Skip to main content

Table 5 Intrapartum surveillance of labour progress

From: Stillbirths and quality of care during labour at the low resource referral hospital of Zanzibar: a case-control study

 

Case-control study

BW ≥2000 g

Cases

Pre-hosp. Stillbirths

Cases

Intra-hosp. Stillbirths

Controls

Apgar 710

N (%)

Surveillance in latent phase of labour

Of women admitted before active labour:

(n = 23)

(n = 42)

(n = 68)

  Assessment of cervical dilatation during active laboura,b

9 (39.1 %)

37 (88.1 %)

44 (64.7 %)

Assessment of labour progression

Of women in first stage of active labour:

(n = 39)

(n = 69)

(n = 207)

  <5 h. between any 2 recordings of cervical dilatation in active labour c

39 (100.0 %)

42 (60.9 %)

167 (80.3 %)

  <3 h. between any 2 recordings of uterine contractionsd

33 (84.6 %)

18 (26.1 %)

120 (58.0 %)

  Alert line crossede

2 (5.1 %)

33 (47.8 %)

51 (24.5 %)

  Action line crossedf

1 (2.6 %)

16 (23.2 %)

21 (10.1 %)

  1. BW birthweight, CI confidence interval, OR odds ratio
  2. aIf a vaginal examination was done in latent phase ≤4 h prior to delivery, this was registered as acceptable
  3. bDifference between pre-hospital stillbirths and controls: OR 0.35, 95 % CI 0.13–0.93
  4. cDifference between intra-hospital stillbirths and controls: OR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.21–0.68
  5. dDifference between intra-hospital stillbirths and controls: OR 0.26, 95 % CI 0.14–0.47
  6. eDifference between intra-hospital stillbirths and controls: OR 2.80, 95 % CI 1.59–4.95
  7. fDifference between intra-hospital stillbirths and controls: OR 2.67, 95 % CI 1.30–5.49