Role of partogram in high risk pregnancies: an experience at a tertiary centre

Inconsistent definitions of prolonged labor in international literature: a scoping review

Objective

Prolonged labor is the commonest indication for intrapartum cesarean section, but definitions are inconsistent and some common definitions were recently found to overestimate the speed of physiological labor. The objective of this review is to establish an overview of synonyms and definitions used in the literature for prolonged labor, separated into first and second stages, and establish types of definitions used.

Data sources

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, and Academic Search Premier.

Study eligibility criteria

All articles in English that (1) attempted to define prolonged labor, (2) included a definition of prolonged labor, or (3) included any synonym for prolonged labor, were included.

Methods

Data on study design, year of publication, country or region of origin, synonyms used, definition of prolonged first and/or second stage, and origin of provided definition (if not primarily established by the study) were collected into a database.

Results

In total, 3402 abstracts and 536 full-text papers were screened, and 232 papers were included. Our search established 53 synonyms for prolonged labor. Forty-three studies defined prolonged labor and 189 studies adopted a definition of prolonged labor. Definitions for prolonged first stage of labor were categorized into: time-based (n=14), progress-based (n=12), clinician-based (n=5), or outcome-based (n=4). For the 33 studies defining prolonged second stage, the majority of definitions (n=25) were time-based, either based on total duration or duration of no descent of the presenting part.

Conclusions

Despite efforts to arrive at uniform labor curves, there is still little uniformity in definitions of prolonged labor. Consensus on which definition to use is called for, in order to safely and respectfully allow physiological labor progress, ensure timely management, and assess and compare incidence of prolonged labor between settings.

[Normal childbirth: physiologic labor support and medical procedures. Guidelines of the French National Authority for Health (HAS) with the collaboration of the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) and the French College of Midwives (CNSF) - Intrapartum care for healthy women and non pharmacological approaches for pain management]

OBJECTIVE

To make clinical practice guidelines for intrapartum care for healthy women and non-pharmacologic approaches for pain management.

METHODS

Review of the literature of articles published between January 2000 and September 2017 in English and French language from the Medline database, the Cochrane Library and recommendations from international institutes.

RESULTS

During the initial examination of a pregnant woman, it is recommended to take note of the pregnancy monitoring file and its possible birth plan; perform an anamnesis, inquire about her wishes and physiological and emotional needs; and perform a clinical examination (Consensus agreement). If the woman seems to be in labor, it is recommended to offer a vaginal examination (Consensus agreement). In case of premature rupture of membranes, it is recommended not to systematically perform a vaginal examination if the woman has no painful contractions (Consensus agreement). During the first stage of labor, the surveillance of the woman includes at least: a surveillance of the haemodynamic parameters every four hours; an evaluation of the frequency of uterine contractions every 30minutes and for 10minutes during the active phase; surveillance of spontaneous urination; the proposition of a vaginal examination every two to four hours or before if the patient asks for it, or in case of sign of call (Consensus agreement). During the second stage, it is recommended to use a partograph; to monitor hemodynamic parameters every hour; to evaluate the frequency of uterine contractions every 30minutes and for ten minutes; to monitor and note spontaneous urination; to offer a vaginal examination every hour (Consensus agreement). Whether on admission or during labor, it is recommended to evaluate the pain and offer the patient different ways to relieve it (Consensus agreement). It is recommended that all women have continuous, individual and personalized support, during labor and delivery (grade A); to implement the necessary human and material resources allowing women to change position regularly (Consensus agreement).

CONCLUSION

Routine practices must be abandoned to implement those that are scientifically justified. The management of pain is essential. Every woman should have continuous, individual and personalized support during labor and delivery.

Intrapartum monitoring using partograph at secondary level public health facilities-A cross-sectional study in Odisha, India

Context:

Partograph is a simple, effective and low-cost intrapartum monitoring tool that helps in early identification of complications if any and helps in prompt intervention to save the life of the mother and the newborn. There is limited study about its usage and challenges in plotting from India particularly Odisha.

Aim:

To determine the usage of partograph and explore the issues/challenges in its plotting at various levels of health facilities

Settings and Design:

A cross-sectional study was carried out from April to June 2018 in ten different public health facilities from two tribal districts of Odisha, India. Materials and Methods: Quantitative information from 1552 mothers using pre-tested epi-info questionnaire tool and qualitative information through 22 in-depth interviews among health care providers.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Quantitative data using Ms Excel 10 and IBM SPSS ver. 22 and qualitative data using the inductive content analysis method.

Results:

Partograph plotting was found in 48.7% (adherence) while its completeness was only 1.03%. Partograph plotting was significantly better at CHCs compared to DHH and SDH (P = 0.000). No significant association of partograph adherence was observed with the birth outcome, complications, referral status and type of delivery. Though majority health care providers knew the importance of the partograph, hardly they use it. The main reasons were increased workload, shortage of staff, cases arriving at a later stage and lack of monitoring from a higher level.

Conclusions:

On job training on partograph, regular monitoring and strict policy will improve the adherence and completeness in partograph plotting.

