8% vs 9.4%, p = 0.03) rates in the presence of CFM, these differences were lost when adjusted for prostaglandin ripening. Over half of the staff (56.0% of midwives, 54.0% of obstetricians) reported spending more time with the laboring woman in the period without CFM. CONCLUSIONS: This single institution's experience indicates that in birth units staffed for one-to-one care in labor, central fetal monitoring does not appear to be associated with either a benefit on perinatal outcomes or an increase in cesarean delivery and other interventions. However, it is associated with a reduction in the time a midwife spends with the laboring woman.