EC Gynaecology

Abstract

In Sub-Saharan Africa, prolonged and/or obstructed labour has been documented to be among the five most common causes of maternal mortality. It is responsible for 13% of maternal mortality worldwide, which could be avoided by using a partograph during labour in conjunction with quick referral and necessary surgical interventions. The intrapartum usage of the partograph by obstetrics caregivers play dominant role in recognizing any deviation from the norm. According to the World Health Organization, labour can be effectively monitored and complications prevented when this affordable instrument is methodically used with specific management standards. Despite the numerous benefits of partograph, some evidences suggested that insufficient care in labour is linked to incongruent use and health provider experience.

The purpose of this article is to examine important literatures on partograph in relation to prevention of obstructed labour, WHO resolution on modified partograph, and implementation of Labour Care Guides, as well as clinical decision-making. Relevant information were obtained from databases such as PUBMED, MESH MEDLINE and CINAHL among others.

Overall, it was noted that educating caregivers at all levels about proper partograph usage and interpretation, particularly the implementation of the labour care guide, would promote prompt and appropriate clinical decision- making, strengthen the referral system, and reduce maternal mortality.

 Keywords: Clinical Decision Making; Labour Care Guide; Maternal Mortality; Labour; Partograph

1. Lee NJ., et al. “Comparing Different Partograph Designs for Use in Standard Labor Care: A Pilot Randomized Trial. Matern”. Journal of Child Health Care3 (2018): 355-363.
2. Markos M., et al. “Partograph Utilization and Associated Factors among Obstetric Care Providers Working in Public Health Facilities of Wolaita zone, 2017”. Journal of Pregnancy (2020): 3631808.
3. Mukisa J., et al. “Level of Partograph completion and healthcare workers’ perspectives on its use in Mulago National Referral and teaching hospital, Kampala, Uganda”. BMC Health Services Research 1 (2019): 107.
4. Fisseha G., et al. “Quality of intrapartum and newborn care in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia”. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth1 (2019): 37.
5. Banke-Thomas A., et al. “Multi-stakeholder perspectives on access, availability and utilization of emergency obstetric care services in Lagos, Nigeria: A mixed-methods study”. Journal of Public Health in Africa2 (2017): 182-189.
6. Asibong U., et al. “The use of the partograph in labor monitoring: A cross-sectional study among obstetric caregivers in General Hospital, Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria”. International Journal of Women's Health6 (2014): 873-880.
7. Lavender T., et al. “Effect of partograph use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term and their babies”. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 8 (2018): CD005461.
8. Khan ANS., et al. “A cross-sectional study of partograph utilization as a decision making tool for referral of abnormal labour in primary health care facilities of Bangladesh”. PLoS ONE9 (2018): e0203617.
9. World Health Organization. Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2017: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and the United Nations Population Division: executive summary. World Health Organization (2019).
10. Bailey PE., et al. “Institutional maternal and perinatal deaths: a review of 40 low and middle income countries”. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth1 (2017): 295.
11. Vogel JP., et al. “Usability, acceptability, and feasibility of the World Health Organization Labour Care Guide: A mixed-methods, multicountry evaluation”. Birth1 (2021): 66-75.
12. Bedada KE., et al. “Low Utilization of Partograph and Its Associated Factors among Obstetric Care Providers in Governmental Health Facilities at West Shoa Zone, Central Ethiopia”. International Journal of Reproductive Medicine (2020): 3738673.
13. Oladapo OT., et al. “Progression of the first stage of spontaneous labour: A prospective cohort study in two sub-Saharan African countries”. PLOS Medicine1 (2018): e1002492.
14. WHO recommendations: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. Geneva: World Health Organization (2018).
15. Souza JP., et al. “Cervical dilatation over time is a poor predictor of severe adverse birth outcomes: a diagnostic accuracy study”. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology8 (2018): 991-1000.
16. Hofmeyr GJ., et al. “WHO next-generation partograph: revolutionary steps towards individualised labour care”. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology10 (2021): 1658-1662.
17. WHO labour care guide: user’s manual. Geneva: World Health Organization 2020 (2022).
18. Otolorin E., et al. “Essential basic and emergency obstetric and newborn care: from education and training to service delivery and quality of care”. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 130 (2015): S46-S53.
19. Watters D., et al. “Diagnostic conversations: Clinical Decision Making in surgery – Part 2”. Diagnosis2 (2014): 189-193.
20. Oduro-Mensah E., et al. “Implementation of a referral and expert advice call Center for Maternal and Newborn Care in the resource constrained health system context of the Greater Accra region of Ghana”. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth1 (2021): 56.
21. Bedwell C., et al. “A Realist Review of the Partograph: Context, Mechanisms and Outcomes” (2022).
22. Tang JH., et al. “Improvement and retention of emergency obstetrics and neonatal care knowledge and skills in a hospital mentorship program in Lilongwe, Malawi”. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics2 (2016): 240-243.
23. Ameh CA., et al. “Retention of knowledge and skills after Emergency Obstetric Care training: A multi-country longitudinal study”. PLoS ONE10 (2018): e0203606.
24. Bedwell C., et al. “A realist review of the partograph: when and how does it work for labour monitoring?” BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 17 (2017): 31.