Background: The rate of labor induction in the United States has been steadily increasing since 1989, with the most recent data indicating that, as of 2023, over 33% of U.S. births involved labor induction. A key tool for the OBGYN in labor inductions is intrauterine cervical ripening, which has historically been performed while patients are admitted to the Labor and Delivery unit. However, outpatient intrauterine cervical ripening is considered safe in uncomplicated pregnancies and has been shown to have beneficial outcomes, including decreased cesarean delivery rates and shorter total length of stay, time from admission to delivery, and total oxytocin administration. Objective: We set out to create a new outpatient intrauterine cervical ripening intervention at our tertiary military medical center. We describe both our initial protocol and our improved protocol, comparing both protocol choices and subjective and objective outcomes. Study Design: Our first protocol recruited 18 patients over 18 months. A second protocol was developed to increase recruitment and generalize the intervention to a broader patient population. Over the following 7 months, 30 patients were recruited. Patient demographic data and outcome data were collected across the two interventions, including a survey to evaluate patient satisfaction after the procedure. The outcome data was compared with Fisher’s exact tests and t-scores, and survey results were compared with Chi-Squared analysis. Results: The demographics of the two groups were similar. There was no statistical difference between the groups in nulligravida status (61% vs. 70%), active-duty status (50% vs. 63%), or enlisted status (78% vs. 74%) among the active-duty participants. However, the group receiving the old protocol was significantly more likely to report being White compared to those provided the new protocol. Due to protocol changes, we observed an increase in elective inductions of labor in the second protocol group (7 vs. 17), resulting in a decrease in the average gestational age at intervention placement (40+3 vs. 39+6). Obstetric outcomes were similar between groups in terms of time from admission to delivery (14:07 hours vs. 15:25 hours) and total length of admission (55 hours vs. 49 hours), as well as the incidence of maternal or fetal morbidity noted after delivery (22% vs. 27%). A difference was noted between the cesarean section rate (27.8% vs. 16.7%) and the positive survey responses (57% at a 78% response rate vs. 84% at a 90% response rate), although this ultimately did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in maternal or fetal morbidity outcomes by the intervention followed; however, there was a notable increase in recruitment and in the time from intervention to admission thanks to protocol changes designed to increase efficiency but maintain safety. Patient survey outcomes have improved since starting the new intervention; however, these results are not statistically significant, most likely due to an insufficient number of participants to demonstrate a significant trend.