Skip to main content

Advertisement

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