Objective To determine whether home cervical ripening is associated with acceptable safety margins compared to in-hospital cervical ripening during induction of labour. Design A prospective multicentre observational cohort study using routinely collected data. Setting Twenty-six UK maternity units; 18 offering only in-hospital cervical ripening and 8 offering both in-hospital and home cervical ripening. Population Women with singleton pregnancies, no previous caesarean section, at or beyond 37 weeks gestation having induction with details of cervical ripening method and location recorded. Methods Home cervical ripening using a balloon catheter was compared to in-hospital cervical ripening using prostaglandin. Multivariable logistic regression was performed for the primary outcome. Exposure: Cervical ripening at home using balloon catheter. Main outcome measures Primary outcome: neonatal unit admission within 48 hours of birth for 48 hours or more. Additional neonatal, maternal, labour progress and process outcomes were reported. Results Of 17,530 eligible women, 515 had balloon cervical ripening at home and 4332 had prostaglandin cervical ripening in a hospital that did not offer home cervical ripening. The primary outcome following home cervical ripening with balloon was not higher {16/515 (3.1%) vs 208/4332 (4.8%)}, but with substantial uncertainty on adjusted analysis consistent with a 64% lower risk through to an 81% higher risk. Conclusions Home cervical ripening using balloon catheter may be as safe for babies as using prostaglandin in hospital in low and moderate-risk groups, but further safety data are required.

Objective: To test the predictive value of the Physiological Breech Birth Algorithm. Design: Retrospective case-control study Setting: Teaching Hospital, United Kingdom Population/sample: Cases were all vaginal breech births >37 weeks’ gestation where neonatal admission or death occurred between April 2012 and April 2020. Controls were the two term breech births without admission immediately prior to the cases. Methods: Data was collected from intrapartum care records and analysed using SPSS v26 statistical software. The chi-square test was used to determine association between exposure to the variables of interest and admission to the neonatal unit. Multiple logistic regression was used to test the predictive value of delays defined as non-adherence to the Algorithm. Main outcome measures: Intervals between the start of labour, the start of second stage of labour and various stages of emergence (presenting part, buttocks, pelvis, arms, head). Results: Logistic regressing modelling using the Algorithm time frames had an 84.2% accuracy, a sensitivity of 66.7% and a specificity of 92.3%. Delays between umbilicus and head >3 minutes (OR: 9.508 [95% CI: 1.390-65.046] p=0.022) and from buttocks on the perineum to head >7 minutes (OR: 6.682 [95% CI: 0.940-41.990] p=0.058) showed the most effect. Lengths of time until the first intervention were also longer among the cases, suggesting that at least some of this delay is modifiable. Conclusions: Improved recognition of delay and efficient assistance may help improve vaginal breech birth outcomes. Further research should determine whether training based on the Physiological Breech Birth Algorithm can reduce neonatal admissions.