Effect of partograph use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term and their babies

BACKGROUND

The partograph (sometimes known as partogram) is usually a pre-printed paper form on which labour observations are recorded. The aim of the partograph is to provide a pictorial overview of labour, and to alert midwives and obstetricians to deviations in maternal or fetal well-being and labour progress. Charts have traditionally contained pre-printed alert and action lines. An alert line, which is based on the slowest 10% of primigravid women's labours, signifies slow progress. An action line is placed a number of hours after the alert line (usually two or four hours) to prompt effective management of slow progress of labour.This review is an update of a review last published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to determine the effectiveness and safety of partograph use on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. The secondary objective was to determine which partograph design is most effective for perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 August 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 August 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, cluster-randomised, and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving a comparison of partograph use with no partograph, or comparison between different partograph designs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data. When one review author was also the trial author, the two remaining review authors assessed the studies independently. We assessed the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included 11 studies, involving 9475 women in this review; three studies assessed partograph use versus no partograph, seven assessed different partograph designs, and one assessed partograph use versus labour scale. Risk of bias varied in all studies. It was infeasible to blind staff or women to the intervention. Two studies did not adequately conceal allocation. Loss to follow-up was low in all studies. We assessed the evidence for partograph use versus no partograph using the GRADE approach; downgrading decisions were due to study design, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision of effect estimates.Most trials reported caesarean section rates and Apgar scores less than 7 at five minutes; all other outcomes were not consistently reported (e.g. duration of first stage of labour and maternal experience of childbirth).Partograph versus no partograph (3 trials, 1813 women)It is uncertain whether there is any clear difference between partograph use and no partograph in caesarean section rates (average risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.46; n = 1813; 3 trials; I² = 87%; very low-quality evidence); oxytocin augmentation (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10; n = 1156; 1 trial; moderate-quality evidence); duration of first stage of labour (mean difference (MD) 0.80 hours, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.66; n = 1156; 1 trial; low-quality evidence); or Apgar score less than 7 at five minutes (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.03; n = 1596; 2 trials; I² = 87%; very low-quality evidence).Partograph with different placement of action lines (4 trials, 5051 women)When compared to a four-hour action line, women in the two-hour action line group were more likely to receive oxytocin augmentation (average RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.35; n = 4749; 4 trials; I² = 96%). There was no clear difference in caesarean section rates (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.28; n = 4749; 4 trials); duration of first stage of labour (RR 0.81 hours, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.04; n = 948; 1 trial); maternal experience of childbirth (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.35; n = 2269; 2 trials; I² = 83%); or Apgar score less than 7 at five minutes (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.42; n = 4749; 4 trials) between the two- and four-hour action line.The following comparisons only include data from single studies. Fewer women reported negative childbirth experiences in the two-hour action line group compared to the three-hour action line group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.90; n = 348; 1 trial). When we compared the three- and four-hour action line groups, the caesarean section rate was higher in the three-hour action line group (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.70; n = 613; 1 trial). We did not observe any clear differences in any of the other outcomes in these comparisons.Partograph with alert line only versus partograph with alert and action line (1 trial, 694 women)The caesarean section rate was lower in the alert line only group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93). There were no clear differences between groups for oxytocin augmentation, low Apgar score, instrumental vaginal birth and perinatal death.Partograph with latent phase (composite) versus partograph without latent phase (modified) (1 trial, 743 women)The caesarean section and oxytocin augmentation rates were higher in the partograph with a latent phase (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.50; and RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.83, respectively). There were no clear differences between groups for oxytocin augmentation, and Apgar score less than 7 at five minutes.Partograph with two-hour action line versus partograph with stepped dystocia line (1 trial, 99 women)Fewer women received oxytocin augmentation in the dystocia line group (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.98). We did not observe any clear differences in any of the other primary outcomes in this comparison.Partograph versus labour scale (1 trial, 122 women)The use of the partograph compared with the labour scale resulted in fewer women receiving oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.54), but did not produce any clear differences for any of the other primary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the findings of this review, we cannot be certain of the effects of routine use of the partograph as part of standard labour management and care, or which design, if any, are most effective. Further trial evidence is required to establish the efficacy of partograph use per se and its optimum design.

Evaluating the content and quality of intrapartum care in vaginal births: An example of a state hospital

Objective:

The purpose of the research was to assess the content and quality of the intrapartum care offered in vaginal births in Turkey, based on the example of a state hospital.

Materials and Methods:

This cross-sectional study was conducted between January 1^st, 2013 and December 31^st, 2014 at Aydın Maternity and Children’s Hospital. The study sample consisted of 303 women giving vaginal birth, who were recruited into the study using the method of convenience sampling. Research data were collected with a questionnaire created by the researchers and assessed using the Bologna score. Numbers and percentages were assessed in the data analysis.

Results:

The mean age of the women was 25.14±5.37 years and 40.5% had given one live birth. Of the women, 45.2% were admitted to hospital in the latent phase, 76.6% were administered an enema, 3.3% had epidural anesthesia, 2.6% delivered using vacuum extraction, and 54.1% underwent an episiotomy. Some 23.8% of the women experienced spontaneous laceration that needed sutures. The babies of two women exhibited an Apgar score below 7 in the fifth minute. When the quality of the intrapartum care given to the women was assessed with the Bologna score, it was found that 92.7% went into labor spontaneously, 100% of the births were supervised by midwives and doctors, 97.7% of the women had no supporting companion, and the nonsupine position was only used in 0.3% of the women. A partogram was used to follow up on the birth process in 72.6% of the women, and 82.5% achieved contact with their babies within the first hour after birth. Induction was applied in 76.6% of the women and fundal pressure in 27.4%.

Conclusion:

The study revealed that the quality of intrapartum care in vaginal births was inadequate. Reformulating the guidelines regarding intrapartum care in accordance with World Health Organization recommendations and evidence-based practices may contribute to improving mother and infant health.