Clinical, psychosocial, and economic effects of antenatal day care for three medical complications of pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial of 395 women. Randomised controlled trial of day care for hypertension in pregnancy.
Day care is increasingly being used for complications of pregnancy, but there is little published evidence on its efficacy. We assessed the clinical, psychosocial, and economic effects of day care for three pregnancy complications in a randomised trial of day care versus standard care on an antenatal ward.
                395 women were randomly assigned day (263) or ward (132) care in a ratio of two to one, stratified for major diagnostic categories (non-proteinuric hypertension, proteinuric hypertension, and preterm premature rupture of membranes). The research hypothesis was that for these disorders, as an alternative to admission, antenatal day care will reduce specified interventions and investigations, result in no differences in clinical outcome, lead to greater satisfaction and psychological wellbeing, and be more cost-effective. Data were collected through case-note review, self-report questionnaires (response rates 81.0% or higher) and via the hospital's financial system. Analysis was by intention to treat.
                All participants were included in the analyses. There were no differences between the groups in antenatal tests or investigations or intrapartum interventions. The total duration of antenatal care episodes was shorter in the day-care group than in the ward group (median 17 [IQR 5-9] vs 57 [35-123] h; p=0.001). Overall stay was also significantly shorter in the day-care group (mean 7.22 [SE 0.31] vs 8.53 [0.44]; p=0.014). The median number of care episodes was three (range one to 14) in the day-care group and two (one to nine) in the ward group (p=0.01). There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes. The day-care group reported greater satisfaction, with no evidence of unintended psychosocial sequelae. There was no significant difference in either average cost per patient or average cost per day of care.
                Since clinical outcomes and costs are similar, adoption by maternity services of a policy providing specified women with the choice between admission and day-unit care seems appropriate. Our aim was to assess the effect of the introduction of a day-care unit on the care of women with non-proteinuric hypertension in pregnancy. A randomised controlled trial was carried out on 54 women who presented at 26 weeks of pregnancy or later with non-proteinuric hypertension (systolic blood pressure 150-170 mm Hg and/or diastolic pressure 90-105 mm Hg on two occasions at least 15 min apart). 30 women were allocated to care by the day unit and 24 were managed according to the established practice of their clinicians without access to the day unit (control group). Women in the control group spent on average 4.6 times longer as inpatients (difference in mean stay 4.0 days [95% confidence interval 2.1-5.9 days]) than the day-unit group and were 8.8 times (95% CI 3.0-25.8) more likely to be admitted to hospital. Induction of labour was 4.9 times (95% CI 1.6-13.8) more likely in the control than in the day-unit group and the development of proteinuria 11.4 times (95% CI 1.8-71.4) more likely. The control group had a mean of 1.5 fewer hospital outpatient visits (95% CI 0.36-2.64). The groups did not differ in their use of antihypertensive drugs. Day-unit care for hypertension in pregnancy significantly reduced the need for and the length of antenatal inpatient admissions and the number of medical interventions, at the cost of an increase in outpatient attendances. Our results are further evidence that inpatient care does not improve outcomes or prevent the development of proteinuria in this disorder.
Small studies suggest that there are no major differences in clinical outcomes for mothers or babies between antenatal day units or hospital admission, but women may prefer day care.