Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2021; 38(S 01): e71-e76
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1705170
Original Article

Patient Satisfaction with Outpatient Cervical Ripening in Parous Women

Michelle J. Wang 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Center for Women's Reproductive Health, Birmingham, Alabama
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Victoria C. Jauk
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Center for Women's Reproductive Health, Birmingham, Alabama
,
David M. George
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Center for Women's Reproductive Health, Birmingham, Alabama
,
Spencer G. Kuper
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Center for Women's Reproductive Health, Birmingham, Alabama
,
Rodney K. Edwards
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Section of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Jeff M. Szychowski
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Center for Women's Reproductive Health, Birmingham, Alabama
,
Sara E. Mazzoni
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Center for Women's Reproductive Health, Birmingham, Alabama
,
Pamela Files
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Center for Women's Reproductive Health, Birmingham, Alabama
,
Alan T. Tita
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Center for Women's Reproductive Health, Birmingham, Alabama
,
Akila Subramaniam
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Center for Women's Reproductive Health, Birmingham, Alabama
,
Lorie M. Harper
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Center for Women's Reproductive Health, Birmingham, Alabama
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to assess whether patient satisfaction differs between women beginning cervical ripening in the outpatient versus inpatient setting.

Study Design We performed a planned secondary analysis evaluating patient satisfaction randomized to outpatient versus inpatient cervical ripening. In the original randomized controlled trial, low-risk parous women ≥39 weeks who required cervical ripening for induction and had reassuring fetal heart rate monitoring were included and randomized to inpatient versus outpatient ripening with a transcervical Foley's catheter. All women were then admitted to the labor ward on the following day. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using three separate surveys. The first two surveys, Six Simple Questions and Lady-X, were previously validated. The third survey used visual analog scales to assess overall pain experienced during Foley's placement, overall pain experienced during labor, how likely they would be to choose the same type of care for their next pregnancy, and how likely they would be to recommend their method of cervical ripening to friends/family.

Results From May 2016 to October 2017, 129 women were randomized (outpatient, 65; inpatient, 64). Based on survey results, there was no difference in satisfaction between outpatient and inpatient cervical ripening with transcervical Foley's catheterization, with high satisfaction in both groups. Patients in both the outpatient and inpatient groups would choose the same type of care for their next pregnancy (on a scale of 1–7, median (25th–75th percentile): 7 [7–7] vs. 7 [6–7], respectively, p = 0.75) and would be very likely to recommend their method of induction to a friend or family member (on a scale of 0–100, 99 [80–100] vs. 99 [65–100], respectively, p = 0.60).

Conclusion Parous women's satisfaction does not differ between inpatient and outpatient cervical ripening with transcervical Foley's catheterization.

Key Points

  1. Outpatient cervical ripening may allow providers to incorporate the benefits of electively inducing women as well as decrease the time spent in the labor and delivery unit.

  2. Parous women's satisfaction does not differ between inpatient and outpatient cervical ripening with transcervical Foley.

  3. Additional prospective evaluation is warranted to further characterize patient preferences in relation to the location of cervical ripening.

Keywords

cervical ripening - transcervical Foley's catheter - induction of labor - outpatient cervical ripening - patient satisfaction

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 10 November 2019

Accepted: 28 January 2020

Article published online:
03 March 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. et al. Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. New England Journal of Medicine 2018; 379 (06) 513-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sinkey RG, Blanchard CT, Szychowski JM. et al. Elective induction of labor in the 39th week of gestation compared with expectant management of low-risk multiparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 134 (02) 282-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 ACOG practice bulletin no. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (2, Pt 1): 386-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sciscione AC, Muench M, Pollock M, Jenkins TM, Tildon-Burton J, Colmorgen GH. Transcervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98 (5, Pt 1): 751-756
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Farmer KC, Schwartz III WJ, Rayburn WF, Turnbull G. A cost-minimization analysis of intracervical prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Clin Ther 1996; 18 (04) 747-756 , discussion 702
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Saha S, Beach MC, Cooper LA. Patient centeredness, cultural competence and healthcare quality. J Natl Med Assoc 2008; 100 (11) 1275-1285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Dyer TA, Owens J, Robinson PG. The acceptability of healthcare: from satisfaction to trust. Community Dent Health 2016; 33 (04) 242–251
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed?. JAMA 1988; 260 (12) 1743-1748
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kuper SG, Jauk VC, George DM. et al. Outpatient foley catheter for induction of labor in parous women, a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132 (01) 94-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kuper SG, Sievert RA, Steele R, Biggio JR, Tita AT, Harper LM. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in indicated preterm births based on the intended mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (05) 1143-1151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (03) 179-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Harvey S, Rach D, Stainton MC, Jarrell J, Brant R. Evaluation of satisfaction with midwifery care. Midwifery 2002; 18 (04) 260-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gärtner FR, de Bekker-Grob EW, Stiggelbout AM. et al. Calculating preference weights for the labor and delivery index: a discrete choice experiment on women's birth experiences. Value Health 2015; 18 (06) 856-864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kruit H, Heikinheimo O, Ulander VM. et al. Foley catheter induction of labor as an outpatient procedure. J Perinatol 2016; 36 (08) 618-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Biem SR, Turnell RW, Olatunbosun O, Tauh M, Biem HJ. A randomized controlled trial of outpatient versus inpatient labour induction with vaginal controlled-release prostaglandin-E2: effectiveness and satisfaction. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003; 25 (01) 23-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 O'Brien JM, Mercer BM, Cleary NT, Sibai BM. Efficacy of outpatient induction with low-dose intravaginal prostaglandin E2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173 (06) 1855-1859
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 McKenna DS, Costa SW, Samuels P. Prostaglandin E2 cervical ripening without subsequent induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94 (01) 11-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, Mol BW, Irion O, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 3 (03) CD001233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Wilcock A, Kobayashi L, Murray I. Twenty-five years of obstetric patient satisfaction in North America: a review of the literature. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 1997; 10 (04) 36-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Howard K, Gerard K, Adelson P, Bryce R, Wilkinson C, Turnbull D. Women's preferences for inpatient and outpatient priming for labour induction: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res 2014; 14: 330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Chen C, Smith LJ, Pierce CB, Blomquist JL, Handa VL. Do symptoms of pelvic floor disorders bias maternal recall of obstetrical events up to 10 years after delivery?. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2015; 21 (03) 129-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar